Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
>> I have to admit I have a little trouble feeling sympathy for >Negativland or >> the hip-hop community claiming their creativity is being squelched by people >> wanting to be paid for work they are sampling. It seems to me that if >you are >> a scavenger sifting through recorded history looking for things that >will have >> resonance you would be somewhat aware that there is a debt to be paid to those >> who originated the work since you are dependent upon them. To meet >their >> demands before using it doesn't seem like much to ask. If you can meet that >> demand, great. If you can't, move on. To cry "repression" here to me >is >> childish in the extreme. >The "demands" very rarely come from the original musicians, since the >musicians so rarely *own* their own music. Trading copyright for >publishing is standard industry practice, and FAR more dispicable than >even the most egregious sampling. IMHO this is a rationalisation that doesn't quite work: Label A is a company owning the work of and "representing the interest of" Artist B. Sampler C decides (without any specific factual basis) the relationship between B and A is somewhat morally questionable to A's unfair advantage, so that frees him up to steal from B's work and say, "That's OK, the real injury was supposed to be A, who had it coming". Is this supposed to make him a hero to B? I don't buy it. >> Is sampling valid in music? Of course, I would agree that it is. But >if you >> need to sample a Robert Plant screech from a Zeppelin song, then heavily >> process it, run it backwards, etc. until it's unrecognizable (thereby putting >> you in the clear from owing them anything), to me it begs the question: why >> not just screech into a mic for your damn self then? If the Zeppelin screech >> carries with it such significant mojo that even sliced & diced beyond >> recognition it's something you have to have, then Zeppelin deserves to >be >> justly credited and/or compensated for their mojo. I'll go one step further: >> this is not something you should wait to do until a team of Zeppelin lawyers >> comes to your door (frightening bunch, I'm sure). >Speaking of Zeppelin credits, did they ever get around to paying Willy >Dixon? Excellent point. If they haven't they should. I'm not trying to portray Zeppelin or anyone as angels - if they are ripped off, they should be justifiably compensated - if they do the ripping off they should be held accountable. If both apply, fine. >There is *considerable* artistic merit to the possibilities of sampled >re-interpretations of works deeply embedded in the collective unconscious >of popular culture. Agreed. An artist who has produced something "deeply imbedded in the collective unconscious of popular culture" has undoubtedly done a lot of work to do so. Why, as an artist yourself, would you show such blatant disrespect as to not want to acknowledge that? Frankly, I feel this whole thing about wanting to "reinterpret" this deeply ingrained stuff is all about a lot of lazy wanna-be artists looking for coattails. And now they want to whine because corporate record types are making it hard for them? Tough shit, they make it hard on everybody. In all fairness and because I don't want the gist of my argument to be misunderstood, I feel there is some very compelling music being made with sampling which I would not include in the above category. >Remember the story i >told earlier of the encounter between Negativland and The Edge. He >honestly had *no idea* that corporate lawyers purportedly representing his >interests were making life hell for serious artists who reinterpreted his >work. And if he DID? A member of a band as ridiculously pretentious as U2 is going to go to a magazine interview and open himself up to that kind of scrutiny? Why, when you have the luxury of being perceived as the pure and innocent artist since you can go on the record as blaiming the evil, faceless, dark empire of the record company you've contractually chosen to represent you for doing your dirty work? "Honestly no idea"? How do you know? Is it inconcieveable that an artist would paint a dishonestly altruistic picture of himself in an interview for image's sake? $20 says "The Edge" was lying his ass off. It's all over the music press, you and I and countless thousands know about it, but somehow he's blissfully ignorant? Spare me...a pretty unlikely scenario, you'd have to admit. >As for legality, and working against the wishes of others affected by art, >i present U2. One of their videos (don't remember which song now) was a >marvelous act of civil disobedience. I live in LA, I'm very familiar with the incident. I'm sorry, to me it just looked like a gratuitous marketing ploy, shock value tactics like Madonna grabbing her crotch. For an act of civil disobedience to work as such it has to carry a message of some political or social urgency. A bad rock band causing a major traffic jam because they want to film a video with complete disregard to anyone else does not qualify. In retrospect, Madonna grabbing her crotch seems a lot more honest:-) Ken R