I have to say I've been on board with everything you've said so far.
Naturally, I have no problem with people making as much money as they
can off their work, and I think it's only fair that one acknowledge
the artist responsible for the original source material, but people
need to lighten up about their "artistic integrity" and talk of
"originality."
And these winey sensitive artist types need to realize that all art,
form of expression, or even communication in general (hello! the
freaking language that you speak, for that matter) is built on what
has come before.
If one doesn't think ones's work can stand on its own, in spite of
constant reworkings, remixings, and reshapings, then one obviously
doesn't have much confidence in one's ability to express oneself.
This happens in other art forms, why are people so resistant to it
happening in music? Think how ridiculous it would be if we applied
this same silly form of thinking to architecture.
I guess this is all a matter of personal taste, too. For instance,
many think that collage is a bogus art form, but it's one of my
favorite forms of visual art.
I think U.N.K.L.E.'s mix of his "In a State" mashed up with Moby's
"God Moving Over the Face of the Waters" is as beautiful or more than
both of those songs combined, without detracting from either original.
He did something equally powerful with DMX's "Who We Be" and Tears
for Fears' "Shout." Fantastic. Mos Def does a beautiful tribute to
Marvin Gaye with little echos of Marvin singing in the background.
Jazz musicians have been "quoting" from other musicians in the midst
of their own improvisational solos for a long time. I guess it's a
little different from sampling, but to me the effect is the same.
I'll quote (steal?!) from Oscar Wilde and say: "Talent borrows, Genius steals."
On 8/22/06, Patrick Shirkey <pshirkey@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> tim hall wrote:
> >
> >
> > Patrick, I'm finding your POV utterly outrageous.
> >
> > When one has worked hard to make a very precise artistic statement, it becomes
> > apparent how easily it could be changed, to either weaken or completely
> > change the sentiment. I have written several ambient instrumental or acapella
> > vocal pieces that I don't EVER want to hear some f*wit put a beat to. I have
> > listeners who would think I had totally lost my integrity as an artist if I
> > allowed that to happen. If I _was_ into the idea I would release the piece as
> > CC-BY-SA. We have to assume that anyone who has NOT freely licensed their
> > music has NOT given that permission.
> >
>
> Well, I would have to say that if you made something that someone found
> worthwhile of putting a beat too or remixing it in any way shape or form
> then you just have to accept that it's inevitable in this day and age.
>
> >> Art transforms over time through the application of skills and knowledge
> >> learnt. If we get precious about other artists incorporating our work
> >> then we are just trying to stop a natural process of evolution. From my
> >> POV that is absolutely 100% pointless.
> >
> > As an artist I love Dinosaurs and Dragons. I don't want them to evolve into
> > techno-lizards. If I did, I'd write Sci-Fi.
> >
>
> You can't stop evolution!!! Telling people they *can't* evolve your
> digital artwork is like a rag to a bull.
>
> >
> >> That way you can sue if the money is worth it and keep another industry
> >> ticking over too. Plus you get all the other benefits like being able to
> >> say your suing "XXX" for theft of your art work while your rubbing
> >> shoulders with lesser mortals at the next society event. And if you are
> >> really lucky the person you are suing will be there too and you can get
> >> really artistic and have a drunken fight or break something... I mean if
> >> you are going to have the airs of being and important artist you might
> >> as well revel in it... Right?
> >
> > Actually, most of the people on this list couldn't afford to start proceedings
> > in most cases. This is a bogus argument. I have had the experience of having
> > my work re-used, the title changed and my name not mentioned, taking legal
> > action would have achieved nothing, there was never any money in the
> > equation. Oh, possibly I could have used the situation to get some publicity
> > for myself, but it would not have resolved my self-indulgent sense of honour
> > and artistic integrity, which is what keeps me going as an artist. This is
> > probably all a bit touchy-feely for a hard nosed ideas pirate to understand.
> >
>
> That was your decision. If you are a sensitive artistic type that
> chooses not to have confrontation over your artwork that has very little
> to do with anyone else. Although there would be a case for saying that
> maybe you don't respect your work enough to have the passion to defend
> it... I'm not suggesting that but the person who ripped you off might
> get that impression and feel justified in taking advantage of you.
> There's also the camp which says there are only so many hours in a day
> so why waste energy on something that doesn't have financial gain...
>
> > Those of us who do spend our lives coming up with original tunes, words and
> > arrangements get quite used to watching other people make money from our
> > endeavours - The Security staff, PA and lighting crew always get paid, the
> > agents, distributors, venues and promoters usually take their cut and we walk
> > away with a bit of pocket money if we're lucky. I'm not talking about
> > abstract mythical music-biz scenarios that only take place in the big money
> > hype-driven media world, please consider the issue as it would apply to other
> > people on this list.
> >
> > Let me put it this way:
> >
> > Please don't ever remix my tunes unless I have explicitly licensed the piece
> > in a way that allows it.
> >
> > Because I'd be hurt and confused - if you don't respect an artists integrity
> > why would you WANT to use their work?
> >
>
> Well, the liklihood of me remixing a tune from anyone on this list
> without letting them know well in advance is pretty slim.
>
> But in my book any tune which I have...
>
> A: paid for
> B: Remixed live and found a way to either improve or modify it to make a
> new point
> C: found a sample that helps me to save time and money
>
> Is fair game and if I release it for money I will cover my own ass and
> make sure I get permission before doing so. If I release the remix for
> free, because I can, then I will get permission if I can be bothered.
> Otherwise it's up to the original artist to contact me if they don't
> like the situation.
>
> If that makes me a lesser person then I can live with that. I have
> plenty of so called enemies already so a few more ain't gonna make much
> difference.
>
>
> --
> Patrick Shirkey - Boost Hardware Ltd.
> http://www.boosthardware.com
> http://lau.linuxaudio.org - The Linux Audio Users guide
> ========================================
>
> "Anything your mind can see you can manifest physically, then it will
> become reality" - Macka B
>
>
Received on Thu Aug 24 00:15:01 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 24 2006 - 00:15:01 EEST