[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Basic intro (OT)

At 08:40 PM 8/16/01 -0700, you wrote:
>>but we were talking about using unauthorized eight-measure chunks of 
>>people's well-known, commercially released music, 
>No we weren't. We were talking about whether arrangement constituted
>creativity. Or, at least, that's what *I* was talking about. Context is

Remember Ice-T and Lynyrd Skynyrd? Whole verses? Your reference to "_my
own_ work"?

You've been adding variables throughout this whole thread.

It started out as a simple statement. You said:
"This is also reflected in my own work. ...  like the opening verse of 
"Colors" overlaid on the introduction to Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Sweet Home
Alabama". ..."

To which I responded:
"...when you talk about
lifting entire verses wholesale from other artists' music, to what extent
can you really say it's your *own* work?"

Then as we've gone along, suddenly or gradually you're not 'relying' on
samples (they're just tools in a toolbox), you're playing a whole slew of
instruments, you're processing the samples through all manner of effects;
in general, downplaying the prominence you'd initially attributed to the
samples, unadorned, lengthy and conspicuous as integral elements in your
work as you reveal the heretofore unmentioned myriad facets of your
musicianship like one of those Russian dolls-within-a-doll. There's
absolutely nothing wrong with any of that, rather, it speaks well of your
scope and versatility, but my question was not intended to encompass the
specifics you hadn't mentioned yet.

In your original statement, the one to which I've been responding, my
interpretation was that you emphasised leaving the samples alone as much as
possible, making it a point for them to be recognisable to capitalize on
their implicit context, asking how we felt about using material with
particularly high connotative value gleaned from obscure meaning.

To be fair, I think that was an excellent question, and that my reaction
was tangential. I never addressed your central query, and you never really
answered  mine, instead essentially obfuscating it with new details. Yes,
context IS important.

>>>But you've already stated that you don't feel rearranging the samples
>>>constitutes originality.
>>When did I say that? 
>"Just as when a curator puts together an exhibit at an art museum, the
>way the works are juxtaposed can have a LOT to do with the way they're
>perceived by the viewer. But the curator, skilled as he may be, did not
>create the art."

Ah. But I never said the curator couldn't be original, unique, creative or
revolutionary in how he displays the pieces. What I'm saying is that he
can't legitimately claim them as his *own* work.

>there is
>the art made by the people I sampled, and the art of putting them all
>together, and that results in a final work of art.

That sounds like a collaborative effort to me, although it's missing the
participatory element; consent, feedback, empathy, whatever. It remains
unanswered whether Ices -T and -Cube or the ghosts of Mr. Van Zandt&Co.
would agree with your assessment of the whole being greater than the sum of
the parts. Maybe it is, I don't know, and it probably doesn't really matter
except from a legalistic standpoint. I just think it's difficult to justify
sampling a whole verse of someone else's song.