179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: (idm) sampling

10 messages · 8 participants · spans 488 days · search this subject
1997-03-09 19:17(idm) sampling
└─ 1997-03-09 19:23Warren Lapham Re: (idm) sampling
1997-03-10 12:44PhilE Re: (idm) sampling
1998-07-08 16:38Christopher Fahey Re: (idm) Sampling
└─ 1998-07-08 19:03Nate Harrison \[Toshok Laboratories\] Re: (idm) Sampling
1998-07-08 18:59Re[2]: (idm) Sampling
└─ 1998-07-08 19:07Nate Harrison \[Toshok Laboratories\] Re: Re[2]: (idm) Sampling
1998-07-08 19:14Andrew Cowper Re: (idm) Sampling
└─ 1998-07-10 13:59Zenon M. Feszczak Re: (idm) Sampling
1998-07-09 14:09Christopher Fahey Re: (idm) Sampling
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1997-03-09 19:17transmat@teleport.comhey folks, u2...were the clowns who fucked over some musicians from california for samplin
From:
To:
Date:
Sun, 9 Mar 1997 11:17:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject:
(idm) sampling
permalink · <v01540b06af484ed1b500@[206.163.127.241]>
hey folks, u2...were the clowns who fucked over some musicians from california for sampling some pop tune of theirs? corrections welcomed...
1997-03-09 19:23Warren LaphamOn Sun, 9 Mar 1997 transmat@teleport.com wrote: > u2...were the clowns who fucked over som
From:
Warren Lapham
To:
Cc:
Date:
Sun, 9 Mar 1997 14:23:48 -0500 (EST)
Subject:
Re: (idm) sampling
Reply to:
(idm) sampling
permalink · <Pine.SOL.3.95.970309142008.16574A-100000@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu>
On Sun, 9 Mar 1997 transmat@teleport.com wrote:
quoted 3 lines u2...were the clowns who fucked over some musicians from california for> u2...were the clowns who fucked over some musicians from california for > sampling some pop tune of theirs? > corrections welcomed...
Was actually their record label, Island, that did the fucking over. But it was still an awful thing that happened that U2 probably could have stopped. For more: http://www.eskimo.com/~irving/negativland/u2/ Be sure to download the audio files. -- Warren Lapham (ceremony-owner@monkey.org) laps@umich.edu (laps@monkey.org)
1997-03-10 12:44PhilE> hey folks, > u2...were the clowns who fucked over some musicians from california > for s
From:
PhilE
To:
Cc:
Date:
Mon, 10 Mar 1997 12:44:43 +0000
Subject:
Re: (idm) sampling
permalink · <589F9AB5B35@bagpuss.argonaut.com>
quoted 3 lines hey folks,> hey folks, > u2...were the clowns who fucked over some musicians from california > for sampling some pop tune of theirs? corrections welcomed...
Negativland are the artists in question, and the single was called err, "U2". Haven't heard much of their stuff, but what I have was largely cut-up weirdness. I have an interview with them that I grabbed from the web, but I've lost the original URL, fortunately they have a nice unique name, so web searches tend to be pretty easy. Worth checking out, also check out John Oswalds Plunderphonics projects for more sampling / copyright fun. His cut-ups of Michael Jackson, Capt Beefheart, and Slayer have to be heard. Try http://www.io.org/~vacuvox/x/plunder.html which seems to be up sporadicaly also see article in Wired 3.02 (available at their web-site) and article in the Wire, which I'd love a copy of, if anyone has it in electronic form. I'm sure Wired have covered the Negativland / U2 / Casey Kasem thing in depth too. Warren Lapham <laps@umich.edu> wrote:
quoted 3 lines Was actually their record label, Island, that did the fucking> Was actually their record label, Island, that did the fucking > over. But it was still an awful thing that happened that U2 > probably could have stopped.
Yeah, right... Interview extract: K!z!K: The whole U2 affair took that sentiment and blew it up 10 times over for me when I was reading the initial reports that U2, Brian Eno, etc. really had nothing against the single, and yet you had Chris Blackwell.. you had Paul McGuiness, you had all these people... Mark Hosler: Well, I honestly don't know who to believe. Because quite honestly, I don't believe that U2 had nothing against it. I think if they did, things would have turned out differently a lot sooner than they did. If they truly stood by their convictions, than they would have done something to change the situation. And it wouldn't have taken Negativland three years of writing them letters to finally change their minds. Practically four years! When we did that interview with The Edge, I actually was fairly hopeful. I was quite surprised that he seemed to be as much on our side as he was. We were then quite surprised, though we shouldn't have been, that he proceeded to do absolutely nothing. But as I said, when you get into that part of the curd of the culture industry, you play the game by certain rules. You cannot rock the boat that much. Phil [On:Motorbass:Pansoul] PS This is about as IDM as U2 get... PPS transmat eh? How's Derricks album coming on...:) ...Ga Gak GaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAk...
1998-07-08 16:38Christopher Fahey>> About a year ago I was introduced to the Amen break via this list >> and I began to not
From:
Christopher Fahey
To:
Sebastien Dalphond
Cc:
IDM ,
Date:
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 12:38:51 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) Sampling
permalink · <028901bdaa8e$f7c458c0$682c43d1@eniac.raremedium.com>
quoted 11 lines About a year ago I was introduced to the Amen break via this list>> About a year ago I was introduced to the Amen break via this list >> and I began to notice that artists I had previously thought to be >> interesting programmers turned out to be lazy samplers. This site >> makes the extent of that very clear. Have fun! > >I don't know how to take this; >Don't get me wrong. I love 4/4 techno, just as much as I love IDM in >general and drum & bass. But I think that the whole electronica is >based on samples, sequencers, hopefully giving it an organic feel to it >by pitching in *real* instruments, vocals, warmth, rich layers, etc. At >least, that was the way it was at first.
I'm not sayin sampling is lazy, I'm only saying that some people with samplers are lazy. Okay, *most* people with samplers are lazy. I love sampling, but I think that when using a sample one should consider carefully: * Is there another option besides using the sample? * Is the sample essential to my musical "vision"? * Has this sample been used a thousand times before? * If so, how will my use of it distinguish itself from others who have used it? * How will my use of the sample distinguish itself from the original? * Will my listeners be aware of the sample's source? * If so, how will their mental connection color their musical experience? * If not, am I being deceptive? Is the listener missing something (the aforementioned "color")? * Do I have the kind of money I'll need to defend myself when I get my ass sued by some impoverished 60 year old funky drummer who hasn't seen a dime from their effort? I think that sampling is cool and almost essential to the postmodern/information age artistic impulse. I have mixed feeling about the fact that you basically can't sample anymore unless you are either a) a small time artist on an indie label or b) you are puffy combs. Part of me is glad that artists are moving away from sampling and towards programming, and I'm also glad that unpaid artists are starting to get their due for samples used in multiplatinum hits, but I resent the fact that copyrights are so strong that sampling is almost taboo. I also emphatically disagree with anyone who says that sampling is antithetical to musical artistry. I still think that using the Amen Break in 1998 would be hard to justify artistically.
1998-07-08 19:03Nate Harrison \[Toshok Laboratories\]Finally, a debate with fellow NYC'er Mr. Fahey:) While I agree with some of what you say,
From:
Nate Harrison \[Toshok Laboratories\]
To:
Christopher Fahey
Cc:
Sebastien Dalphond , IDM ,
Date:
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:03:29 +0000 ()
Subject:
Re: (idm) Sampling
Reply to:
Re: (idm) Sampling
permalink · <Pine.BSF.3.95.980708184436.14428E-100000@www.webelite.com>
Finally, a debate with fellow NYC'er Mr. Fahey:) While I agree with some of what you say, the whole rules thing is too much. Having bought a sampler a few months ago, my thinking about sample usage in IDM/jungle/whatever has changed dramatically. Jesus the amount of control over a sound is unbeleivable! To that end, yes I agree some people are lazy with samplers. But after playing with one I decided that doesn't matter. Are all guitar players lazy if they don't try freaky chords tweaks and solos like Jimi HendriX? Or is it allowable to feel content with strumming a few chords and calling that a song? Well, Ithink so. When you say lazy people, I assume you mean the blasse, predominantly clubby type drumnbass producers who don't tweak their breaks enough. I think they could afford to get a little more creative, but at the same time I think certain music works in certain arenas. It was Kent I believe who said that while he enjoys going to clubs and hearing ultrarepetitve house, because it works in that context, he rarely listens to it at home becaue it is not intellectually challenging. I feel the same way. I don't think those people who you refer to as lazy are really lazy, I think they are people very much into a club culture, who don't care about geeky IDMer type people overanalyzing very 64th snare, who just want to maintain a certain 'vibe', at the risk of coming off to some as 'lazy'. I find Roni Size incredibly boring, but in a club context, different story. I just think everyone has their own idea of what sounds good in their mind, lazy or not. my .02 Nate On Wed, 8 Jul 1998, Christopher Fahey wrote:
quoted 3 lines About a year ago I was introduced to the Amen break via this list> > >> About a year ago I was introduced to the Amen break via this list > >> and I began to notice that artists I had previously thought to be
quoted 40 lines I'm not sayin sampling is lazy, I'm only saying that some people with> I'm not sayin sampling is lazy, I'm only saying that some people with > samplers are lazy. Okay, *most* people with samplers are lazy. I love > sampling, but I think that when using a sample one should consider > carefully: > > * Is there another option besides using the sample? > * Is the sample essential to my musical "vision"? > * Has this sample been used a thousand times before? > * If so, how will my use of it distinguish itself from others who > have used it? > * How will my use of the sample distinguish itself from the original? > * Will my listeners be aware of the sample's source? > * If so, how will their mental connection color their musical > experience? > * If not, am I being deceptive? Is the listener missing something > (the aforementioned "color")? > * Do I have the kind of money I'll need to defend myself when I get my > ass sued by some impoverished 60 year old funky drummer who hasn't seen a > dime from their effort? > > I think that sampling is cool and almost essential to the > postmodern/information age artistic impulse. I have mixed feeling about the > fact that you basically can't sample anymore unless you are either a) a > small time artist on an indie label or b) you are puffy combs. Part of me is > glad that artists are moving away from sampling and towards programming, and > I'm also glad that unpaid artists are starting to get their due for samples > used in multiplatinum hits, but I resent the fact that copyrights are so > strong that sampling is almost taboo. > > I also emphatically disagree with anyone who says that sampling is > antithetical to musical artistry. > > I still think that using the Amen Break in 1998 would be hard to justify > artistically. > > > > > >
1998-07-08 18:59Kreig.Zimmerman@thehartford.com> I still think that using the Amen Break in 1998 would be hard to justify > artistically.
From:
To:
- \(052\)sebby\(a\)toonboom.com
Cc:
- \(052\)idm\(a\)hyperreal.org , - \(052\)cdperk\(a\)trib.com
Date:
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 14:59:04 -0400
Subject:
Re[2]: (idm) Sampling
permalink · <0012900001048310000002L002*@MHS>
quoted 2 lines I still think that using the Amen Break in 1998 would be hard to justify> I still think that using the Amen Break in 1998 would be hard to justify > artistically.
And you know what I say to that?? AMEN!!!! =) Lay it to rest, (re)producers!!! --Kreig
1998-07-08 19:07Nate Harrison \[Toshok Laboratories\]I disagree with this too. I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with unique amen usage
From:
Nate Harrison \[Toshok Laboratories\]
To:
Cc:
- \(052\)sebby\(a\)toonboom.com , - \(052\)idm\(a\)hyperreal.org , - \(052\)cdperk\(a\)trib.com
Date:
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:07:08 +0000 ()
Subject:
Re: Re[2]: (idm) Sampling
Reply to:
Re[2]: (idm) Sampling
permalink · <Pine.BSF.3.95.980708190406.14428F-100000@www.webelite.com>
I disagree with this too. I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with unique amen usage these days, but it could be done. Should painters abandon their art because for all intents and purposes (western art) has exhausted all of painting's potential? peace Nate On Wed, 8 Jul 1998 Kreig.Zimmerman@thehartford.com wrote:
quoted 14 lines I still think that using the Amen Break in 1998 would be hard to justify> > > > I still think that using the Amen Break in 1998 would be hard to justify > > artistically. > > And you know what I say to that?? > > AMEN!!!! =) > > Lay it to rest, (re)producers!!! > > --Kreig > >
1998-07-08 19:14Andrew Cowper"Christopher Fahey" <chris@raremedium.com>: >I'm not sayin sampling is lazy, I'm only sayi
From:
Andrew Cowper
To:
'idm'
Date:
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 15:14:47 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) Sampling
permalink · <01BDAA83.25BDDF00@calvin.dvcorp.com>
"Christopher Fahey" <chris@raremedium.com>:
quoted 4 lines I'm not sayin sampling is lazy, I'm only saying that some people with>I'm not sayin sampling is lazy, I'm only saying that some people with >samplers are lazy. Okay, *most* people with samplers are lazy. I love >sampling, but I think that when using a sample one should consider >carefully:
<snip bunch o' rules> Mother of God! What is this rubbish? When a musician is considering doing anything he needs to think carefully about only one question. "Does it sound good?" Noone needs a load of rules for correct/incorrect music creation. If we judge music not by how it sounds, but by how it was created - then we've lost the plot completely. Take this "Keep Music Live" crap and return it to the fifty year old rockers where it belongs. Laters Andrew C. np: Matt Herbert on the BetaLounge.
1998-07-10 13:59Zenon M. FeszczakAndrew Cowper <acowper@dvcorp.com>: > >Mother of God! What is this rubbish? When a musicia
From:
Zenon M. Feszczak
To:
Date:
Fri, 10 Jul 1998 09:59:05 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) Sampling
Reply to:
Re: (idm) Sampling
permalink · <v04003a00b1c97c36a14a@sas.upenn.edu>
Andrew Cowper <acowper@dvcorp.com>:
quoted 5 lines Mother of God! What is this rubbish? When a musician is considering doing> >Mother of God! What is this rubbish? When a musician is considering doing >anything >he needs to think carefully about only one question. "Does it sound good?" >
With all due respect, beg to differ. To varying degrees with different music styles and even from one musical quantum to the next, the process of creation is part of the result. Certainly this is true in live music, but even holds in many areas of recorded music. ...and other arts for that matter. Hence one values an original more than a reproduction or a forgery.
quoted 4 lines No one needs a load of rules for correct/incorrect music creation. If we>No one needs a load of rules for correct/incorrect music creation. If we >judge music >not by how it sounds, but by how it was created - then we've lost the plot >completely.
Process is part of the plot. In fact, this is hardly an archaism relegated to art rockers (and their ancestral live musicians of the past several millenia). Much modern experimental music is interesting exactly _because_ of the process involved. Sometimes, in fact, the process is the only interesting aspect, as some might judge of serial composition. (By the way, this is not an anti-sampling stand. I wouldn't be on this list if I rejected sampling per se). Best, 3
1998-07-09 14:09Christopher Fahey>Finally, a debate with fellow NYC'er Mr. Fahey:) No! No debate! I agree with everything y
From:
Christopher Fahey
To:
Nate Harrison \[Toshok Laboratories\]
Cc:
IDM
Date:
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:09:54 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) Sampling
permalink · <043f01bdab43$c08ce6a0$682c43d1@eniac.raremedium.com>
quoted 1 line Finally, a debate with fellow NYC'er Mr. Fahey:)>Finally, a debate with fellow NYC'er Mr. Fahey:)
No! No debate! I agree with everything you say!
quoted 4 lines But after playing with {a sampler} I decided that doesn't>But after playing with {a sampler} I decided that doesn't >matter. Are all guitar players lazy if they don't try freaky chords tweaks >and solos like Jimi HendriX? Or is it allowable to feel content with >strumming a few chords and calling that a song?
Sometimes it is.
quoted 3 lines When you>When you >say lazy people, I assume you mean the blasse, predominantly clubby >type drumnbass producers who don't tweak their breaks enough.
Yes, that's what I meant generally. I suppose I overstepped a little in my phrasing: I don't think that using the Amen Break is a STRICT TABOO. I just think that one should consider all of the implications of it before using it. Heck, I could listen to I just think that sampling offers enormous potential for artistic expression, both conceptual and aesthetic. To not attempt to exploit that potential is often disappointing. You raise good points that music is not always about being interesting in either of the above two ways (conceptual or aesthetic) - sometimes music is *good* without being *interesting*. I'm talking about booty shaking funk, or trippy goa, or surfin bird rock and roll. I respect the need to just dance, but to be honest I could easily imagine a crowd of non-IDM fans getting down to certain TJ tracks, or Amon Tobin, or even Autechre. Many IDM artists suffer from a distinct lack of funkiness, an urge to avoid being groovy or danceable, so they can focus on being fucked up or cerebral. I think this is pretty much analogous to artists who avoid conceptual experimentations and stick to tried and true Amens, 4/4s, snare rushes, diva samples, etc with the sole purpose of making bootyshakers. I *don't*, however, think the two are mutually exclusive. This is why the D in IDM is so important to me.
quoted 6 lines I don't think those>I don't think those >people who you refer to as lazy are really lazy, I think they are people >very much into a club culture, who don't care about geeky IDMer type >people overanalyzing very 64th snare, who just want to maintain a certain >'vibe', at the risk of coming off to some as 'lazy'. I find Roni Size >incredibly boring, but in a club context, different story.
Case in point: Roni Size, both in his lyrical content and his PR machine's focus, tries to present himself as the great Innovator, as the veritable inventor of breakbeat. I can't help but think "If only his fans both knew how electronic music, especially jungle, is actually made and if only they had a chance to hear Hard Normal Daddy, they would see how Roni Size, although perhaps fun, isn't as innovative as he cracks himself up to be. Oh well, I know I'm probably just being a snobby prick here. So sue me! -Cf ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - c h r i s t ø p h e r f ª h e y . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ chris@raremedium.com 2 1 2 - 6 3 4 - 6 9 5 0 x 2 5 8 http://www.raremedium.com - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - . _ . - ' ^ ' - .