Re: Sampling debate - Warning ! The word Fripp is Contained in this Message.

["John Price" <jprice@intcpi.com>]

Ya know that riff fripp used on the sylvian cut that sounded like 
hendrix...its a
rip of the same riff he used on his solo album exposure, ... ya know the 
tune - "My
house - Your House - Theres the door, so get out" song. Fripp plays the 
riff a lot
faster on exposure but its the very same riff. I cant remember the 
specific name of
the track on Exposure but I know theres a ton of Frippheaded Math Rockers 
out there
who will definitely know what track i'm talkin bout.

When I first heard that riff on Exposure I said to myself hmmmmm, its a 
Hendrix rip
kinda just like Andre. An even funnier thing is that when I heard Fripp 
using it
again on the sylvian track i said, ... hmmmm, fripps' repeatin himself. I 
didnt even
register it as a hendrix riff anymore until Andre mentioned it.

Just an observation. Aint it funny how perceptions can change over time ???

Warm Regards,
JP

Andre LaFosse wrote:

> KRosser414@aol.com wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> (Hi Ken, how've you been?)
>
> This raises another perspective on how the issues of influence and debt
> gets looked at from a very different point of view when it involves
> direct sampling, as opposed to personal influence.
>
> Here's an example: Let's say I start messing around with someone else's
> riff or tune on guitar.  As I play it, I start altering the notes, the
> accents, what have you.  After a few minutes, I've come up with a
> different (maybe a wildly different) riff.  Now, am I obligated to seek
> out the composer of the work I started playing and ask their permission
> to release the end result that I came up with, even if it's
> unrecognizable from the original source of inspiration?
>
> What if I'm playing along with a recording and then start coming up with
> my own thing, which doesn't exist in any way in the original recording.
> Or I'm listening to a recording or performance, and suddenly start
> getting an idea for a different and distinct musical part or plan.
> Would I be obligated to get permission from the person who wrote the
> music that inspired me to come up with my own part, even if it bears no
> audible or tangible evidence of having been derived from their work?
>
> To go even further out, would Ornette Coleman be obligated to pay
> royalties to the man who painted the picture which inspired him to write
> the tune "Lonely Woman"?  If I see a great concert, come home energized
> and inspired, start playing guitar, and come up with something then and
> there, am I obligated to obtain permission from or pay back the artist
> who put on the concert?
>
> For me at least, these aren't yes or no questions.  They're issues that
> are worth thinking about in light of this debate, simply because I
> suspect that nearly everyone here would answer "no" to just about every
> one of the above questions if it dealt strictly with non-sampled music,
> since they're more or less part and parcel of the creative process (at
> least so far as I can tell).  We're all "scavengers of music history" in
> a way.  But when it's done in as direct and obvious of a manner as
> sampling, it gets looked at from a very different perspective.
>
> Things like "influence" and "inspiration" are indistinct, subjective
> things.  It's often hard to say with any sort of strict authority that
> something is obviously indebted to something else (except in extreme or
> clear-cut cases).  Exactly how much an artist might be "in debt" to
> their source of inspiration can be a difficult thing to try and define
> in specific terms.  On the other hand, a sample is a very objective,
> fixed thing: You've got your source recording, and then you've got the
> sample of the thing.  Putting the process into such a concrete and
> objective mechanism puts things in a completely different place.
>
> Like I say, I don't think it's a yes or no issue, but it definitely
> obliges one to re-consider a lot of the things that tend to get taken
> for granted.
>
> > 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?
>
> I know there are some techno musicians who will do this sort of in-depth
> processing and tweaking on sounds taken directly from nature -- dripping
> water faucets and the like.  They'll tweak them to the point of
> unrecognizability, often coming up with sounds that maybe aren't all
> that far removed from a standard synth tone, even though the source was
> wildly atypical.
>
> The reason for this, as in the reason (or at least one possible reason)
> behind mangling a Robert Plant sample, is that this is part of the craft
> of what they do, and transforming a familiar sound into a wholly
> unfamiliar one is an element of their art, in much the same way that a
> jazz musician might struggle to put their own personal imprint on a
> standard, even though it might be much easier and more direct to simply
> write their own set of changes to play over.  The sampler is their
> instrument, and they're obsessed with getting as much out of it as they
> can -- sort of in the same way that I'm obsessed with trying to get
> things out of my guitar with my own hands, rather than sampling or
> sequencing them!
>
> > In the question of Fripp's appropriating the work of Hendrix and Holst,
>
> I've gotten a couple of rather irate private replies to this bit, so I'm
> going to try and clarify my point.  I wasn't suggesting that Fripp was
> OK since he apparently hadn't been prosecuted or called to task for
> these things; I was pointing out one example of a musician borrowing
> fragments of other people's work in a non-sample-based manner.
>
> The reason I used Fripp as an example is because of Stephen's reference
> to this mailing list being second only to the King Crimson list in terms
> of insight into performance, and his accordant surprise that there might
> be so many of us here prepared to defend the wholesale theivery that he
> sees latent in sample-based music.  I was attempting to illustrate the
> fact that borrowing musical ideas happens all the time, even with
> musicians who don't sample other's work, who are by all appearances
> ethical to a fault, and who inspire mailing lists which can boast high
> standards of live performance critique.
>
> In this light, to hold up Fripp as some bastion of originality and
> debt-free creativity, against which samplists can only wallow in the
> mire of the callous theivery that is the worm-ridden essence of their
> craft, seems a bit askew of a perspective.
>
> I still think it's interesting that many people (myself included) are
> often more ready to criticize a samplist for tweaking a source recording
> beyond recognition than they would be to knock a guitarist for copping
> an obvious riff.   Like I say, I don't think it's a black or white
> issue, but I do think it demands that we re-examine a lot of the
> assumptions we hold about music making in general.
>
> > You may find a way to use it legally against the creator's wishes.  How
> > someone could do that and keep a clear conscience is a bit beyond me.
>
> Once again, I think it's worthwhile to draw some analogies to the
> non-sampling world.  If I write a piece of music inspired by a
> particular artist, and then somewhere down the road I find out that the
> artist in question hates the piece (even if it contains no obvious
> references or quotes of their work), should I feel an obligation to
> banish or destroy the piece?  If I study with a teacher and absorb some
> of his techniques and ideas, and then use those ideas in outlets that he
> doesn't care for or find musically rewarding, do I need to stop doing
> what I'm doing, even if it seems like the natural and logical thing for
> me to do?
>
> No answers to any of these from me...  But important things to think
> about in the midst of this sort of discussion, I'd say.
>
> --Andre