IDM Mailing Archive

MS Outlook is playing tricks so this could be the second version that passes through. Sorry if it is. I can see what you are saying; I just have a different perspective. The use of the word "dillettante" is just a reflection of my general feeling about Negativland. Its crude and perhaps unfair but thats my perception. I have followed the group since "Escape from Noise" and have seen the subsequent pattern of gags, pranks and guffaws. First, they spread rumors that "Christianity is Stupid" was the cause of an axe murder. That turned into the "Helter Stupid" album (which is great by the way). Then it was the U2 debacle which evolved into 'Fair Use" book and CD. Now its a new thing every week. I agree that they aren't hypocritical. In my opinion, the whole charade is getting old and stale. With respect, R.P. -----Original Message----- From: clockwise [SMTP:clockwis@mail.execpc.com] Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 5:10 PM To: idm@hyperreal.org Subject: Re: (idm) Negativland/Fatboy Slim sample tiff Where does the use of "dilettantes" come from? They didn't want the money, they're not upset about being sampled. The actual press release doesnt read as a complaint at all (I can forward it to you if youd like). They mentioned that they found it amusing that Coke was going to feature an uncleared sample in an advertisement (since despite SST erroneously giving permission for its usage, it wasn't ever cleared by Negativland in the first place). People have tried to make hypocrites out of Negativland for a long time, but anyone who knows anything about them will attest to their honest adherance to their ideology concerning copyright and music. They refer to Fatboy Slim's management as "stupid" because anyone even remotely familiar with Negativland would know that SST and Negativland split on unhappy (to put it mildly) terms, and they should have known that not only would SST keep all the money, but that they don't have the authority to permit their work to be used. peace clockwise At 08:30 AM 9/10/98 +0000, you wrote:

quoted 27 lines I thought after all of Negativland's recent sloganeering about fair us" and

>I thought after all of Negativland's recent sloganeering about fair us" and >such, the following article from the 9/9/98 edition of Allstar News puts >this group of "radicals" in the proper light. If it were April Fool's Day, >this would all make sense. Dilettantes... > >Negativland -- the outspoken outfit against paying rights for samples -- >sent out a cranky press release Tuesday (Sept. 1) complaining about Fatboy >Slim's use of one of their samples in the song "Michael Jackson" in a Coke >commercial. While Negativland believes people shouldn't have to pay to >sample others, they're not too happy that their work ended up in a Coke >spot. But, the thing is, it didn't. Only the instrumental part of "Michael >Jackson," which is on Fatboy Slim's 1997 album Better Living Through >Chemistry, is used in the spot. The song samples from Negativland's own >"Michael Jackson" from their 1987 SST album Escape from Noise. And while >Fatboy Slim did pay SST ($1000) for permission to use the sample, >Negativland claims SST is keeping the money for themselves, though, adds >that the group would've given it to them for free anyway (again, that's >their thing). The sample in question was actually stolen by a Negativland >member from the basement of a church in Concord, Calif. in the '70s. Fatboy >Slim's label, Astralwerks, had no comment. And, seeing that Fatboy Slim (aka >Norman Cook) is a big fan of Negativland, we're sure the release (which >states that he "stupidly" went to SST Records to get permission to use the >sample) would upset him a bit. The Coke spot starts airing on television >Sept. 7 for three months and is part of a major NFL campaign, which includes >a contest to send people to the Super Bowl.. > >

I thought after all of Negativland's recent sloganeering about fair us" and such, the following article from the 9/9/98 edition of Allstar News puts this group of "radicals" in the proper light. If it were April Fool's Day, this would all make sense. Dilettantes... Negativland -- the outspoken outfit against paying rights for samples -- sent out a cranky press release Tuesday (Sept. 1) complaining about Fatboy Slim's use of one of their samples in the song "Michael Jackson" in a Coke commercial. While Negativland believes people shouldn't have to pay to sample others, they're not too happy that their work ended up in a Coke spot. But, the thing is, it didn't. Only the instrumental part of "Michael Jackson," which is on Fatboy Slim's 1997 album Better Living Through Chemistry, is used in the spot. The song samples from Negativland's own "Michael Jackson" from their 1987 SST album Escape from Noise. And while Fatboy Slim did pay SST ($1000) for permission to use the sample, Negativland claims SST is keeping the money for themselves, though, adds that the group would've given it to them for free anyway (again, that's their thing). The sample in question was actually stolen by a Negativland member from the basement of a church in Concord, Calif. in the '70s. Fatboy Slim's label, Astralwerks, had no comment. And, seeing that Fatboy Slim (aka Norman Cook) is a big fan of Negativland, we're sure the release (which states that he "stupidly" went to SST Records to get permission to use the sample) would upset him a bit. The Coke spot starts airing on television Sept. 7 for three months and is part of a major NFL campaign, which includes a contest to send people to the Super Bowl..

i think the important phrase here is "fair use". i'm not a big negativeland fan and don't own any of their releases but i do know that a recent release "dispepsi" was an anti-commercialism treatise, specifically targeted at pepsi. no wonder they're miffed that a track sporting one of their samples is now being used to market coke, another type of fizzy water loaded w/ suger, caffeine (its one good point) and a strange unexceptional caramel-like flavor that is barely drinkable w/out the addition of rum. i think the motto is "you can use my sounds, just don't piss on my ideals" -martin

quoted 20 lines -----Original Message-----

> -----Original Message----- > From: idm-owner@hyperreal.org [mailto:idm-owner@hyperreal.org]On Behalf > Of Rodney Perkins > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 1998 4:31 AM > To: idm@hyperreal.org > Subject: (idm) Negativland/Fatboy Slim sample tiff > > > I thought after all of Negativland's recent sloganeering about > fair us" and > such, the following article from the 9/9/98 edition of Allstar News puts > this group of "radicals" in the proper light. If it were April Fool's Day, > this would all make sense. Dilettantes... > > Negativland -- the outspoken outfit against paying rights for samples -- > sent out a cranky press release Tuesday (Sept. 1) complaining about Fatboy > Slim's use of one of their samples in the song "Michael Jackson" in a Coke > commercial. While Negativland believes people shouldn't have to pay to > sample others, they're not too happy that their work ended up in a Coke > spot.

<snip>

How can Negativland make a claim on a sample of something they apparently *sampled* from someone else w/o permission? Perhaps it would have been ethical of SST (who aren't known for that) to give the group part of the proceeds but given Negativland's flippancy towards people who try to get royalties for samples, its laughable that they would complain. They ended up on the other side of the issue and got screwed. Also, I was under the impression that Negativland did not have any rights to the material they released on SST. Someone correct me if I am wrong. I hate to be so negative towards these fellows but they are really asking for it.

quoted 44 lines It seems to me that the problem here isn't at all about samples, but about

>It seems to me that the problem here isn't at all about samples, but about >SST not giving Negativland money they should be getting, which would piss me >off, too.... > >np: Negativland: (the song they got in trouble for, whatever it;s called :) > > > > >At 08:30 AM 10 - 09 - 1998 +0000, you wrote: >>I thought after all of Negativland's recent sloganeering about fair us" and >>such, the following article from the 9/9/98 edition of Allstar News puts >>this group of "radicals" in the proper light. If it were April Fool's Day, >>this would all make sense. Dilettantes... >> >>Negativland -- the outspoken outfit against paying rights for samples -- >>sent out a cranky press release Tuesday (Sept. 1) complaining about Fatboy >>Slim's use of one of their samples in the song "Michael Jackson" in a Coke >>commercial. While Negativland believes people shouldn't have to pay to >>sample others, they're not too happy that their work ended up in a Coke >>spot. But, the thing is, it didn't. Only the instrumental part of "Michael >>Jackson," which is on Fatboy Slim's 1997 album Better Living Through >>Chemistry, is used in the spot. The song samples from Negativland's own >>"Michael Jackson" from their 1987 SST album Escape from Noise. And while >>Fatboy Slim did pay SST ($1000) for permission to use the sample, >>Negativland claims SST is keeping the money for themselves, though, adds >>that the group would've given it to them for free anyway (again, that's >>their thing). The sample in question was actually stolen by a Negativland >>member from the basement of a church in Concord, Calif. in the '70s. Fatboy >>Slim's label, Astralwerks, had no comment. And, seeing that Fatboy Slim (aka >>Norman Cook) is a big fan of Negativland, we're sure the release (which >>states that he "stupidly" went to SST Records to get permission to use the >>sample) would upset him a bit. The Coke spot starts airing on television >>Sept. 7 for three months and is part of a major NFL campaign, which includes >>a contest to send people to the Super Bowl.. >> > >- >=========HEXAGON LABS CLOTHING=========== >jeremy[x]axon http://come.to/rewind.html >breeyn[e]mccarney massive redesign underway >broccoli[fat]cat #7 1 havelock toronto on. ca. > >

Where does the use of "dilettantes" come from? They didn't want the money, they're not upset about being sampled. The actual press release doesnt read as a complaint at all (I can forward it to you if youd like). They mentioned that they found it amusing that Coke was going to feature an uncleared sample in an advertisement (since despite SST erroneously giving permission for its usage, it wasn't ever cleared by Negativland in the first place). People have tried to make hypocrites out of Negativland for a long time, but anyone who knows anything about them will attest to their honest adherance to their ideology concerning copyright and music. They refer to Fatboy Slim's management as "stupid" because anyone even remotely familiar with Negativland would know that SST and Negativland split on unhappy (to put it mildly) terms, and they should have known that not only would SST keep all the money, but that they don't have the authority to permit their work to be used. peace clockwise At 08:30 AM 9/10/98 +0000, you wrote:

quoted 27 lines I thought after all of Negativland's recent sloganeering about fair us" and

>I thought after all of Negativland's recent sloganeering about fair us" and >such, the following article from the 9/9/98 edition of Allstar News puts >this group of "radicals" in the proper light. If it were April Fool's Day, >this would all make sense. Dilettantes... > >Negativland -- the outspoken outfit against paying rights for samples -- >sent out a cranky press release Tuesday (Sept. 1) complaining about Fatboy >Slim's use of one of their samples in the song "Michael Jackson" in a Coke >commercial. While Negativland believes people shouldn't have to pay to >sample others, they're not too happy that their work ended up in a Coke >spot. But, the thing is, it didn't. Only the instrumental part of "Michael >Jackson," which is on Fatboy Slim's 1997 album Better Living Through >Chemistry, is used in the spot. The song samples from Negativland's own >"Michael Jackson" from their 1987 SST album Escape from Noise. And while >Fatboy Slim did pay SST ($1000) for permission to use the sample, >Negativland claims SST is keeping the money for themselves, though, adds >that the group would've given it to them for free anyway (again, that's >their thing). The sample in question was actually stolen by a Negativland >member from the basement of a church in Concord, Calif. in the '70s. Fatboy >Slim's label, Astralwerks, had no comment. And, seeing that Fatboy Slim (aka >Norman Cook) is a big fan of Negativland, we're sure the release (which >states that he "stupidly" went to SST Records to get permission to use the >sample) would upset him a bit. The Coke spot starts airing on television >Sept. 7 for three months and is part of a major NFL campaign, which includes >a contest to send people to the Super Bowl.. > >

quoted 12 lines How can Negativland make a claim on a sample of something they apparently

>How can Negativland make a claim on a sample of something they apparently >*sampled* from someone else w/o permission? Perhaps it would have been >ethical of SST (who aren't known for that) to give the group part of the >proceeds but given Negativland's flippancy towards people who try to get >royalties for samples, its laughable that they would complain. They ended up >on the other side of the issue and got screwed. > >Also, I was under the impression that Negativland did not have any rights to >the material they released on SST. Someone correct me if I am wrong. > >I hate to be so negative towards these fellows but they are really asking >for it.

IRONY: my understanding of the Negativeland gripe is not that they are peeved that SST got 1000 bucks and cleared a sample without their permission , but that major groups/ high profile labels have no hassels from the RIAA for sample infringement...Negitiveland is simply pointing out the irony that it's easier for labels like astralwerks/emi to claim fair use than it is for political and cultural activists to. Fair Use is part of the 2nd admendment rights of freedom of speech which is in the constitution to allow for political and cultural commentary (satire ie political lampoons etc). So the argument is why is it ok for coke/pepsi/major labels to use samples but the RIAA will threaten to sue down Negitivelands pressing plant when they are actually doing stuff which is covered as "fair Use." Money changed hands..the capitalist agenda has been met...no one gets sued! They are not whining so much as pointing out the hypocracy which surrounds the commercial music industry. Paying SST for a sample they don't have the right to clear so that coke can spend milions on an ad campaign...that's the irony...no? -phil stealthy not wealthy

Phil, I agree with your observations. I'm not surprised tho, Americans are pretty used to having double standards when money is on the table. not to pick nits or anything, but its the first amendment that protects our freedom of speech. The second amendment is that gun thingy. ;) At 7:11 PM -0400 9/10/98, ninphil wrote:

quoted 33 lines How can Negativland make a claim on a sample of something they apparently

>>How can Negativland make a claim on a sample of something they apparently >>*sampled* from someone else w/o permission? Perhaps it would have been >>ethical of SST (who aren't known for that) to give the group part of the >>proceeds but given Negativland's flippancy towards people who try to get >>royalties for samples, its laughable that they would complain. They ended up >>on the other side of the issue and got screwed. >> >>Also, I was under the impression that Negativland did not have any rights to >>the material they released on SST. Someone correct me if I am wrong. >> >>I hate to be so negative towards these fellows but they are really asking >>for it. >IRONY: >my understanding of the Negativeland gripe is not that they are peeved >that SST got 1000 bucks and cleared a sample without their permission , >but that major groups/ high profile labels have no hassels from the RIAA >for sample infringement...Negitiveland is simply pointing out the irony >that it's easier for labels like astralwerks/emi to claim fair use than >it is for political and cultural activists to. > >Fair Use is part of the 2nd admendment rights of freedom of speech which >is in the constitution to allow for political and cultural commentary >(satire ie political lampoons etc). So the argument is why is it ok for >coke/pepsi/major labels to use samples but the RIAA will threaten to sue >down Negitivelands pressing plant when they are actually doing stuff >which is covered as "fair Use." Money changed hands..the capitalist >agenda has been met...no one gets sued! They are not whining so much as >pointing out the hypocracy which surrounds the commercial music industry. >Paying SST for a sample they don't have the right to clear so that coke >can spend milions on an ad campaign...that's the irony...no? >-phil > >stealthy not wealthy

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jonathan Logan Work: 415 543-2800 UI Droog Home: 415 440-4562 CriticalPath, Inc. Mobile: 415 902-8079 ------------------------------------------------------------------------