[rumori] Re: sampling laws
rumoriatdetritus.net [rumori] Re: sampling laws
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 03:06:50 EST (00910771610, a6edea4c.3649459aataol.com)
In a message dated 98-11-10 13:56:05 EST, you write:
<< I invite you to
think about (and discuss) more deeply your motivations for
using samples. >>
Hi - never posted before - but this subject inspired me to respond.
1) why use samples? there are many reasons. there is the simple fact that
there seems to be something special about creating something out of nothing
but that which already existed in another form before it. there is also the
subversive potential of reusing recognizable bits of sonic information. the
thing that really seems exciting to me though is the surreal aspect of using
actual bits of information - available to a large audience - and incorporating
them into your own work in both easily recognizable and next to unidentifiable
ways. I've always liked to (romantically) associate my work (found sound
collage) with the concept of dreaming. I've compared specific examples to a
"typical" kind of dream. You are asleep. the bass from the neighbor's stereo
is audible. It repeats endlessly in your mind. As you drift off, aware of the
neighbor's stereo, you recall a conversation overheard in an elevator earlier
that week in a loft on the other side of town, which reminds you of something
your grandfather once told you when you were seven. this causes you to recall
the sound of your father's car rounding the corner in your old neighborhood as
it would sound to you sitting at your desk in your bedroom as a teenager. all
of these sounds and voices drift together, distort, affect eachother and
inspire sounds you may have never actually experienced and combine with the
uncomfortable feeling you get when your cat licks the bottom of your foot as
you are falling asleep.
recognizable samples in collage make it even more powerful. "Thats the base
line from 'loving you!' That line of dialogue is from that episode of 'taxi,'
and the sound effects in the backrgound are reminiscent of the sound I made
that time I smashed my thumb with a hammer."
2) recently, the engineer at radio K, the college radio station at which I am
the production director, asked me to consider the risk I was taking for the
station by releasing a cd which I produced at the station during my free time.
I was initially incredulous, assuming that where the cd was mixed would make
no difference whatsoever. However, he went on to point out some other unfair
examples and I became less judgemental of his approach. I am releasing an
album of found sound collage in a week or two. (www.detritus.net/escmech) and
should his assertion be worth considering and should I get any attention at
all for this release (which would be slightly short of a miracle, I realize)
and the lawyers finally figured out they could get no money from me, would
they perhaps approach the station? I've included nowhere on the packaging the
fact that I've mixed it there, but aside from this fact which seems to cancel
out any reason to fear, the basic question remains. If the RIAA is going after
the disc manufacturers, where does it stop? Can they sue Macintosh for
providing sound editing programs? What about the manufacturers of open reel
tape recorders and razor blades?
statements made, questions asked. My contribution to Steevs call for