[rumori] The Sample Clearance Fund: A proposal

Steev [rumori] The Sample Clearance Fund: A proposal
Thu, 27 Aug 1998 09:07:38 -0700 (PDT) (00904262858, Pine.LNX.4.02.9808270851270.18533-100000ATflotsam.detritus.net)

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998, Boster, Bob wrote:


>>Steve, I'm getting tired of waiting for your solution,

I promise it's coming soon. See Jon's last message while you're waiting,
cuz he pretty much beat me to it.


>>Much speculation about what I mean by connotation (recognizability or not). I
>>guess what I mean is totally about structural context, but it includes
>>recognizability as a factor. I realize this is completely MY STANDARD, I
>>don't mean to push it on anyone, but offer it to advance conversation. Some

All my comments in this thread come with this qualifier as well. :-)


>>if you take a recognizable beat fragment and then use it in your piece as
>>beat material that depends on the fact that you recognize it's source, that's
>>not OK (by this standard "Hippychick" is not acceptable because it uses a
>>"How Soon is Now" sample for the same kind of musical material as it's
>>original usage - chordal theme material - and get's it's creative "juice"
>>from the fact that you recognize the sample, virtually untransformed).

I think that creative juice idea is the best evaluation variable yet,
though it's pretty vague. I can just imagine some lawyers in a courtroom
"Your honor, this recording clearly gets it's creative juice directly from the intellectual property of my client." But still a very nice concept.
Others have stated it similarly like so: the new work must clearly bear
the mark of the new author, more strongly than that of the old one(s).

This too is quite vague, but it's a pretty nice guideline. If you
experience a work of sample-art and you think, "this is obviously something different and new, and though it contains someone else's work,
that someone would probably never create this, and i could never confuse
this with what he/she would do" then, it's "OK".
But if instead the new work is simply a parasite, feeding on the
popularity or "juice" of the old work, tricking people by its simliarity to the old work, then it's not OK.


>>if you put a slice of something musical into a new piece where you are just
>>"touching" it's reference briefly in the piece, that's OK (in other words, I
>>would say "Bomb the Bass" or "Grandmaster Flash on the Wheels of Steel" is
>>fine). repetitive references to the same reference starts to become a theme,
>>and then it's not OK.

this is where it gets problematic. Again, I don't think you can make
across the board rules, and there are going to arguements no matter what
you do. until the end. (see my next post.)

smh

Steev Hise, Technical Thug
steevAThise.org http://www.cyborganic.com/people/steev recycled art site: http://www.detritus.net -----------------------------------------------------------------
"...dissatisfaction itself became a commodity as soon as economic abundance could extend production to the processing of such raw
materials." -Guy Debord
-----------------------------------------------------------------

________________________
http://detritus.net