Re: [microsound] sampling/concepts (was projects)

[chthonic streams <chthonic@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Trace,
>
> What constitutes non-sampled content today?

i think someone else answered this - there are many ways of creating 
music, including electronic-based music, without actually sampling 
from a previous recording.  i think this got started because of the 
recently discussed legal issue of uncleared samples (this is all over 
the IDM and CMI lists as well).

i don't see there being any problem with processing beyond 
recognition.  that is basically the way to thwart the ruling - no one 
can catch you if no one can tell the source.  if the artist who made 
the sound can listen to the piece and not recognize it, i'd say 
that's an artistic triumph.

i'm sure this whole thing got started because of the rampant use of 
barely-tweaked song lifting in rap, and perhaps mashups.  i think 
both techniques can be artistically valid. using collage to 
recontextualize the original can have cultural implications beyond 
the purely musical.  putting an old song or identifiabvle snippet in 
a new context stirs up all kinds of emotions in those who recognize 
the source material.  unfortunately, the most widespread (or at least 
most popular) use of this way of doing this seems to be fairly 
pedestrian.

an interesting use of a recontextualized and changed sample that is 
still recognizable comes from industrial dance.  the bassline to the 
nitzer ebb song "without belief" was used in front line assembly's 
"final impact".  even though i can tell the source, it creates an 
entirely new song when layered underneath the new instrumentation. 
even the bassline sample is triggered in a new rhythm instead of 
simply looping it.


> Is such a thing basically a sinewave or synthesizer?
> Is that what you mean?
> (What about machine presets?)

i believe even presets can be used well, although they run the risk 
of tiring ears as much as a recognizable samples.  i know of no one 
who would dare use the dreaded fairlight flute sound completely 
untweaked, unless they were trying to evoke the early-to-mid-80's.


> Aren't field recordings as basic in content as a sinewave (or as
> constructed)?

theoretically, i would agree with that, in the sense that both are 
raw building blocks.  although one could also argue that the content 
of a field recording can be broken down further into smaller parts 
which differ from each other, depending on the sounds in the field 
recording.  i think a sine wave would be pretty much the same no 
matter how much of it you use.  or is that untrue?  anyone here work 
with sine waves?


> The form of your argument via "content" I am grappling with right now in
> writing about Dj Spooky. What can be identified as content? What do we mean
> by that? (A side related question: is it possible to speak of a conceptual
> artist today without a concept, ie, without content?)

so you believe that for a conceptual artist, the concept is the 
content?  i'm not sure i can go along with that.  i have no solid 
examples, but i believe the content of music is the music itself.

the one case i can think of where it could potentially be argued 
otherwise is john cage's "4:33".  the content of the sound (or lack 
thereof) will change each time it's performed, but the concept 
remains the same, and allegedly because of that, it's the same piece.


d.
np: 71 minutes with faust

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org