IDM Mailing Archive

quoted 4 lines that sample is from a 12" that my girlfriend has, some old educational

> that sample is from a 12" that my girlfriend has, some old educational > record. it has an old(ish) man explaining filters, first he > says something > normally then throught the filter.

I am so disappointed by this. Here I am thinking that Luke Vibert was doing some kind of deconstructivist exercise, laying bare the tools of his craft within the song itself, a la the conceptual artist Alvin Lucier ("I am sitting in a room, different from the one you are in now") - I thought it was HIM speaking those lines. Granted, it's not a deep insight into the nature of music making or technology, but it's still a critically interesting aspect of that track. What's disappointing is that he used a sample to put forward a somewhat interesting pedagogical concept into a track when he could just as easily thought of and exectuted such a concept by himself. A lesser crime would have been if he heard that educational record and decided that he would reproduce it with *his own voice*, or at least if he had done something similar with other effects, maybe effects that are more relevant to his idiom ("I am now speaking through a <insert VST plug in here>."). But the fact that he would use a sample to create a sound/lyric/lesson which literally would have taken five minutes to create from scratch (less time than it probably took to sample the record) is kinda sad. And the fact that he couldn't take inspiration from the educational record and make something better is also sad. For all you flamers out there (aka, those humorless closed-minded tight-assed listmembers who didn't read the Tonya Headon site and laff your asses off): I'm not saying sampling is bad or that Luke Vibert is bad. I'm just saying its sad to see someone use a sample when doing the actual work might have generated more interesting results without too much additional effort. -Cf --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:19:46 -0400, Chris Fahey wrote:

quoted 4 lines I'm not saying sampling is bad or that Luke Vibert is bad. I'm

>I'm not saying sampling is bad or that Luke Vibert is bad. I'm >just saying its sad to see someone use a sample when doing the actual work >might have generated more interesting results without too much additional >effort.

I feel that way about a lot of samples in music. And just sampling culture as a whole. I don't think it's a bad thing, and a lot of excellent stuff has come out of sampling. On the other hand, I also feel that it can foster a lack of originality, creativity and inventiveness on the part of the artist as well. Of course, at the "my god, how horrible" end of the spectrum are artists like Puff Daddy who "make new songs" by "covering" classic old songs from other genres and saying "uh-huh" and "yeah" over them. That's not even sampling, that's just copying. ok, i stop now -adam -- Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] ... "Earthman, the planet you lived on was paid for and run by mice." --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

think of sampling as the same thing as collage. it's one thing to just take a photocopy of the mona lisa and say it's your creation (Puffy Combs or Marcel Duchamp but that's a whole nother ball and stick em on your own painting, to some artistic effect ... i.e. the new context brings out a different characteristic in the mona lisa's eyes or they add an ambience to the piece without just saying "look it's the mona lisa's eyes" i think it's perfectly reputable. i did a track where i nicked a flute sample from a rather well known record (which i will not identify as the track is being released) but there is no way on earth anybody will identify it because 1) the sample is like four notes from a phrase of about 16 notes, which appears once in the song 2) the segment i nicked isn't a "characteristic" of the artist's work or the song in question. 3) i slowed it down so much you probably wouldn't guess it was a flute unless i told you 4) i used the sample to create a completely new melody based on the interaction of the notes played in the phrase, played back at two different speeds now tell me. is my artistic integrity at all lessened because I did not go out and find a real flute player and have him/her play the notes into my sampler? does the fact that i discovered the tune by exploring somebody elses record rather than planning it in advance make me less creative? i guess i would be more creative if i could have imagined the melody beforehand and then actualized it myself ... creation is by definition more creative than discovery. but it's a whole different skillset to be able to manipulate found sounds into a cohesive work. josh btw i agree with the original post to which i am replying in that if the song is good, the technique really doesn't matter. this even applies to puff daddy ... if you enjoy that Sting song that he jacked, then chances are you'll enjoy his track based on that riff, even if you know he jacked the riff. beat-jacking is fucking postmodern, dude. -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 anything@synthesizer.org wrote:

quoted 31 lines For all you flamers out there (aka, those humorless closed-minded

> >For all you flamers out there (aka, those humorless closed-minded > >tight-assed listmembers who didn't read the Tonya Headon site and laff your > >asses off): I'm not saying sampling is bad or that Luke Vibert is bad. I'm > >just saying its sad to see someone use a sample when doing the actual work > >might have generated more interesting results without too much additional > >effort. > > I love it when intersections like this pop up on the list. In another > thread, people are discussing a tendency to focus on technique when > critiquing music, and here we get a perfect example of that. > > What we have here is a case of disillusionment and resentment toward an > artist. The only difference is one piece of information that shattered an > ideal. There is no reason why he should reinvent the wheel, and there is > no reason why he can't be considered to be collaborating in a time-delayed > fashion with the man being sampled. Let the "suffering artist" crap go, it > never did anyone any good. > > The piece sounds the same as when you didn't know it was a sample. > > -- > http://www.synthesizer.org/ > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org > For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org > >

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 15:46:39 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote:

quoted 1 line think of sampling as the same thing as collage.

>think of sampling as the same thing as collage.

i do

quoted 2 lines it's a whole different

>it's a whole different >skillset to be able to manipulate found sounds into a cohesive work.

totally agree. but that's not recognized by your average joe.

quoted 2 lines btw i agree with the original post to which i am replying in that if the

>btw i agree with the original post to which i am replying in that if the >song is good, the technique really doesn't matter.

yes, if i enjoy something, i generally don't care how it was made, but i am interested to a certain extent, because the process of creation does affect how i perceive a work and it does affect the result. if you use a real instrument and your own notes in a track instead of a sample and the sampled notes, then the work is differen then it would have been, correct? one isn't better than the other, but it's different. oh, and i care how something is made also in the sense that it might have been made by forced child labor or something. i don't want to be supporting that. but that doesn't usually apply to music... :p

quoted 3 lines puff daddy ... if you enjoy that Sting song that he jacked, then chances

>puff daddy ... if you enjoy that Sting song that he jacked, then chances >are you'll enjoy his track based on that riff, even if you know he jacked >the riff. beat-jacking is fucking postmodern, dude.

yes, it's post-modern, which i love, but again, that's different from the way things used to be and it affects the artistic process. and i think that needs to be recognized. you can't quite perfectly compare, say, aphex twin, to, say, mozart, because their creative processes were different. as for sting and puff daddy, i find the puff daddy "version" extremely annoying. why? it's a matter of respect. it colors my perception of the music to know that it's so completely unoriginal. i have little respect for puffy. he also mangled that led zepplin song. it's not a matter of saying his process is wrong, or samples are wrong, it's a personal matter in this respect: sting and led zepplin were uniquely talented human beings, worthy of great respect, and created music that i enjoy on many levels. puffy jacks the songs (not just the beats, dammit) and pretends they're new songs. they're not -- they're weak covers at best. i know he did some words, but that puts him on the level of bad poet. -adam -- Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] ... no snowflake ever falls in the wrong place --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Adam Piontek wrote:

quoted 2 lines as for sting and puff daddy, i find the puff daddy "version"

> as for sting and puff daddy, i find the puff daddy "version" > extremely annoying. why? it's a matter of respect. it colors my

...

quoted 6 lines it's not a matter of saying his process is wrong, or samples are

> it's not a matter of saying his process is wrong, or samples are > wrong, it's a personal matter in this respect: sting and led zepplin > were uniquely talented human beings, worthy of great respect, and > created music that i enjoy on many levels. puffy jacks the songs > (not just the beats, dammit) and pretends they're new songs. they're > not -- they're weak covers at best.

i don't much care for Puff Daddy or his technique but i don't think he tries to pass off the tracks as his own work, i.e. he credits the original artists on the records (i mean if he didn't he'd get sued to hell and back!!) and he'd have to be stupid to think people arent' going to recognize hooks from Police or Led Zeppelin. It's more about a certain ethic in Hip Hop culture -- that of the name check. You appropriate somebody else's line or beat or a little hook from their song more as a tribute, or at least a knowing reference, rather than from a lack of creativity. Granted, Puffy takes it to completely unneccessary extremes. But take for example NWA's song Eight Ball -- they use a line from an old soul record about the "Diamond in the back, sunroof top" or something ( i have no idea who the artist is or if those are the actual lyrics ) ... anyway I think the way they worked the little reference to the song into the music is very creative, especially if you recognize the fact that when they would play the song live, there was actually a DJ dropping the actual phrase in from the original record as part of the song. Recognize also that the art of sampling and beat-jacking comes from the early days of hip hop when DJ's would create an entire track from using other artist's records, in real time on two turntables. This was not for lack of creativity, but for lack of funds and technology as many of the originators of hip hop did not have the cash resources to purchase "real instruments" and were inspired to make do with the tools at hand. -- String Theory : Digital Music for Humans http://www.enteract.com/~yoshi/index.cgi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:29:13 -0500 (CDT), Josh Davison wrote:

quoted 5 lines i don't much care for Puff Daddy or his technique but i don't think he

>i don't much care for Puff Daddy or his technique but i don't think he >tries to pass off the tracks as his own work, i.e. he credits the original >artists on the records (i mean if he didn't he'd get sued to hell and >back!!) and he'd have to be stupid to think people arent' going to >recognize hooks from Police or Led Zeppelin.

i know, i know. the personal side of me still finds it distasteful to know there are people hearing his versions first and loving them, only to discover later the influences and samples involved. like that sample on Vibert's Big Soup which started this whole thread

quoted 2 lines It's more about a certain ethic in Hip Hop culture -- that of the name

>It's more about a certain ethic in Hip Hop culture -- that of the name >check.

I totally agree. I love that. There's the other side of the coin, though, of using the skills of others to bolster your own. I know people who have heard those tracks and been like "i've heard that tune before, this must be the thing i like" ... and don't think puffy doesn't know this. using a cultural icon to further your own career is not nice.

quoted 6 lines Recognize also that the art of sampling and beat-jacking comes from the

>Recognize also that the art of sampling and beat-jacking comes from the >early days of hip hop when DJ's would create an entire track from using >other artist's records, in real time on two turntables. This was not for >lack of creativity, but for lack of funds and technology as many of the >originators of hip hop did not have the cash resources to purchase "real >instruments" and were inspired to make do with the tools at hand.

true that, and worth my respect. good points all around :) -adam -- Adam Piontek [http://www.tcinternet.net/users/damek/] ICQ: 3456339 [damek@earthling.net] ... Never go to bed mad. Stay up and fight. -- Phyllis Diller --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

josh - the NWA lyric & yr quote is correct. The artist is William DeVaughn, only short term memory loss and a crap record filing system prevent me from giving you the title of the track. The lyric goes "diamond in the back, sunroof top, kickin it lean like a ganster machine.... so of course it makes sense that NWA would boost up a ref like this. "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash was a complete rip of "The Cavern" a little jazz funktual instrumental on 99 records as you correctly refer to it as beat-jacking which it was...Even Afrikaa Bambaattaa would fess to the influence of Kraftwerk Depeche Mode & Arthur Bakers remix work on New Order.. w: But take for example NWA's song Eight Ball -- they use a line from an old soul record about the "Diamond in the back, sunroof top" or something ( i have no idea who the artist is or if those are the actual lyrics ) ... anyway I think the way they worked the little reference to the song into the music is very creative, especially if you recognize the fact that when they would play the song live, there was actually a DJ dropping the actual phrase in from the original record as part of the song. Recognize also that the art of sampling and beat-jacking comes from the early days of hip hop when DJ's would create an entire track from using other artist's records, in real time on two turntables. This was not for lack of creativity, but for lack of funds and technology as many of the originators of hip hop did not have the cash resources to purchase "real instruments" and were inspired to make do with the tools at hand. coldcut on da radio mon nite 12am-2am gmt http://www.bbc.co.uk/londonlive http://www.worldtimezone.com zentertainment: wed nite 9pm - 3am http://www.piratetv.net http://www.ninjatune.net --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Wendy K wrote:

quoted 2 lines "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash was a complete rip of "The Cavern"

> "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash was a complete rip of "The Cavern" > a little jazz funktual instrumental on 99 records

OK, wasn't there a Liquid Liquid song that "White Lines" was based on as well? ======================================================================= Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> KUCI 88.9 fM in Irvine, CA -- Orange County ======================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 6 lines On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Wendy K wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Wendy K wrote: >> "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash was a complete rip of "The Cavern" >> a little jazz funktual instrumental on 99 records > >OK, wasn't there a Liquid Liquid song that "White Lines" was based on >as well?

Yes, it's called "Cavern." -- http://www.synthesizer.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

On Thu, 15 Jun 2000 anything@synthesizer.org wrote:

quoted 8 lines On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Wendy K wrote:

> >On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Wendy K wrote: > >> "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash was a complete rip of "The Cavern" > >> a little jazz funktual instrumental on 99 records > > > >OK, wasn't there a Liquid Liquid song that "White Lines" was based on > >as well? > > Yes, it's called "Cavern."

Aaah, you see... I didn't know the name of the song. And you didn't provide the name of the band... GODDAMN YOU! :) ======================================================================= Brian MacDonald <brianm@kuci.org> KUCI 88.9 fM in Irvine, CA -- Orange County ======================================================================= --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines within the song itself, a la the conceptual artist Alvin Lucier ("I am

>within the song itself, a la the conceptual artist Alvin Lucier ("I am >sitting in a room, different from the one you are in now") - I thought it >was HIM speaking those lines.

so.... the sampling is taken from Alvin Lucier eh! i checked out Ryuichi Sakamoto BTTB gig in Seattle and that is the exact sampling panning through those PAs and i thought it was actually Sakamoto's own material! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org

quoted 3 lines I love it when intersections like this pop up on the list. In another

> I love it when intersections like this pop up on the list. In another > thread, people are discussing a tendency to focus on technique when > critiquing music, and here we get a perfect example of that.

I love the intersections too, but please don't assume that by discussing Luke Vibert's technique in constructing that song that we are discussing the totality of Luke Vibert's oeuvre, or even the totality of that particular song.

quoted 2 lines What we have here is a case of disillusionment and resentment

> What we have here is a case of disillusionment and resentment > toward an artist.

Not resentment at all, just disillusionment. I imagined X when listening to a track and I found out the reality was Y.

quoted 5 lines The only difference is one piece of information that

> The only difference is one piece of information that > shattered an ideal. ... Let the "suffering > artist" crap go, it never did anyone any good. > > The piece sounds the same as when you didn't know it was a sample.

Well, that's true, but my appreciation of the music involves more than the sound - there is an intellectual component. To paraphrase Adam P, if I find out my shoes were made by child labor, they certainly cannot be said to be as comfortable. But I don't know what you're talking about with that "suffering artist" crack, since that's not what I wrote about nor do I have any opinion about suffering except that I think that it's always wrong. When I experience art, however, I always imagine myself making the art. It's part of how I think about all art, and I think a lot of other people do this to one degree or another, by imagining the artmaking process. I put myself in the artist's shoes and imagine why he or she made the decisions they did. I don't overintellectualize, I just do it automatically. My interpretation of that particular song was this: I thought it was a cool self-referential song that willfully exposed the tools and means of building electronic music. I turned out to be wrong in the sense that the artist probably didn't intend that. More likely, he thought the sample sounded cool and put it in for that reason alone. As an artist, I strive to not do something simply because "it's cool". Rather, I try to build some kind of intellectual reason behind it. I was disappointed to find out that Vibert didn't create his art the way I thought he did. To be honest it doesn't even lessen my high appreciation of that track on a visceral level, but on an intellectual level I can't really get much out of it if I know that his intellectual agenda was simply to make something that sounds cool. It's like this: Imagine that you like the music of, say, Milli Vanilli. Imagine that you think "Damn, these guys are great singers, they really know their craft!". Then you find out that they were simply models lipsynching to music made by anonymous session singers. You may be disappointed. Is it your fault for having an unrealistic and naive expectation that modern pop stars sing their own material? Maybe. By the same token it may be my fault for assuming that an artist I admire might put some intellectual thought into the words that I hear on his records. Big deal, so I'm disappointed. I get disappointed in artists all the time, you know, including my own self and my artist friends. They're not gods, they're just peers, including Luke Vibert. By the way, I can't beleive that although I specifically said that I wasn't saying anything bad about sampling, everyone invariably started arguing about how beat jacking is postmodern and that I'm closed minded to sampling as collage and all that crap. That whole debate is almost 15 years old now and I'm not interested in it. Sampling is here, it's perfectly ethical and I have no problem with it. To say that sampling is bad is like saying that red is bad or that the piano is bad. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and assume that my critiques are not the dogmatic proclamations of an ignorant 18 year old. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org