] [Thread Prev
enough about other people's loops! (LONG)
awright, enough of this.
>Concept and current statute are very different things. I think the
>existing laws are wrong, but I don't think copyright should be abolished
>altogether. Artists need to be protected from corporate predators, but
>the current laws effectively make artistic production secondary to
>monetary return. That needs to change, but someone who wants to change
>it has to end up in a federal court first.
Copyright law seems to work *fairly* well. Individuals have actually
used copyright laws to make money from large corporations. Without
SOME sort of copyright, if I made a great CD, it'd be copied and
distributed by huge companies and I'd not make a penny.
If you believe that creativity springs from individuals and
not corporations, then copyright, trademarks and patents are
how individuals secure the fruits of their creativity
from the those greedy corporations.
If you have a good solid suggestion for changes, lay 'em on us.
>Legally? Ahh, now we're talking. I don't care about that USC 17
>paragraph 107 "fair use" crap. That's just icing. What *I'm* on about is
>nothing less than the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 8:
>"[The Congress shall have power...] To promote the progress of science
>and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
>the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"
>Now, you see, *that* is the CONCEPT of copyright. The part that's
>"absolutely essential". There's also a valid fair use defense, but I
>intend to challenge the whole damn system on constitutional grounds if
>anyone's ever dumb enough to take me to court.
You will lose. "exclusive rights" is exactly what
you are NOT respecting by sampling other people's works.
>Dumb enough? Am I that arrogant? You betcha. No matter *how* it comes
>out, I win. Oh, I may be held responsible for infringement and told to
>pay millions of dollars, sure -- but between the media blitz, the
>subculture rabble-rousing, and the marketing synergy, I guarantee you
>I'll manage to get rich off it.
This is an interesting plan. You get sued and you'll make
money off it!
This has not worked before. Lawsuits have been the ruin of many
many a musician.
The only two I can think of who managed to survive lawsuits
were Zappa and Tom Scholz (from Boston), and they *initiated*
the suits -- because their copyrights were stolen by large
Do you have a real plan for this?
Do you think that people will buy your non-label album just
because you are in the news (and in the business section,
too, not on the front page?)
>And if I tear down the whole damn thing
>and manage to start something that at least PRETENDS to protect the
>artist, I just *might* become the single most important figure in the
>history of sampling.
Pierre Schaeffer invented it.
Karlheinz Stockhausen brought it to mastery.
(Do check out Hymnen (1970), available from <http://www.stockhausen.org/>,
if you really want to hear mastery over sampling.)
Now, these guys ain't rich or famous. (Shaeffer is dead, in fact.)
But they are as important in the history of sampling as you are going
>"And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to
>take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its
>success, then to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of
>things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done
>well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may
>do well under the new." -- "The Prince", Niccolo Machiavelli
This is a charming quote and particularly poignant in light
of Machiavelli's own life, which was blighted by the publication
of "The Prince," his great work.
But, look, Caliban (damn, I can't say that without cracking up,
"I'll show thee every fertile inch o' th' island...
and I will kiss thy foot.")
Long in chutzpah you may be, but you need some substance to
go with that.
Your music is perfectly competent and quite stirring... I do
rather like that sort of thing... it's well-produced...
but it's nothing memorable, at least if
is any indication. It's just regular breakbeat
stuff, and in fact you don't really use
the samples that well.
Though the samples fit together neatly enough, there are
just too many of them. You don't seem really interested
in any of them specifically and it becomes some sort
of guessing game. Quickly the ear grows a little tired
and wants to hear something new and memorable.
You also use some samples that are rather, er, jejune.
(tired, old, stale). Give Chuck D a rest!
And the unfamiliar samples still fall into familiar
categories (anal sex references seem to be all
the rage recently in hip-hop, what's with this??)
(You don't fall into the third trap, predictable
return of a previous sample after 4, 8 or 16 beats.)
It's entertaining and it's slick but it isn't going
to make you the Great Man you are trying to set yourself
up to be with all this blather.
Why not do something REALLY different?
In the spirit of fair play, I include the one
piece of my material (so far) which uses any
This in fact uses a *single* long uncleared sample
that was given to me on a CD by the director of a play
I was working on, a Spanish song with an
I played all the instruments myself and edited
it in MIDI.
(There's also some very evil stuff in the ultra-low
end, but I don't think it makes it through the
mp3 process -- do be careful though...)
I view my piece as a setting of the original
work, though not in a literal manner, and
also as a complete piece on its own.
It comes to a height about 30 seconds before
the end when the electronics and the music
finally make contact in a rising swirl of
quiet feedback and then fade into music
again and silence.
Your comments are solicited. Go crazy.
<http://ax.to/fortune>.........a new fortune every minute.
<http://FortNY.com>..................Forteans of New York.