Re: Sampling debate

[KRosser414@aol.com]

>> 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?)

(I've got one daughter pulling the heads off Barbie dolls and the other one
re-enacting scenes from The Wizard Of Oz in the nude, meanwhile I've been
paying the bills this week playing in the pit band for a run of student
performances of "Grease" - other than that, life is OK:-)  Yourself?)

>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.

Absolutely.  I don't see this as a black and white issue, there are lots of
areas of grey and the law, as Kim detailed, seems to be leaning on the 
side of
the samplers.  While I want to stop short of making an absolute ethical
judgement, I think the issue becomes one that artists need to ask 
themselves -
what are my debts?  What are my responsibilities to those debts?  Am I 
trying
to rise to the creative challenge posed by my influences or am I taking the
easy way out and letting them do the work for me?  In the case of 
'influence',
the line is so nebulous that I think there is a lot of leeway.  Sampling a
specific recorded work is a bit more of a tangible thing.  I'd say it 
differs
greatly from influence, in both intent and practice.

>Here's an example: Let's say I start messing around with someone else's
>riff or tune on guitar.  >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?

Permission?  No, I think that's fair game.  

>What if I'm playing along with a recording and then start coming up with
>my own thing, ...
>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?

No, I think that's fair game again.

>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"?  

No.  IMHO there's a big difference between influence and plagiarism, 
although
there may be a bit of a grey area where they overlap.  The examples you 
give
here, to me, clearly plant themselves in the 'influence' category.

> 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.  

Exactly, it was that perspective and not the other I was trying to address.

>> 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?  

>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, 

If that's the case, fine.  Jazz musicians credit the standards they play.  
If
they write a new melody to the changes they get to call it their tune.  If
they mangle a Plant sample beyond recognition, I can see how that's 
somewhat
innocuous in and of itself in the grand scheme of things, even if I don't
quite understand the motivation myself.  They'll get away with it if no one
recognizes it.  If someone does, and Plant has a legally and/or ethically
sound basis for asking for compensation, as I see it you have two honorable
choices:  Pay up or stop using the sample.  That's all I'm saying.  Whining
that you're being repressed creatively is pointless and immature.  I've 
often
observed the most potent creativity begins as soon as you hit an obstacle 
or
limitation.  Congratulations, corporate America has just dealt you an
obstacle!  Create, man, create!

>In this light, to hold up Fripp as some bastion of originality and
>debt-free creativity, 

Which I would never do.  Nor would Fripp, I suspect.

>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.  

This parallel has been drawn on this list before.  I personally don't draw 
a
huge distinction between the two are far as creative laziness goes.

>> 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? 

Actually, moments after I posted this I thought of an even better example 
to
use in  argument against myself.  Miles Davis and Gil Evans' arrangement of
the adagio from Rodrigo's Concierto De Aranjuez that appeared on Sketches 
of
Spain, which Rodrigo reportedly hated.  I can see why - it's great Miles 
but a
very poor representation of the Rodrigo piece as he intended it.  And I 
enjoy
it as a listener, guilt-free.

I'll concede my reasoning here had a lot of holes...

> 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, if you can do something of your own with it, it's yours.

The bottom line of the argument I was trying to make is this:  legal 
arguments
aside, this issue of borrowing, whether by influence or direct sampling,
should raise questions, not necessarily that we should use to judge others,
but that we should be ready to ask ourselves.  And first and foremost of 
these
questions is one that I posed at the beginning of this post:  Am I trying 
to
rise to the creative challenge posed by my influences or am I taking the 
easy
way out and letting them do the work for me?  

Ken R