[rumori] The Sample Clearance Fund: A proposal

Steev [rumori] The Sample Clearance Fund: A proposal
Wed, 26 Aug 1998 12:22:43 -0700 (PDT) (00904188163, Pine.LNX.4.02.9808261200390.23062-100000ATflotsam.detritus.net)

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Nicola Battista wrote:


>>On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Boster, Bob wrote:
>>(Steev said about what Bob said)
>>->>what is a "musically dependant" use of a sample, and what is not.
>>->
>>->Yes, I'd say there is room for some kind of standard to be set about
>>->what qualifies as dependent. For me I would say the leverage of the
>>->decision rests on "using the sample for it's connotation IN THE SAME
>>->MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROFFERED".
>
>wait a sec - this could be because of my crappy English (I'm Italian) :) -
>I thought Bob meant "connotation" as leaving the sample in its original
>FORM (i.e. uneffected, unchanged, unmodified)-- in a word RECOGNIZABLE. Am
>I wrong, Bob?

This is what I *think* Bob meant:
Musically Dependant = some vague notion of using too much of a groove or a
hook, i.e. Soho's "HippyChick" in which the hook from the Smith's "How Soon Is Now?" Is shamelessly sampled and used right at the beginning of the track, causing everyone listening to think they're going to hear
the original Smiths song. I remember a song that sampled "Walk on the Wild Side" in exactly the same way.
Connotation = the "meaning" of the song. this is a bit vague too, but useful. Connotation in terms of the semiotic content of the text.


>Maybe Bob meant MUSICAL connotation (i.e. the breaks, the melody, a
>bassline...)?

I doubt it, but if he did, that also doesnt work as a valid distinguisher,
because you rule out very creative works like almost all of John Oswald's
"Plunderphonic."
Bob! please come back and tell us what YOU really meant!


>>However, given 2LiveCrew's success in a court of law (the Pretty
>>Woman case), maybe there's hope for that kind of ad hoc line-drawing...
>
>I heard of this case but never heard about its solution. Do you have more
>info on that?

they were sued by Roy Orbison's publisher but the court found 2LC not
liable because they were using the song "Pretty Woman" inthe context of parody. The song is in very poor taste (imho) and blatantly sexist (like
most of 2LC's work) but the court ruled basically that it was fair use.

See Negativland's book "Fair Use" for more details.

>uhmmm... is sampling something for an elite formed by a few folks like you,
>me, Negativland, Coldcut and a few other? I don't have anything against the
>diffuion of sampling.

Neither do I. I'm not trying to sound elitist. I was just trying to posit
a possible future that we might not be happy with, in fact might be even
less happy with than the present state of affairs.

Part of the appeal of sampling for many is that it's a bit taboo, right?
Also, for me, the appeal is that I can comment on, criticise, engage with,
the original material. However, if EVERYONE is using appropriation simply
as another pop music technique I fear that it will dilute the power of the
"sample critique", so to speak.

>Yup, if sampling goes mass-available (at it's already happening!!) everyone
>will sample everyone else. What will happen them? More cover stuff and/or
>tracks that sound all the same. Until some folks will say "no, that has
>been already used, let's do something else". The Timelords said that you

That's sort of what I meant by Unique versus Original. You might reuse a
sound that comes from somewhere else, maybe even has already been
reused. That makes it non-unique. But, if you are creative enough, you
might make an Original work from it. You might create something brand
new.

See the difference?



>>Should there be a way, is there a way, to distinguish between "gross,
>>crass exploitation of past works" and the sort of "true art" that so many
>>of us love and cherish? Or are we doomed to a future choked with music
>>like "Ice Ice Baby" and "Hippychick"?
>
>who knows, maybe for someone "Ice Ice Baby" is actually "true art" ;))) but
>that only *depends on the way you do it* - the way you use the samples.

absolutely. that's why I put "true art" in quotes.

>>I have an answer but I'm going to wait till someone else speaks up. ;-)
>
>well if you have an answer, please illuminate us ;)

I'm going to hold out a little longer....

smh


Steev Hise, Technical Thug
steevAThise.org http://www.cyborganic.com/people/steev recycled art site: http://www.detritus.net -----------------------------------------------------------------
"This island is big enough for every castaway But most of us are looking round
For someone else to blame." -Chumbawamba, 'Scapegoat'
-----------------------------------------------------------------

________________________
http://detritus.net