quoted 5 lines ...gag... The whole idea of "artists" and glorifying people> ...gag... The whole idea of "artists" and glorifying people
> in such a
> manner is such crap. "Oooh, look at that work...s/he is such an
> ARTIST. Oooh.". Instead of dreaming, do it yourself and get over
> it. Demystify the act.
"Art" is NOT a high-falootin' word and it's not a judgemental word, it's
just a normal everyday dictionary word that includes music, painting,
sculpture, writing, design, acting, etc, etc. On top of that it's a useful
word to describe electronic music makers who may be individual persons or
'bands'. You ask me to "demystify the act" and yet you think that by using
the word "artist" I'm somehow glorifying something? Maybe you also have some
sacred cows you need to shatter.
You make music, right? Do you think that you're not an artist? It's
admirable to try to be modest about what you're doing, but art is not a bad
word, it's just a regular word.
quoted 6 lines You are making the assumption that sampling takes no thought.> You are making the assumption that sampling takes no thought.
> It takes twice the thought...deciding what you want said and then
> finding it. I'm ever impressed by Bomb20 who says things using
> the voices of many. It'd be a hundred times easier for him to
> just speak it, but to pull unique sentences out of samples takes
> time and a lot of searching.
I have not done telephone interviews with hundreds of sampling artists to
derive my conclusions, but my informed guess is that the situation you
describe NEVER happens. Usually the artist will hear the sample first,
become inspired, and use it in a track in some new, creative way (or
sometimes in a predictable, shallow way). Almost nobody thinks of or writes
words first then grabs the sample. This is the whole beauty of sampling, it
allows artists to get inspiration from the strangest sources and
recontextualize it in new meaningful ways.
For example, Negativland took a ten minute conversation between Ted Koppel
and some unnamed Nightline guest and chopped it to bits to create a
beautiful track whose lyrics are both hilarious and compelling. Of course
they didn't write the lyrics first.
There, are you satisfied that I'm not some hippie deadhead rawker who thinks
sampling and synthesizers are the death of all good music?? God, I can't
beleive I'm defending myself from attacks claiming that I don't 'get'
sampling. What the fuck has happened to this list?
quoted 7 lines By the way, I can't beleive that although I specifically> >By the way, I can't beleive that although I specifically
> > said that I wasn't
> >saying anything bad about sampling,
>
> ...but you were. Basically, your argument came down to "it
> would be ok if he said it, but instead he sampled it so it
> is crap". Which seems an attack on sampling...
Um, no, my argument was several paragraphs long because it was more complex
and nuanced than your glib summary. Most importantly (and this is key to
having an meaningful conversation about art) you seem to have misinterpreted
"disappointment" as "crap". I never said "crap" and never even remotely
meant to suggest that anything was "crap". Again, back to the
demystification thing: why can't anyone write anything meaningful about
music on this list without being second guessed as to whether or not they
think the song/artist is crap?
All I really wanted to talk about was the way Luke Vibert creates his work
and about how that particular song's meaning changed for me because of new
knowledge. And it turned into a 1989 Rolling Stone magazine debate about
sampling. Now I'm the one gagging.
-cf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org