What the f**k is "acid jazz"...
JimValiant
Someone
http://www.cmd.uu.se/AcidJazz/FAQ/
"JimValiant" <jimva...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020310001740...@mb-fq.aol.com...
Jeremy Entin
There's obviously been a mistake because one has absolutely nothing to do
with the other.
Jeremy
"JimValiant" <jimva...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020310001740...@mb-fq.aol.com...
dave kelly
its just blue note soul jazz stuff from the 60's
they think it sounds cool to call it acid jazz
sell it to rave kids. whatever
Joe Castleman
> Can you tell me where you got a link between Jimmy Smith and Acid Jazz?
> There's obviously been a mistake because one has absolutely nothing to do
> with the other.
>
> Jeremy
I think "Acid Jazz" started out with DJs using old soul-jazz albums,
like Jimmy Smith, instead of the usual funk tracks such as James Brown.
I think the Us3 album on Blue Note is supposed to have been the big
breakthrough, although I imagine it had been going on a while before
that. I assume the "Acid" refers to the House music scene, and that
Acid Jazz grew out of it.
Later on Acid Jazz became more of an umbrella term to include hip-hop
with jazzy accompaniment (or, again, using old soul-jazz records) but
also 70s fusion such as Roy Ayers or "Sun Goddess." So a group like
Incognito, which doesn't sound much like Jimmy Smith at all, might also
get lumped in with Acid Jazz.
--Joe C
----
Joe Castleman
gyrofr...@gyrofrog.com (Use this address to reply; remove "OMIT")
Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.gyrofrog.com
Austin, Texas U.S.A.
JimValiant
>There's obviously been a mistake because one has absolutely nothing to do
>with the other.
>
>Jeremy
My point exactly. There is a series of CD's called LEGENDS OF ACID JAZZ, one of
which contains "Back At The Chicken Shack," which, as far as I knew, had
nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the hell "acid jazz" is! Now, having
read the FAQ someone posted, I see that I'm right. The FAQ revealed that people
passionate about this "acid jazz" cannot even agree on what it is, several of
them providing vague and conflicting descriptions. Whatever it is, the fact
that it seems to be modern dance music which relies on sampling blurbs of
legitimate jazz records of the '60's means that it has next to nothing to do
with jazz. It also doesn't make the records that are being sampled "acid jazz"
any more than a sampled blurb of the "Annie" soundtrack on a Jay-Z cut makes
"Annie" hip-hop! It's ridiculous. The fact that the record companies will
repackage this material yet again for a "Legends Of Acid Jazz" series
illustrates even further their legendary greed.
Rohan Parkes
rnast...@austin.rr.com says...
> "Jeremy Entin" <ent...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Can you tell me where you got a link between Jimmy Smith and Acid Jazz?
> > There's obviously been a mistake because one has absolutely nothing to do
> > with the other.
> >
> > Jeremy
>
> I think "Acid Jazz" started out with DJs using old soul-jazz albums,
> like Jimmy Smith, instead of the usual funk tracks such as James Brown.
> I think the Us3 album on Blue Note is supposed to have been the big
> breakthrough, although I imagine it had been going on a while before
> that. I assume the "Acid" refers to the House music scene, and that
> Acid Jazz grew out of it.
>
> Later on Acid Jazz became more of an umbrella term to include hip-hop
> with jazzy accompaniment (or, again, using old soul-jazz records) but
> also 70s fusion such as Roy Ayers or "Sun Goddess." So a group like
> Incognito, which doesn't sound much like Jimmy Smith at all, might also
> get lumped in with Acid Jazz.
I believe the term started out as just the name of an English dance
label. I interviewed the English band Cordurouy a few years ago, who
were on the label, and they played a sort of Meters-style funk.
After that, it looks like the phrase took of as a way of describing
artists who used hip-hop mixing techniques with soul-jazz albums (a
practice actively encouraged by Blue Note). Then it became another name
for soul jazz in general (much of which is getting re-issued under the
"Legends of Acid Jazz" series).
--
Rohan Parkes
Melbourne
Australia
Jeremy
> basically, its hip hop kid nonsense.
> its just blue note soul jazz stuff from the 60's
> they think it sounds cool to call it acid jazz
> sell it to rave kids. whatever
>
Well ar least this gives these rave kids a shot at being exposed to
some good jazz and will hopefully broaden their musical tastes. I
dont see any harm in that!
Jeremy
Jim Nelson
>
> The FAQ revealed that people
> passionate about this "acid jazz" cannot even agree on what it is, several of
> them providing vague and conflicting descriptions.
Good Lord!
Fortunately there's no debate over what constitutes mainstream jazz.
--
Jim Nelson
jim_n...@mindspring.com
Luke Kaven
sometimes the answer is that they started with Acid Jazz and ended up
at Smalls to explore the roots of the music. I'm not complaining.
ent...@hotmail.com (Jeremy) wrote in message news:<7fc9c488.02031...@posting.google.com>...
Marc Sabatella
> My point exactly. There is a series of CD's called LEGENDS OF ACID
JAZZ, one of
> which contains "Back At The Chicken Shack," which, as far as I knew,
had
> nothing whatsoever to do with whatever the hell "acid jazz" is!
It had nothing to do with acid jazz at the time, just the Elvis in the
50's had nothing to do with the Beatles, or Coleman Hawkins and Lester
Young in the 30's had nothing to do with Charlie Parker. Yet in each
case, the music of one greatly influenced the music of the other, to the
point where one can hardly imagine the later musician without the
earlier. But the relationship between Smith and acid jazz goes beyond
that. Every time you hear, say, David S. Ware, you may hear something
of Coltrane, even if in spirit only. But with acid jazz, it is often
the case that when you hear it, chances are not bad that you might
literally actually be hearing Smith in the mix, as he is example of the
type of artist most likely to be sampled. Smith may not be acid jazz on
his own, but it is ridiculous to claim there is no relationship between
the two. Without Smith, and others like him, there would have been no
acids jazz. That's a pretty strong relationship.
> The FAQ revealed that people
> passionate about this "acid jazz" cannot even agree on what it is,
several of
> them providing vague and conflicting descriptions.
True enough, and since I can take or leave it as a genre, my notion of
what it is or isn't is especially vague. But I know enough to recognize
how it can be seen as a natural outgrowth of the "soul jazz" of folks
like Smith. And the relationship of the genre itself to jazz is pretty
clear - it makes use of many of the same musical devices, not only
through the sampling, but also through the improvised solos that are
often graften on top of the grooves - or the improvisations performed by
the DJ's.
> It also doesn't make the records that are being sampled "acid jazz"
> any more than a sampled blurb of the "Annie" soundtrack on a Jay-Z cut
makes
> "Annie" hip-hop!
No, but if you found "Annie" and other soundtracks in that style being
sampled regularly by hip-hop artists, to the point where the sound of
those soundtracks was an integral part of the sound of hip-hop, it would
be equally fallacious to claim there was no relationship between the
two.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
JimValiant
>50's had nothing to do with the Beatles, or Coleman Hawkins and Lester
>Young in the 30's had nothing to do with Charlie Parker.
I would consider another repackaging of Coleman Hawkins' or Lester Young's
material under the title "Roots Of Charlie Parker" absolutely insulting. It
would be particularly so if it was in the interest of capitalizing on a Charlie
Parker craze that happened to be going on. It would be insulting to the artists
and to consumers (even though a Charlie Parker craze would be a celebration of
something artistically legitimatel that was, indeed, INFLUENCED by the former).
To repackage Jimmy Smith's stuff in celebration of, not its influence on, but
"usage" by, this other, completely different "art" form (a producer's/DJ's
medium, not a musician's) is BEYOND insulting. If it was a direct influence
upon the way some modern musicians were creating, that would be one thing. It
would then only be insulting to the consumers (the millionth repackaging of the
same old stuff, this time in a "Roots Of Something Else" series)- the same old
greedy record business bullshit. But to celebrate the sampling (theft) of this
music by modern day DJ's and producers (who have simply run out of JB and
P-Funk material to sample), who simply mix someone else's musical innovations
over dance beats, is ridiculous. So, Jimmy Smith is a "legend of acid jazz"
because his is some of the music currently being swiped and used as a backdrop
to dance club records by "artists" who are too lazy or untalented to come up
with their music? This acceptance of sampling as "art" is the musical
equivalent of the over-the-top "political correctness" that is sabotaging the
rest of life these days. It is not art. It is theft and it is bullshit. Period.
P.S. Of course, it's artistic theft only. The record companies love it. "Sample
our stuff and pay royalties... please! We love it!"
P.P.S. Pssst! Hey, D.J.'s! You're not musicians. You desperately want to be,
but you're not. I don't care how many records you can play and scratch at the
same time- you're not musicians!
Someone
the repacking of older music to help younger and less-knowledgeable
consumers identify a particular style of music in which they might be
interested indicates to me that you are making the proverbial mountain out
of a mole hill.
> It is not art. It is theft and it is bullshit. Period.
Didn't someone once say that all art is theft?
> P.P.S. Pssst! Hey, D.J.'s! You're not musicians. You desperately want to
be,
> but you're not. I don't care how many records you can play and scratch at
the
> same time- you're not musicians!
Which begs the question - what is a musician?
Here are three definitions swiped from the internet that suggest the djs are
in fact musicians of a kind.
--------
mu·si·cian (my-zshn)
n.
One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental
music.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[Middle English musicien, from Old French, from Latin msica, music. See
music.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
musician \Mu*si"cian\, n. [F. musicien.] One skilled in the art or science
of music; esp., a skilled singer, or performer on a musical instrument.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
musician n 1: someone who plays a musical instrument (as a profession) [syn:
instrumentalist, player] 2: composes or conducts music as a profession
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
BirdAndDizzyMonk
All I know is that Us3 and Digable Planets is a hip hop group who sample jazz.
That's it. What makes it acid? Or jazz? Went down the list and saw Jamiroquai
(who happens to be one of my favorite artists). How are they classified as acid
jazz? To me, and probably others, would think of Jamiroquai as Soul/R&B/Funk.
They don't sample anyone's music and are VERY original. I think they're one of
the bands who brings things back to the old school, pulling off that funky soul
style. And I suggest some of you listen to their material.
. I definitely agree with you in that sampling is DEFINITELY NOT ART! This is
a question for all of you reading this. What do you think about D.J.s? Because
I think it takes skill to be able to scratch, juggle beats on records...
improvising. Some of you are probably basing your opinions on mainstream hiphop
where people butcher things by sampling the hell out of them (especially that
damn Puff Daddy P. Diddy biter. I used to like that Sting song). That's why I
don't find hip hop nowadays creative. Now if you're talking 'turntablism', it's
a totally different game. They improvise, just as a jazz musician improvises.
It's something that you all gotta hear to know what I mean. I'll be looking
forward to your responses. Thanks for taking the time to read what I had to
say. ~Ray
Guy Berger
> But to celebrate the sampling (theft) of this
> music by modern day DJ's and producers (who have simply run out of JB and
> P-Funk material to sample), who simply mix someone else's musical innovations
> over dance beats, is ridiculous.
It is a mistake to reduce all sampling to "mixing someone else's
musical innovations over dance beats."
> This acceptance of sampling as "art" is the musical
> equivalent of the over-the-top "political correctness" that is sabotaging the
> rest of life these days. It is not art. It is theft and it is bullshit. Period.
Woah, if you really believe this you have some serious issues.
> P.P.S. Pssst! Hey, D.J.'s! You're not musicians. You desperately want to be,
> but you're not. I don't care how many records you can play and scratch at the
> same time- you're not musicians!
Why not?
Guy
np Art Blakey, _Meet you at the Jazz Corner..._
JimValiant
over-the-top "political correctness" that is sabotaging
>the rest of life these days. It is not art. It is theft and it is bullshit.
>Period.
>
> Woah, if you really believe this you have some serious issues.
No, quite the opposite- If you DON'T believe this you have issues. To not just
accept as O.K., but to praise as art, the recording of someone else's musical
creation and presentation of it as your own is ludicrous! What about literary
plagiarism- is that next? Are there going to be people wandering around
praising the practice of taking someone else's lyrics or poetry and presenting
it as one's own?
"Oh, man, that was a beautiful piece. What was that one part? I've heard that."
"Oh, I sampled Frost."
"Oh! cool, cool..."
Our generation just stands around and takes it up the ass from these hip-hop
idiots and the drooling music press (desperate to be associated with whatever's
new and hip), claiming that this sampling shit is art! The sickest thing about
it is that it's for synthetic dance music- probably the easiest thing in the
world to come up with backing tracks for. But, therein lies the irony: these
people can't come up with credible backing tracks for the easiest kind of music
in the world to do it for because they have NO TALENT!
If you make your own music, you're a musician- if you play other people's,
you're a D.J.!
P.S. Regarding these turntable guys- they're amazing athletes. It's interesting
that they put that amount of time into manipulating musicians' records when
they could have been learning to make their own music (and even, then, do with
it what they do to other people's music, thus creating something truly new!).
As it is, though, they are just first-rate novelties.
BirdAndDizzyMonk
changes of another song and putting your own melody to it? Or, quoting other
songs during solos? Is that not sampling? A lot of people does twelve bar
blues, does 'rhythm changes'. Everyone bites off of everyone but has their own
flavor. I think these 'turntable guys' and lyricists are as musical as any
other musician. Hip Hop is just as artistic. You're definition of hip hop has
probably been backed by MTV's Puffy and Jay-Z and all that rubbish. That's not
GOOD hip hop. They're like... I don't know. The Lawrence Welk of hip hop if you
will. There's so much more to than just the MTV you watch. You gotta quit
making these silly assumptions based on surface observations. It is clear that
you know nothing of hip hop and its roots. How about trying to listen with open
minds. That's what we all should do as musicians right? Much love and a heap a
respect. ~Ray
LAZZERINI
plagiarism
LAZZ
Tim Ellestad
JimValiant wrote in message <20020311205503...@mb-fs.aol.com>...
>
>P.P.S. Pssst! Hey, D.J.'s! You're not musicians. You desperately want to
be,
>but you're not. I don't care how many records you can play and scratch at
the
>same time- you're not musicians!
>
>
Yo! Say, what is it they're scratching anyway?
Heyko Gülicher
Jim, you're so strongly oppinionated that it's hard to stay calm ;-)
Being a fan of what Amos calls "Real Jazz" and Acid Jazz as well first
let me tell you that your view of the latter is too narrow. It might
be true that some Hip Hop-acts sampling Donald Byrd or the like
qualify as Acid Jazz, but in most cases what you describe isn't Acid
Jazz at all. As you already found out there isn't a definition that
really describes the music adequately, but you shouldn't blame the
music for that (after all the term "Jazz" itself is subject to many
definitions as well). I think there should be a broad consensus that
the following - among others - are Acid Jazz acts: Jamiroquai, Brand
New Heavies, Groove Collective, Liquid Soul. All of them have in
common that they use sampling (if at all) very sparingly. These are
highly creative groups that usually have a strong dance beat about
soulful and jazzy chord structures; the latter two frequently combine
that with imaginative jazz soloing. So before condemning all Acid Jazz
be aware that your generalization goes too far. And calling them
artistic thieves is downright insulting.
> If you make your own music, you're a musician- if you play other
people's,
> you're a D.J.!
Generally that might be true, but what about the technique of collage?
Heyko
--
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/318/dancing_fools.html
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/158/heyko_glicher.html
DeRayMi
<snip>
> What about literary
> plagiarism- is that next? Are there going to be people wandering around
> praising the practice of taking someone else's lyrics or poetry and presenting
> it as one's own?
>
> "Oh, man, that was a beautiful piece. What was that one part? I've heard that."
>
> "Oh, I sampled Frost."
>
> "Oh! cool, cool..."
<snip>
Actually, poets were doing this sort of thing long before hip-hop came
along. Take a look at T.S. Eliot's "Waste Land" (though he "samples"
less overtly in other works as well) or Ezra Pound's "Cantos." Of
course, you don't have to like it (and for the most part I don't like
"The Cantos"), but it has been done by poets considered major; and a
lot of current poets are very interested in taking pre-existing text
(whether from other literature, or more mundane sources) and
reassembling it, as you can see in an anthology like "From the Other
Side of the Century."
bkn...@conramp.net
:jimva...@aol.com (JimValiant) wrote in message news:<20020312023757...@mb-fd.aol.com>...
:
:<snip>
:
:> What about literary
:> plagiarism- is that next? Are there going to be people wandering around
:> praising the practice of taking someone else's lyrics or poetry and presenting
:> it as one's own?
:>
:> "Oh, man, that was a beautiful piece. What was that one part? I've heard that."
:>
:> "Oh, I sampled Frost."
:>
:> "Oh! cool, cool..."
:
:<snip>
:
:Actually, poets were doing this sort of thing long before hip-hop came
:along.
There's a world of difference between borrowing ideas, and actually taking
a recording of someone else's playing, sampling it, and using it as your
own work. No fine line here...it's simply theft.
bk
Guy Berger
> > This acceptance of sampling as "art" is the musical equivalent of the
> > over-the-top "political correctness" that is sabotaging
> > the rest of life these days. It is not art. It is theft and it is bullshit.
> > Period.
> >
> > Woah, if you really believe this you have some serious issues.
>
> No, quite the opposite- If you DON'T believe this you have issues.
If you are not capable of discussing this subject calmly and
rationally, then we might as well end this thread right now.
Before we continue, please clarify the moral difference between
sampling a piece of music and recording someone else's composition,
ceteris paribus.
> To not just
> accept as O.K., but to praise as art, the recording of someone else's musical
> creation and presentation of it as your own is ludicrous!
This is a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what sampling is.
I'm also not sure exactly how this phenomenon, which has existed for
at least hundreds of years, is leading to society's downfall. But
perhaps you will explain this in another post.
> What about literary plagiarism- is that next?
Plagiarism is the unauthorized, uncredited use of something as your
own. In 99% cases of sampling, this use is credited and implicitly
authorized by law.
> Are there going to be people wandering around
> praising the practice of taking someone else's lyrics or poetry and presenting
> it as one's own?
Straw man.
> Our generation just stands around and takes it up the ass from these hip-hop
> idiots and the drooling music press (desperate to be associated with whatever's
> new and hip), claiming that this sampling shit is art! The sickest thing about
> it is that it's for synthetic dance music- probably the easiest thing in the
> world to come up with backing tracks for.
Care to mention which "synthetic dance music" you have listened to?
> But, therein lies the irony: these
> people can't come up with credible backing tracks for the easiest kind of music
> in the world to do it for because they have NO TALENT!
Since you seem pretty unfamiliar with music that uses sampling
beyond that which you hear on the radio or MTV, I don't think you are
capable of assessing talent in this area.
> P.S. Regarding these turntable guys- they're amazing athletes. It's interesting
> that they put that amount of time into manipulating musicians' records when
> they could have been learning to make their own music (and even, then, do with
> it what they do to other people's music, thus creating something truly new!).
It's interesting that many jazz musicians put that amount of time
into playing instruments over standards when they could have been
learning to compose their own music.
Guy
Marc Sabatella
> Our generation just stands around and takes it up the ass from these
hip-hop
> idiots and the drooling music press (desperate to be associated with
whatever's
> new and hip), claiming that this sampling shit is art!
I can only assume you have never actually seen a good creative DJ
perform live. The transformations they perform on the samples can be
every bit as musical as any other performance. Sure, it is technology
that makes these transformations possible, but then, it is a different
piece of technology that made it possible for Jimmy Smith to play his
music as well.
> If you make your own music, you're a musician- if you play other
people's,
> you're a D.J.!
What about people who perform other people's music on their own
instruments?
Marc Sabatella
> There's a world of difference between borrowing ideas, and actually
taking
> a recording of someone else's playing, sampling it, and using it as
your
> own work. No fine line here...it's simply theft.
Only if credit is not given.
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> "Marc Sabatella" <ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
>> I can only assume you have never actually seen a good creative DJ
>> perform live. The transformations they perform on the samples can be
>> every bit as musical as any other performance. Sure, it is technology
>> that makes these transformations possible, but then, it is a different
>> piece of technology that made it possible for Jimmy Smith to play his
>> music as well.
Are you referring to those vinyl/turntable guys? I've seen a few of them,
I've never seen any do any transformations on samples, other than scratch
the record back and forth, and come up with some scratchy sounds. So, it's
a percussion instrument, right? Maybe you're referring to some other dj
technique that I'm not familiar with, like twisting filter knobs, perhaps?
I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but all the turntable guys
I've seen so far use it as a percussion instrument. To me, it doesn't seem
to be a particularly expressive instrument. But I'm open to being
convinced otherwise.
** The only good velocity-switch is an inaudible velocity-switch **
JimValiant
>perform live. The transformations they perform on the samples can be
>every bit as musical as any other performance.
Well, Marc, I have read numerous intelligent, insightful posts from you on
this board, and you are a legitimate musician with talent, so I'm going to
defer to you on this one. I guess there must be D.J.'s out there, that I
haven't seen, who skillfully mix pre-recorded sounds in such a way that the
sounds they are using don't stand alone and, thus, carry the song (make it what
it is), but, rather, act as building blocks, in the same way that notes on a
musical instrument are building blocks, to form a greater, completely unique
piece in the end. I have heard that this exists, but have, indeed, not seen it.
That is not to say, however, that my exposure to this stuff is as limited as
some people in this thread have claimed- that I've only heard MTV hip-hop. Had
I only heard that, I would not even be discussing this, because it goes without
saying that that stuff is useless. I consider hip-hop a completely valid art
form when thoughtful lyrics are delivered over original tracks played by real
musicians (The Roots, Rakim), but anyone who thinks that a "song" that consists
of a rap (one with nothing of substance) over a repeating '60's or '70's
backing track (which is, of course, what people like about the song- not
Puffy's or Will Smith's idiotic lyrics, but, rather, the Nile Rodgers or Stevie
Wonder track behind it) is art, is not even worth responding to.]
No, and I have seen D.J.'s perform at clubs and concerts (many "old school"
concerts I go to also feature early hip-hop acts, which are now "old school"
themselves) and have yet to see one (despite many impressive displays from a
performance standpoint) actually CREATE something. All the musical elements
used have been snippets large enough to be easily identifiable and have
provided all the highs themselves. I've never gotten a shiver from a greater
new whole created by the D.J.'s. I guess I just haven't seen a great one- one
who qualifies as an artist. Getting back to the original thrust of this,
though, I still find it absurd that every '60's jazz artist's greatest hits are
now being repackaged yet again, this time billed as "Legends Of Acid Jazz"!
Fabio Rojas
>Are you referring to those vinyl/turntable guys? I've seen a few of them,
>I've never seen any do any transformations on samples, other than scratch
>the record back and forth, and come up with some scratchy sounds. So, it's
>a percussion instrument, right? Maybe you're referring to some other dj
>technique that I'm not familiar with, like twisting filter knobs, perhaps?
>I'm perfectly willing to be convinced otherwise, but all the turntable guys
>I've seen so far use it as a percussion instrument. To me, it doesn't seem
>to be a particularly expressive instrument. But I'm open to being
>convinced otherwise.
Well, if you are truly open, then I'd recommend going to see the new
documentary "Scartch," which is about turntablism. Truly astounding.
Perhaps the best musical moment I've experienced so far this year was seeing
the section in Scratch where Mix Master Mike plays an old Robert Johnson
record, let's it play for about 20 seconds, and then takes the vinyl LP
and totally re-organizes the Johnson sample so that it clearly retains
the sound of an old blues records, but is a completely new peice of music.
It's hard to describe, but what he does is create a sound collage that
has its own rhythmic and sonic organiztion, just by playing the LP in reverse
and playing with the faders. I'd say from his performance that Mix Master
Mike probably has a better grasp on how blues is put together than 99%
of the people who post on this news group. Amazing stuff, really.
The movie really shows how turntablism has evolved from a bunch of guys
playing with their mom's records (1977), to a primitive language as demonstrated
in the famous "Rockit" track (1984) and then in 1990's to this highly
abstract music. After watching it, I can see how someone might not like
the music, but I can't understand how someone could not admit its originality
and authenticity as music.
Fabio
JimValiant
Huh? What is sampling but the decision to use as the constructive elements in
one's music (achieved by simply hitting "record") drum beats, musical phrases
(in some cases, entire progressions), and vocals (all of which contain not just
melody and rhythm, but the sonic qualities- tone, etc.- of the original
recordings) created by someone else rather than create your own? Period. How
else can one define sampling? No matter how much more or less interesting your
particular "collage" is than another guy's collage, it remains a collage of
other people's creations. Although criticism of this bullshit is scarily rare
for our generation, it IS out there. So, why don't these "artists" respond to
that criticism by demonstrating that they can do it another way? Some (ones who
really can compose and/or play something, but have been making dance records
out of samples because it's trendy, fun, easy, and profitable), probably have
responded with a record made of original tracks. Most, though, simply can not,
because they're NOT MUSICIANS.
> I'm also not sure exactly how this phenomenon, which has existed for
>at least hundreds of years...
Huh? Sampling has been going on for hundreds of years?
>...is leading to society's downfall.
Huh?! I simply equated the limp-wristed acceptance of it that hampers the
musical world to the limp-wristedness of the over-the-top "P.C." movement that
hampers other, non-musical elements of life. I did not suggest that sampling
was hurting anything other than music (and not just pop music, either- the low
rate of young kids, particularly black kids, learning to play instruments is
going to have disastrous ramifications for the next generation of all genres of
music. Thank god I've seen a couple R&B people, most notably Lauryn Hill,
playing some guitar lately!)
Someone
"JimValiant" <jimva...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020312183114...@mb-cp.aol.com...
Perhaps you could define "musician" for us. I'll give you a hand. Here are
three ripped from the internet:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
mu·si·cian (my-zshn)
n.
One who composes, conducts, or performs music, especially instrumental
music.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
[Middle English musicien, from Old French, from Latin msica, music. See
music.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
tim gueguen
"Luke Kaven" <ka...@rci.rutgers.edu> wrote in message
news:97bd222b.02031...@posting.google.com...
> Sometimes I ask kids who come to Smalls what brought them, and
> sometimes the answer is that they started with Acid Jazz and ended up
> at Smalls to explore the roots of the music. I'm not complaining.
>
Acid Jazz" would have remained in cutout bin limbo(to quote the late great
Clyde Gilmour) if not for the acid jazz kids using the material,
namechecking the artists etc.
tim gueguen 101867
DeRayMi
entire lines from foreign poets (Dante, Cavalcanti (sp?), Baudelaire)
translated or not, in "The Waste Land" or "Ash Wednesday", and Public
Enemy (you can see I'm really uptodate in my hip-hop listening), say,
taking a snippet from an Archie Shepp solo and turning it into a tape
loop, using it as one element in a much larger mix. There is literary
collage, there is visual collage; why not musical collage?
Luke Kaven
> Then, what do you gotta say about every other jazz musician taking chord
> changes of another song and putting your own melody to it? Or, quoting other
> songs during solos? Is that not sampling? A lot of people does twelve bar
> minds. That's what we all should do as musicians right? Much love and a heap a
> respect. ~Ray
Harry tells us that Diggable Planets and Most Def sampled him
wholesale without crediting or paying him. I remember when Harry was
in the hospital, and we thought we were going to lose him. He didn't
have money to meet his rent or pay his medical bills. This seems more
egregious to my moral intuitions than if they had just copped a riff
while playing their own instruments.
Luke
Dennis J. Kosterman
(BirdAndDizzyMonk) wrote:
>. I definitely agree with you in that sampling is DEFINITELY NOT ART! This is
>a question for all of you reading this. What do you think about D.J.s? Because
>I think it takes skill to be able to scratch, juggle beats on records...
>improvising.
I think DJs can be creative whether they're scratching or sampling. I
have heard some very creative use of sampling. There's more to it than
just using someone else's music as a backing track. A good sampler
will use bits and pieces of other people's music as building blocks to
make something new. As someone else has said, it's analogous to a
visual or verbal collage. You can be very creative in the way you
choose to rearrange the bits and pieces.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
Turntable scratching is, as you say, basically a form of percussion.
But they were talking about sampling, which is another thing
altogether. It involves taking recognizable bits and pieces of
recorded music and re-arranging them and/or transforming them and/or
using them as elements in a larger structure. Scratching and sampling
can be, and often are, combined, but they're really two different
things.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Joe Castleman
> What about literary plagiarism- is that next? Are there going to be
> people wandering around praising the practice of taking someone else's
> lyrics or poetry and presenting it as one's own?
Well, William Burroushs' cut-up technique does this to an extent, but I
believe Kathy Acker did it outright.
--Joe C
----
Joe Castleman
gyrofr...@gyrofrog.com (Use this address to reply; remove "OMIT")
Gyrofrog Communications -- http://www.gyrofrog.com
Austin, Texas U.S.A.
Mike C.
as an instrument. As a percussion instrument, if nothing else. What makes it
any worse than a drum? And I can see right in this example from Marc,
assuming that you've never actually seen a good creative DJ perform live.
Your answer seems to answer to the affirmative. I don't think that the
harmonica is a particularly expressive instrument, in comparison to a tenor
sax. However, Toots certainly plays it well.
Not thinking that the turntable is a particularly expressive instrument
doesn't make it not musical.
"SomeGuyOnTheInternet" <Som...@TheInternet.com> wrote in message
news:W2vj8.3224$a04....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
BirdAndDizzyMonk
where you probably saw it. Now about that Naut Humon character... he was a joke
right? Ha! ~Ray
Sorach Chanthongkaew
"Dennis J. Kosterman" <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:3c8eca4a...@news.tds.net...
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Fabio Rojas) wrote:
>> Well, if you are truly open, then I'd recommend going to see the new
>> documentary "Scartch," which is about turntablism. Truly astounding.
>> Perhaps the best musical moment I've experienced so far this year was seeing
>> the section in Scratch where Mix Master Mike plays an old Robert Johnson
>> record, let's it play for about 20 seconds, and then takes the vinyl LP
>> and totally re-organizes the Johnson sample so that it clearly retains
>> the sound of an old blues records, but is a completely new peice of music.
>> It's hard to describe, but what he does is create a sound collage that
>> has its own rhythmic and sonic organiztion, just by playing the LP in
>> reverse
>> and playing with the faders. I'd say from his performance that Mix Master
>> Mike probably has a better grasp on how blues is put together than 99%
>> of the people who post on this news group. Amazing stuff, really.
The best musical moment of your year? What else are you listening to???
Gee, he played it in reverse, huh? That's special.
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> den...@tds.net (Dennis J. Kosterman) wrote:
>> Turntable scratching is, as you say, basically a form of percussion.
>> But they were talking about sampling, which is another thing
>> altogether. It involves taking recognizable bits and pieces of
>> recorded music and re-arranging them and/or transforming them and/or
>> using them as elements in a larger structure. Scratching and sampling
>> can be, and often are, combined, but they're really two different
>> things.
I thought they were also talking about DJ's. DJ means disk jockey, right?
That's a guy that plays records, and CD's. Sampling is another story. I
know what a sampler is, I own a couple of them. Sampling is a very complex
issue, it's difficult and time-consuming to do. If you were going to do it
live, what instrument would they be using? I think if we are going to
discuss this with any seriousness, we would need to know what instrument
the 'D.J'. is using. A keyboard sampler? If not, then what, exactly? If
I know what instrument is being used for the sampling, then I could make a
more informed comment.
Fabio Rojas
In article <20020313003219...@mb-mf.news.cs.com>,
Fabio Rojas
it's pretty clear that he selected certain sections of the tracks, distorted
them (forward and backwards) and then arranged them in a new pattern.
Collage is a great word for it because it's like someone who takes scraps of
paper and then glues them together to make a new shape. This is a concept
in visual art that runs from kindergarten art class to 20th century surrealism.
Like visual collage, musical collage can be exciting, and I have listened
to much original music, and for me, that moment in the Scratch documentary
was extremely exciting. It sure beats some guy playing the same old
bebop changes again, or most of the stuff on the radio.
Fabio
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Fabio Rojas) wrote:
>> He did not just play it in reverse. If you actually listened to what he did,
>> it's pretty clear that he selected certain sections of the tracks, distorted
>> them (forward and backwards) and then arranged them in a new pattern.
>> Collage is a great word for it because it's like someone who takes scraps of
>> paper and then glues them together to make a new shape. This is a concept
>> in visual art that runs from kindergarten art class to 20th century
>> surrealism.
Did he do this sampling, cutting up and rearranging in real time, or was he
playing back a track that he had already assembled? If he was doing it in
real time, what tools was he using? Reason I ask is, you sort of implied
that he did this live, in real time, but maybe I misunderstood.
Fabio Rojas
Just some back and forth motions and clever use of the fader.
He didn't prerecord the routine, although it's obvious that he practiced
this sort of technique in order to get the effect.
Fabio
PS. Let me take this time to push "Wave Twisters" which is an entire
film that uses only the scratching/turntable language. See
www.wavetwsiters-themovie.com. It's animated, so it's like "Yellow
Submarine" for the turntabling set.
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Fabio Rojas) wrote:
>> He did it in real time. Just a guy with a single Robert Johnson LP.
>> Just some back and forth motions and clever use of the fader.
>> He didn't prerecord the routine, although it's obvious that he practiced
>> this sort of technique in order to get the effect.
Alright then, that's not sampling, it's turntable scratching, albeit
possibly more creatively done than rhythmicly scratching back and forth.
Still, it begs the question, if this guy's such a creative musician, why
doesn't he just learn to play a real instrument?
Fabio Rojas
>possibly more creatively done than rhythmicly scratching back and forth.
>
>Still, it begs the question, if this guy's such a creative musician, why
>doesn't he just learn to play a real instrument?
I think the real issue is that you seem to think that the music
comes from the instrument, not the person. At its most basic, music
is just organized sound, or equivalently, a musician is one who organizes
sound. I like Frank Zappa's definition of music: it's any sound that you
put in between the start point and the end point. You can produce
this sound in any way feel like. What makes great music is how your organize
the sounds, not so much the method you use to make the sound.
The way you produce those sounds is completely wide open. Some guys tie two
tiny bamboo slices together, vibrate them with the lips and blow the
sound into a hollow tube (the oboe). Others scratch strings together
(the violin) and others scratch flat pieces of plastic (the turntable).
Just because they use prerecorded sounds doesn't mean that they aren't
making new sounds, or that the sounds they make don't have some form
of organization. No one is obligated to like the sounds made from the
turntable, but it's just silly to tell these people to play a real instrument.
Because it aint't the instrument, it's the player that makes the music.
Fabio
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Fabio Rojas) wrote:
>> Just because they use prerecorded sounds doesn't mean that they aren't
>> making new sounds, or that the sounds they make don't have some form
>> of organization. No one is obligated to like the sounds made from the
>> turntable, but it's just silly to tell these people to play a real
>> instrument.
>> Because it aint't the instrument, it's the player that makes the music.
I agree totally with the above, but is it a viable instrument for for
playing melodies, for really making music on? Or is it a novelty
percussion instrument? The other instruments you mentioned, violin and
oboe have finger holes, or a fingerboard for playing notes. Can a
turntablist play a major scale? This is what I'm talking about. The
turntable is suitable as percussion instrument, and possibly a source of
"unusual sounds", or a way to play someone else's music, speed it up, slow
it down, play it backwards. And in the right context that could be
interesting. But if you're going to spend a lot of time learning an
instrument, why not learn one with a greater range of possibilities? Why
not learn some music theory, some arranging technique?
Fabio Rojas
you mentioned. Using the pitch bender, you can easily play a scale.
During sratching competitions, competitors will taunt each other
with melodies - kind of "can you play this" sort of thing. Since the
instrument isn't designed for melody playing, the challenges can be
interesting.
In the Scratch movie, they showed some turntablists who were using
a vinyl LP with the major scale on it. So yes, it can play a scale,
it can play a melody. Heck, it's probably a more generous instrument
than a violin, or most traditional instruments - the range of sounds
you can get is limited only by the LP's you use. Returning to the film,
there was an interesting section where they were showing some guys who
were pressing their own vinyl with specific sounds they generated
from a computer. Ie, while a trumpet has only one timbre, the turntable
has infinitely many timbres.
Is it sustainable? Well, people have been doing it from the 1970's
and it has evolved into a self-sustaining art form with its own conferences,
industry, super stars, how to videos, competitions, etc. So apparently
other people can use it to make musici. If it walks like a duck and
sounds like a duck, then its a duck!
Let me conclude by noting that all sorts of successful music has little
traditional melody - such as West African drum ensembles, some kinds
of all drum marching bands, various types of electronica (think AMM group),
etc. You focus on melody a lot, but I don't think that's the best way
to think about music. Music, honestly, is just sound. A lot of great
music has tons of melody, yet others lack it. So what?
Fabio
Dennis J. Kosterman
below. "birdanddizzymonk" did. I was responding to him, same as you
are. I'm perfectly willing to accept both sampling and photography as
art.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
Couldn't you make this same argument for any percussion instrument?
Why learn to play drums? Why not something with a greater range of
possibilities? For that matter, why learn to play trumpet or
saxophone? Those instruments can only play one note at a time! The
only "true" real instruments would be those like the guitar or piano
that can play melody and harmony simultaneously. Why waste your time
on anything less? If you extend this argument to its limit, the
turntable is the greatest instrument of all, because you have at your
disposal any sound that can be put on a record. The possibilities are
limitless!
If it's not obvious, much of the above is tongue-in-cheek, and I'll
admit that turntables and samplers are qualitatively different from
conventional instruments. But then so are mellotrons, synthesizers,
electronic organs, etc. I'm not sure where you would draw the line.
But I don't see why any of these things can't be used to make music. A
turntable or sampler is just a tool for producing sound, just like a
violin or a trumpet or a drum set. None of these tools can make music
by itself; any of them can be used by a musician to make music.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Mike C.
Additionally, if I make music that is comparable to Wes Montgomery using a
rubber band, doesn't that make me a great musician?
"Fabio Rojas" <f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
news:a6orp2$1tkl$1...@agate.berkeley.edu...
Dennis J. Kosterman
<rnast...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>jimva...@aol.com (JimValiant) wrote:
>> What about literary plagiarism- is that next? Are there going to be
>> people wandering around praising the practice of taking someone else's
>> lyrics or poetry and presenting it as one's own?
>Well, William Burroushs' cut-up technique does this to an extent, but I
>believe Kathy Acker did it outright.
Annie Dillard has a book of poems ("Mornings Like This: Found Poems")
that are entirely made up of phrases and sentences written by other
people. In her own words: "The poems are original poems; their themes
and their orderings are invented. Their sentences are not."
She has also written conventional poetry ("Tickets for a Prayer
Wheel"), a novel, and numerous nonfiction prose books, so "found
poetry" isn't all she does.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Mike C.
Charlie Christian solos note-for-note. Is that plagiarism? Making Wes "not a
musician"?
"Dennis J. Kosterman" <den...@tds.net> wrote in message
news:3c901e5c...@news.tds.net...
Joe Castleman
> Collage is a great word for it because it's like someone who takes scraps
> of paper and then glues them together to make a new shape. This is a concept
> in visual art that runs from kindergarten art class to 20th century
> surrealism.
> Like visual collage, musical collage can be exciting. . .
Here I should mention that "DJ," when used as a name e.g. DJ Shadow,
does not always mean "turntablist." In the case of DJ Shadow, I think
he did one piece which involved several hundred edits, I presume using
the computer-based equivalent of splicing tape. (Although, to be sure,
DJ Shadow is a DJ in the turntablist sense as well.)
Musical collage CAN be exciting, though I'm not really sure how it would
translate into a live, improvised setting (maybe I just need to go to
more shows where [and if] someone does this). "Turntabling" I guess is
one way to do it -- but I know there was a rock band, Mission of Burma,
which had a guy who did on-the-fly tape manipulations. However I've
seen electronic performances where the output was some sort of audio
collage and it was pretty boring, visually -- just two guys sitting
behind a workstation (for all I know they were just letting one tape
run). But if someone could pull it off, i.e. doing a collage
on-the-spot, the way traditional instrumentalists play in a jam session,
I'd think it would be pretty impressive.
--Joe C.
Fabio Rojas
>admit that turntables and samplers are qualitatively different from
>conventional instruments. But then so are mellotrons, synthesizers,
>electronic organs, etc. I'm not sure where you would draw the line.
>But I don't see why any of these things can't be used to make music. A
>turntable or sampler is just a tool for producing sound, just like a
>violin or a trumpet or a drum set. None of these tools can make music
>by itself; any of them can be used by a musician to make music.
> Dennis J. Kosterman
That was my whole point! An earlier poster wrote that he didn't think
that turntables/scratching/sampling was music because you couldn't play
scale. My point was that different instruments do different things,
and it's the musician's job to make the noise interesting. I did not
mean to imply that people should drop the trumpet and go to turntables
but merely that you can't diss the turntable because it you can't play
scales (which it most obviously can) or other arbitrary musical criteria.
Fabio
BirdAndDizzyMonk
not art. SAMPLING IS NOT ART... when you're Puff Daddy or Will Smith or any of
them cats who OVER sample their material. In no way do they do anything
artistic with their beats, taking the original and put some otherbeat over
it... or clever rhymes for that matter. ~Ray
Mike C.
It's all music. If one is rapping over a previously recorded groove, one is
still making music. The rhythmic variations in the lyrics/rap and the
re-arrangement of the groove is an artistic decision, whether it be by the
producer or by the rapper. By your definition, Bill Laswell's explorations
of Miles' music is not art, either. Maybe it's not totally original art,
because the tools being used are grooves and notes that were recorded by
someone else, but it's all art, and it's all creative. You can choose to not
like it, but it still falls under the definition of art and the definition
of music.
"BirdAndDizzyMonk" <birdandd...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20020314015713...@mb-dd.news.cs.com...
JimValiant
>Charlie Christian solos note-for-note. Is that plagiarism? Making Wes "not a
>musician"?
This is a foolish analogy. He had to learn to execute those solos and then,
when he did, they were delivered with his tone. It was his musical delivery of
the work of another composer. It is questionable art, that's for sure, as all
solo copying/cover version stuff is, but musicianship regardless. A "sampling"
poet (it enrages me to even type those words, it is so stupid), need not learn
to execute anything. It requires no skill to write down someone else's words,
just as it requires no skill to record someone else's music. Now, granted, if a
DJ, having sampled someone's music (parts small enough to be viewed only as
constructive materials- i.e notes or VERY short phrases- not parts large enough
that they, alone, provide the hooks) arranges it in such a way that it forms an
entirely original piece, I'll buy that as artistically valid. "Poetry" made up
of other people's SENTENCES is bullshit. It's bullshit, everybody knows it's
bullshit, YOU know it's bullshit, and you're arguing this bullshit for the sake
of arguing. At the very, very least, someone sad enough to believe that that is
legitimate art must concede that it is 3rd rate art, art that matches not the
ability to compose a poem made up of your OWN DAMN SENTENCES!
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> That was my whole point! An earlier poster wrote that he didn't think
>> that turntables/scratching/sampling was music because you couldn't play
>> scale. My point was that different instruments do different things,
>> and it's the musician's job to make the noise interesting. I did not
>> mean to imply that people should drop the trumpet and go to turntables
>> but merely that you can't diss the turntable because it you can't play
>> scales (which it most obviously can) or other arbitrary musical criteria.
My point wasn't to "diss" turntables because they can't play scales. I
agree it can be used as a musical instrument, but I was trying to point out
that it's a percussion instrument, a novelty percussion instrument. You're
arguing that it's something greater than that, that it's an instrument on
the same level as a violin (!). I disagree. To claim that a turntable can
play scales is stretching the truth. It is not a melodic instrument. It
could be forced into that role, but it's not a good fit. Try improvising
over Giant Steps on a turntable. (And I don't mean scratching a Giant
Steps record back and forth).
Mike C.
instrument "level", and then there can be an argument about violin vs.
turntable. Hip-hop listeners would laugh in exactly the opposite way: "this
guy thinks that violin is an instrument on the same level as
turntable/sampler/synth."
And what makes the turntable a novelty percussion instrument? Because it
hasn't been used as a percussion instrument for the length of time that the
timpani has? Percussion instrument is percussion instrument.
"SomeGuyOnTheInternet" <Som...@TheInternet.com> wrote in message
news:LI2k8.3509$a04....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
Fabio Rojas
it was invented, no one ever thought it would be an instrument of
any kind. However, you specifically say "novelty". What counts
as novelty? Why can't the turntable be on the same level as the
violin? The definition of "novelty" is new, which the turntables
certainly are. If you mean gimmicky, then that may have been true
almost thirty years ago when Africa Bambaataa first started doing it,
but right now its novelty has worn off and people have developed
a language for turn tables which is as rich as the language of any
instrument. A previous poster brought the example of the tablas,
the Indian drums. They can only play a few notes, but in the hands
of a master, they can produce great music. Same goes for the turntable.
While I'm on this topic, I've started to think that the turntable
is NOT a percussion instrument. I used to think it for a while,
but now I think that it's really in a category all by itself because
it's so weird. It's basically an instrument that was only made possible
by modern electronics and has its own logic.
Fabio
SomeGuyOnTheInternet
>> f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Fabio Rojas) wrote:
>> I agree that the turntable is not a melodic instrument, heck, when
>> it was invented, no one ever thought it would be an instrument of
>> any kind. However, you specifically say "novelty". What counts
>> as novelty? Why can't the turntable be on the same level as the
>> violin? The definition of "novelty" is new, which the turntables
>> certainly are. If you mean gimmicky, then that may have been true
>> almost thirty years ago when Africa Bambaataa first started doing it,
>> but right now its novelty has worn off and people have developed
>> a language for turn tables which is as rich as the language of any
>> instrument. A previous poster brought the example of the tablas,
>> the Indian drums. They can only play a few notes, but in the hands
>> of a master, they can produce great music. Same goes for the turntable.
Whether they have a language as rich as that of any other instrument is of
course highly debatable, so let's leave it that. I remain open to the
possibility of same, but have yet to hear anything that even begins to
convince me of the truth of that statement. Just my opinion at this time.
Thirty years from now, go back and listen to the turntable music, and then
see if you still think the same way. Of course, I probably won't be alive
to hear the answer by then, but that's another story!
Vincent Kargatis
> Whether they have a language as rich as that of any other instrument is of
> course highly debatable, so let's leave it that. I remain open to the
> possibility of same, but have yet to hear anything that even begins to
> convince me of the truth of that statement. Just my opinion at this time.
Assuming this is referring to turntables, I must ask - have you heard
Christian Marclay, Martin Tertreault, or Otomo Yoshihide playing turntables?
If not, then you should only continue talk about turntablism after you have.
Though the caveat is these performances are all fairly avant-garde...
--
Vincent Kargatis
np: Yasuhiro Otani - "Music for 50 iMacs" (Improvised Music From Japan ..)
JimValiant
>guy thinks that violin is an instrument on the same level as
>turntable/sampler/synth."
I think this statement speaks for itself! Yes, we agree. The same complete lack
of musical knowledge/lack of regard for the work of real musicians that fuels
their decision to steal rather than create would also yield this conclusion! We
agree. Congratulations- you've successfully ended this debate by making
everyone else's point!
Adam Bravo
"JimValiant" <jimva...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020314181149...@mb-mc.aol.com...
Dennis J. Kosterman
> ... A "sampling"
>poet (it enrages me to even type those words, it is so stupid), need not learn
>to execute anything. It requires no skill to write down someone else's words,
>just as it requires no skill to record someone else's music. Now, granted, if a
>DJ, having sampled someone's music (parts small enough to be viewed only as
>constructive materials- i.e notes or VERY short phrases- not parts large enough
>that they, alone, provide the hooks) arranges it in such a way that it forms an
>entirely original piece, I'll buy that as artistically valid. "Poetry" made up
>of other people's SENTENCES is bullshit. It's bullshit, everybody knows it's
>bullshit, YOU know it's bullshit, and you're arguing this bullshit for the sake
>of arguing. At the very, very least, someone sad enough to believe that that is
>legitimate art must concede that it is 3rd rate art, art that matches not the
>ability to compose a poem made up of your OWN DAMN SENTENCES!
I believe this is a response to my post about Annie Dillard, and no, I
don't "know it's bullshit". Annie Dillard isn't some hack. She's a
better writer than you or I could ever hope to be, and has
demonstrated that with 9 or 10 "conventional" books. For this one
book, she chose to use the "found sentences" technique --
successfully, in my opinion. She still had to rearrange the "found
sentences" in a way that both makes sense and fits her chosen
theme(s). This certainly would take skill.
I definitely do not "concede that it is 3rd rate art". I think that,
in the hands of an artist (and I have no doubt that Annie Dillard
qualifies), it's a perfectly valid technique. Perhaps you should read
the poems (the book is called "Mornings Like This") before judging
them.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Mike C.
one of these constituents with complete lack of musical knowledge. What is
your musical knowledge? Play an instrument? Able to quote "Giant Steps"
changes? Know the definition of music? How about this: The organization of
sound in time. Ever check out a Japanese Koto drums show? Not exactly
violins, but it's certainly music. Don't bother us with quoting "everyone
else's point". Try asking some of those other people before you decide what
their opinion is.
"JimValiant" <jimva...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020314181149...@mb-mc.aol.com...
Marc Sabatella
> Are you referring to those vinyl/turntable guys? I've seen a few of
them,
> I've never seen any do any transformations on samples, other than
scratch
> the record back and forth, and come up with some scratchy sounds.
The tranformations I refer to include things like isolating a particular
sample, stretching or compressing it to change its tempo, adding any of
various effects, layering it other selected samples, introducing new
rhythmic elements either through scratching, other electronic
processing, or the effects that result from laerying two samples of
different lengths. And yes, this kind of stuff is done in real time.
It's really quite amazing to hear, I think.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Marc Sabatella
> Well, Marc, I have read numerous intelligent, insightful posts from
you on
> this board, and you are a legitimate musician with talent, so I'm
going to
> defer to you on this one. I guess there must be D.J.'s out there, that
I
> haven't seen, who skillfully mix pre-recorded sounds in such a way
that the
> sounds they are using don't stand alone and, thus, carry the song
(make it what
> it is), but, rather, act as building blocks, in the same way that
notes on a
> musical instrument are building blocks, to form a greater, completely
unique
> piece in the end. I have heard that this exists, but have, indeed, not
seen it.
Well, I appreciate your consideration of my views. To be honest, I
haven't seen it often either. The first time was when some guy walked
into a store where I was teaching and wanted to try out some of the DJ
equipment they sold. I was sufficiently impressed to no longer doubt
the potential musicality in this activity. However, I am quite sure
that there are a large number of people *not* doing creative things with
it - just as the vast majority of saxophonists are not doing creative
things with their instruments.
Curtis Plumb
Fabio Rojas wrote:
>
> The way you produce those sounds is completely wide open. Some guys tie two
> tiny bamboo slices together, vibrate them with the lips and blow the
> sound into a hollow tube (the oboe). Others scratch strings together
> (the violin) and others scratch flat pieces of plastic (the turntable).
>
>
> Fabio
So when I pass wind, if I am able to sustain a tone (or two or three), then
I may describe the resulting sounds as art, since "The way you produce
those sounds is completely wide open." By this standard, how is a tune
sung by Sarah Vaughan (coming from a different orifice) any more music
than my offering?
Fabio Rojas
Yes, that would be music. It would certainly qualify as art, albeit
maybe uninteresting, or offensive art. Take the following example:
there is an episode of Monty Python where one the actors whacks
a bunch of mice with large mallets. Since the mice are different sizes,
they squeal at different pitches. The audience is offended, and so
is the viewer. But you have to admit it's music, and its creative,
although it is certainly cruel and inhumane. It's funny (no real
mice are involved - it's just TV) because we recognize that
music can come from just about any source. Same wit your example,
it's music - and art.
How about Sarah Vaughn and your example? It's not too hard to see that they
are both music, but that Sarah Vaughn can do things with here voice that
almost nobody (I hope) can do with their rear. She can convey emotion
with her phrasing or timbre, she has at least three solid octavces
of notes, etc. Ie, just because you recognize something is music,
doesn't mean that imply that it's skillful or good, merely that it's
a somewhat coherent organization of sond with some, perhaps minimal,
rhythmic, harmonic or melodic concept, often as expression of what
the person feels. That doesn't mean it's good, which is another matter
entirely.
Returning to turntables, it is way above the minimal definition of music.
Even turntablisms strongest detracts concede that the music is highly
rhythmic, and can be sonicaly interesting due to the use of faders,
distortion devices, creative selection of samples, etc. I think what
the big deal is that turntablists do not employ traditional melodies
in their music for the most part, so it is similar to highly percussive
musics. For a lot of people, that is a big problem.
Another issue that many people brought up is that turntablists use
pre-recorded music. If they did nothing but play the records, then they
would be identical to radio DJ's. But turntabling can be creative.
the most basic creative use of pre-recorded music is simply to
create strings of exciting or pleasant music by switching back and forth
between records. To do this without sounding to hokey is a minor skill
and is the first thing you have to learn in turntabling. The next step
is to distort a sample from a record by playing with various sound
control devices, and then to get a decent "wikka-wikka-wikka" sound
by pushing the LP back and forth. The next step is to create
music by a) playing two records at once, b) manipulating the sounds
by the back and forth technique, c) using the faders/filters/etc
and d) jumping back and forth between records By this point, the
total musical expression is *very* far from what is to be found on the
original LP's, and is creative under almost any definition of the
word.
Fabio
Tom Walls
says...
snip
But turntabling can be creative.
> the most basic creative use of pre-recorded music is simply to
> create strings of exciting or pleasant music by switching back and forth
> between records. To do this without sounding to hokey is a minor skill
> and is the first thing you have to learn in turntabling. The next step
> is to distort a sample from a record by playing with various sound
> control devices, and then to get a decent "wikka-wikka-wikka" sound
> by pushing the LP back and forth. The next step is to create
> music by a) playing two records at once, b) manipulating the sounds
> by the back and forth technique, c) using the faders/filters/etc
> and d) jumping back and forth between records By this point, the
> total musical expression is *very* far from what is to be found on the
> original LP's, and is creative under almost any definition of the
> word.
> Fabio
>
But in assessing the nature of the creation, I suppose it's up to the
observer to describe it as either "creative" or "mundane".
--
Tom Walls
the guy at the Temple of Zeus
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/zeus/
Curtis Plumb
are able to paint, carve, hum, make sand castles and keep a
beat with their toes. Doesn't this destroy the definition of art?
If so much of what we do is "artistic," how does one decide
to describe himself as an artist? What meaning does it have?
Fabio Rojas
>In article <a6t2nq$1klr$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>says...
>snip
>> Fabio
>But in assessing the nature of the creation, I suppose it's up to the
>observer to describe it as either "creative" or "mundane".
Of course that's true, but I am trying to provide evidence that
turntabling has moved beyond gimmicky and has developed an extensive
sonic language. That's an empirical question that I can provide evidence
for or against. Creativity vs. mundane is a question of judgement, which
I won't try to argue.
The arguments for/against scratch music/turntable/DJ'ing, etc, seem
to boil down to the following
1) It's not "creative"
2) It's not expressive
3) It's primitive compared to (fill in your preferred instrument)
4) Sampling is not original music
IMO, "creative" is something each person has to judge for themselves.
Expressive is something you can argue about. Turntablists are able to
communicate to each other through their medium, and for me, that's
a sign of expressivity of the medium. The argument that it's
primitive/"not up to the level" of other instruments seems extremely
wrong in view of how turntablism has developed in the last 25 years - there
are so many techniques, so many sounds that I can't imagine how
someone could argue it was "not up to the level" of some other instruments.
Finally,the issue of whether "sampling" is "original music" or even music.
As I noted in an earlier post, there's a continuum of sampling. But what
most DJ's do is distrort the sample, which by definition creates a new sounds.
So that would count as new music, although it may be good/bad/boring/etc.
Fabio
Fabio Rojas
>So, in your view, everyone is an artist, to the extent that they
>are able to paint, carve, hum, make sand castles and keep a
>beat with their toes. Doesn't this destroy the definition of art?
>If so much of what we do is "artistic," how does one decide
>to describe himself as an artist? What meaning does it have?
Yes, but remember that we have adjectives - there are good artists,
bad artists, sloppy artists, original artists, abstract artists, etc.
My perspective is that the activity of art is so broad, so flexible
that it's really not constructive to point to some type of activity -
such playing flatted 9th's - and just say "it's not art"!
What I think is useful is to criticize particular examples of art, and
I'm all for that. So for example, I'll take myself. I consider myself
an amateur musician. I play the trumpet, but not very well. I often
"clam" notes above the high A, and my bebop phrasing is quite weak.
I'm also very derivative of other trumpet players. That's making
a substantive, honest statement about somebody's art without going
into hysterics like "Fabio could never make real art!" or "no trumpet
player could ever reach the heights of the saxophone in jazz!"
When it comes to turntabling, I'd apply the same standard. The very early
stuff is primitive art. The earliest guys only had a few sounds, and
it's not too interesting. The breakthrough for many people was DXT's
performance on Herbie Hancock's "Rockit." On that track, DXT actually
plays a genuine solo, and it's a text book example of what makes a good
solo. He starts with a simple theme, then repeats it, the alters it,
formulates a response and then returns to the solo's theme. Since then,
people have totally developed the instrument and I'd even say that it's
abstract music.
Fabio
Walter Davis
Actually, you would be ripping off La Petomaine
(http://wind777.freeyellow.com/), a turn-of-the-century French
"vaudevillian" who reportedly could fart tunes and also apparently had a
rather impressive display of fart-lighting. This sort of ripping off of
other artists would reduce you to the unartistic level of evil samplers
who fart Jimmy Smith all day long.
Walter Davis
>
> Fabio Rojas wrote:
>
> > Collage is a great word for it because it's like someone who takes scraps
> > of paper and then glues them together to make a new shape. This is a concept
> > in visual art that runs from kindergarten art class to 20th century
> > surrealism.
> > Like visual collage, musical collage can be exciting. . .
>
> Here I should mention that "DJ," when used as a name e.g. DJ Shadow,
> does not always mean "turntablist." In the case of DJ Shadow, I think
> he did one piece which involved several hundred edits, I presume using
> the computer-based equivalent of splicing tape. (Although, to be sure,
> DJ Shadow is a DJ in the turntablist sense as well.)
>
> Musical collage CAN be exciting, though I'm not really sure how it would
> translate into a live, improvised setting (maybe I just need to go to
> more shows where [and if] someone does this). "Turntabling" I guess is
> one way to do it -- but I know there was a rock band, Mission of Burma,
> which had a guy who did on-the-fly tape manipulations.
This sort of thing happens all the time now. Check out just about any
cd on the Erstwhile label or the live recording of John Butcher and Phil
Durrant on Wobbly Rail. Or catch Ellery Eskelin's trio with Andrea
Parkins and Jim Black when Andrea's in a particularly feisty mood (or
listen to the cd Green Bermudas). Or catch the Chicago Underground Duo
live for a much jazzier take.
There's tons of electronic improv going on out there, though not all of
it includes live sampling/manipulation. And little of it is jazzy
enough for the tastes of most of the folks around here.
Curtis Plumb
Fabio Rojas wrote:
> Curtis Plumb <ero...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> >So, in your view, everyone is an artist, to the extent that they
> >are able to paint, carve, hum, make sand castles and keep a
> >beat with their toes. Doesn't this destroy the definition of art?
> >If so much of what we do is "artistic," how does one decide
> >to describe himself as an artist? What meaning does it have?
>
> Yes, but remember that we have adjectives - there are good artists,
> bad artists, sloppy artists, original artists, abstract artists, etc.
> My perspective is that the activity of art is so broad, so flexible
> that it's really not constructive to point to some type of activity -
> such playing flatted 9th's - and just say "it's not art"!
>
> What I think is useful is to criticize particular examples of art, and
> I'm all for that. So for example, I'll take myself. I consider myself
> an amateur musician. I play the trumpet, but not very well. I often
> "clam" notes above the high A, and my bebop phrasing is quite weak.
> I'm also very derivative of other trumpet players. That's making
> a substantive, honest statement about somebody's art without going
> into hysterics like "Fabio could never make real art!" or "no trumpet
> player could ever reach the heights of the saxophone in jazz!"
>
>
> Fabio
It appears to me that you do not have a definition for the word "art."
Without that, how do you expect to communicate? By accepting
your opinion that art is "so broad, so flexible," I would have to give
credence to the neighbor's boast that his 5 year old daughter, a
piano abuser of the first water, is expressing her herself by randomly
pounding the keys, and is, therefore, an "artist." Nu?
What do you make of this quote from Ruby Braff: "Jazz is not
exclusively a young man's music. It's in the first 25 years that you
learn how to play your horn." (From Nat Hentoff in Jazz Times,
April 2002.) Somewhere between your first lessons and today,
you became an artist. But, with your outlook, you were always
an artist. Do you see how the word loses any meaning?
Curt
Dennis J. Kosterman
Rojas) wrote:
>Another issue that many people brought up is that turntablists use
>pre-recorded music. If they did nothing but play the records, then they
>would be identical to radio DJ's.
I would say that even radio DJs who do nothing but play the records
can be creative: in their choice of which records to play, in how they
sequence the records, and in how they segue (whether directly or by
providing commentary) from one tune to the next. Anyone who has ever
heard a good DJ (unconstrained by "program direction") in action knows
what I mean. Unfortunately, such DJs are mostly only found on college
stations these days. Most commercial DJs are told what to play and
when to play it.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>So, in your view, everyone is an artist, to the extent that they
>are able to paint, carve, hum, make sand castles and keep a
>beat with their toes. Doesn't this destroy the definition of art?
>If so much of what we do is "artistic," how does one decide
>to describe himself as an artist? What meaning does it have?
I think you're arguing "at right angles" here. Some people have more
artistic talent than others. It takes an artist to create art. Not all
music is art. And I don't think Fabio or anyone else here is disputing
any of that. They're not saying that every sound that anyone makes is
equivalent to a Mozart symphony or a Charlie Parker solo.
All they're saying is that, if you are an artist -- if you have some
talent and something to say --then it doesn't matter much which
instrument you use. What's so offensive about that? How do you get
from "it's possible to create art with a turntable" to "everything is
art"??? You're arguing against a much more extravagant claim than
anyone is actually making.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
JimValiant
>>would be identical to radio DJ's.
>I would say that even radio DJs who do nothing but play the records
>can be creative: in their choice of which records to play, in how they
>sequence the records...
Absolutely. Definitely artists. The radio station's 3rd shift clean-up crew:
same deal. They can wipe down the console with lemon or pine fragrance, empty
the wastepaper baskets directly into the dumpster or combine them first in a
larger bag...there are endless creative possibilities, for they, like all, are
artists.
Marc Sabatella
three), then
> >I may describe the resulting sounds as art, since "The way you
produce
> >those sounds is completely wide open." By this standard, how is a
tune
> >sung by Sarah Vaughan (coming from a different orifice) any more
music
> >than my offering?
It should seem obvious that not all singing is considered great art.
it's what you *do* with your voice that determines the issue. And I
suppose the same could be said of any other bodily noises.
Curtis Plumb
He disagrees with that. If you read his responses, he maintains
that any man-made sound (not even a musical note) is music,
and, furthermore, is art. I rose to dispute that, and you seem
to agree. There are no right angles that I can see.
Fabio's response to the fart as music example:
"Yes, that would be music. It would certainly qualify as art, albeit
maybe uninteresting, or offensive art. Take the following example:
there is an episode of Monty Python where one the actors whacks
a bunch of mice with large mallets. Since the mice are different sizes,
they squeal at different pitches. The audience is offended, and so
is the viewer. But you have to admit it's music, and its creative,
although it is certainly cruel and inhumane. It's funny (no real
mice are involved - it's just TV) because we recognize that
music can come from just about any source. Same wit your example,
it's music - and art.
"How about Sarah Vaughan and your example? It's not too hard to see that
they
are both music, but that Sarah Vaughan can do things with here voice that
almost nobody (I hope) can do with their rear. She can convey emotion
with her phrasing or timbre, she has at least three solid octaves
of notes, etc. I.e., just because you recognize something is music,
doesn't mean that imply that it's skillful or good, merely that it's
a somewhat coherent organization of sound with some, perhaps minimal,
rhythmic, harmonic or melodic concept, often as expression of what
the person feels. That doesn't mean it's good, which is another matter
entirely."
Note: I took the liberty of correcting the spelling of Sarah's last name.
Fabio Rojas
definition, which is simply the manipulation of a medium (sound,
painting, words, etc) that allows the manipulator some expresion.
And yes, your neighbor's daughter is doing art, albeit probably
not with much skill. Notice that the world did not come to an end
just because I said she was doing art. No one died, Bird didn't
back to the dead and Wynton didn't start praising Albert Ayler.
What is so darn wrong in admitting that a whole lot of stuff is art?
Being flexible about art has many advantages. It allows you to
be open to the possibilites of new art that you haven't heard of yet.
It also allows you to be constructively critical of art - you recognize
the validity of an activity, but still recognize that it's execution or
conception is poor. That's way more useful, I think, than pointing
you finger as screaming - "that's not art!!!"
Curtis Plumb <ero...@adelphia.net> wrote:
>It appears to me that you do not have a definition for the word "art."
>Without that, how do you expect to communicate? By accepting
>your opinion that art is "so broad, so flexible," I would have to give
>credence to the neighbor's boast that his 5 year old daughter, a
>piano abuser of the first water, is expressing her herself by randomly
>pounding the keys, and is, therefore, an "artist." Nu?
I don't think the word has lost its meaning at all. For example,
it differentiates between those who attempt expression and those
who don't attempt to do anything. The time I took my first lesson,
I was certainly doing art, just very, very badly. What's wrong
with saying that? The word still usefully connotes the I was doing
something creative. Should I go into every music class for beginners
and scream: "Hello, people. NONE OF YOU ARE ARTISTS!!" That's just
silly.
As far as the Braff quotes goes, I am in total agreement. People grow
their whole lives, and studies of creativity show (see Galeson's
recent book on the great painters) that people frequently peak
late in their lives.
I think the hang up we often have is that the artists we remember
the best are the truly great artists, but we often forget that
such artistic heights are made possible by thousands, if not millions,
of truly bad or mediocre artsists. By the time Louis Armstring
picked his horn as a kid, thousands of people had already played blues,
ragtimes and other music, sometimes extremely badly. So in out minds,
"artist" become connoted with high quality, instead of the activity
in general. I think that's a mistake.
Fabio
Fabio Rojas
>Well, then, please explain to Fabio that "not all music is art."
>He disagrees with that. If you read his responses, he maintains
>that any man-made sound (not even a musical note) is music,
>and, furthermore, is art. I rose to dispute that, and you seem
>to agree. There are no right angles that I can see.
>
Not all man made sounds. For example, a car alarm is not art, although
its clearly man made. It has to be someone's expression. If someone
said to themselves, "Ahh, I will intentionally set of this car alarm
becuase I find it expresses myself," and then set it off, it
would be a very annoying, very painful peice of music. So for me:
organized sound + expression = music
and
art = organized expression + some medium (words, sounds, paint, ect)
I think the real issue is that many people subscribe to:
music = skillful/complex/good + organized sound + expression.
or
music = lots of melody/Western harmony/etc + organized sound.
I disagree with each of these, and find them to be misleading defintions.
Fabio
Bobby Knight
Rojas) wrote:
<clip>
> For example, a car alarm is not art, although
>its clearly man made. It has to be someone's expression. If someone
>said to themselves, "Ahh, I will intentionally set of this car alarm
>becuase I find it expresses myself," and then set it off, it
>would be a very annoying, very painful peice of music. So for me:
>
>organized sound + expression = music
Sorta like flatulence, huh? For me: that fits in the same category as
acid jazz.
bk
Fabio Rojas
>>can be creative: in their choice of which records to play, in how they
>>sequence the records...
>
>Absolutely. Definitely artists. The radio station's 3rd shift clean-up crew:
>same deal. They can wipe down the console with lemon or pine fragrance, empty
>the wastepaper baskets directly into the dumpster or combine them first in a
>larger bag...there are endless creative possibilities, for they, like all, are
YES! YES! THAT'S the spirit!!!!! You can find creativity and beauty anywhere!!
In your honor, I officially inaugurate the Rec.Music.Bluenote Award for
Radio Station Sanitation Excellence. Send your nominations today.
Fabio
PS. Seriously, radio DJ's can be creative, too. Have you ever thought
that's a strange song that follows the last one, and that you really
enjoyed the combination? That's creative. Get a grip, buddy, cretivity
is everywhere!
Someone
"Curtis Plumb" <ero...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:3C923412...@adelphia.net...
> So, in your view, everyone is an artist, to the extent that they
> are able to paint, carve, hum, make sand castles and keep a
> beat with their toes.
Yes, everyone is an artist! That's the beauty of life. We all create
something.
Richard Thurston
wrote:
I suppose.
But then not everyone is necessarily a good artist.
On the other hand if everyone is an artist, then perhaps it follows no
one is.
Richard Thurston
Fabio Rojas
>On the other hand if everyone is an artist, then perhaps it follows no
>one is.
>Richard Thurston
That doesn't follow - we never said everyone was an artist, just those
people being creative. Just like anybody can be a parent - but it doesn't
come automatically, you have to do the work. Similarly, not everyone is
a good parent.
Fabio
Curtis Plumb
Fabio Rojas wrote:
There's Fabio's faulty premise. Creativity does not imply artistry.
Dennis J. Kosterman
Not the same thing at all, and you know it. If you want to have a
logical argument, I'll be happy to participate. If you just want to be
an asshole, you can do it alone.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Fabio Rojas
>Fabio Rojas wrote:
>> That doesn't follow - we never said everyone was an artist, just those
>> people being creative. Just like anybody can be a parent - but it doesn't
>> come automatically, you have to do the work. Similarly, not everyone is
>> a good parent.
>> Fabio
>There's Fabio's faulty premise. Creativity does not imply artistry.
I think we're at a point where we are simply using different definitions.
My guess is that "artistry" for you means "skillfull" or "good," which
is the common usage of the term. When I was using the word art "art"
I only mean expressive activity. What you mean by good art you denote
"artistry," while I simply call it good art.
We're definitely at a point of nitpicking, but the reason I'm continuing
is that for a lot of people art= whatever I like, which is what people
are implying when they say "rap/turntabling/jazz/classical/Kenny G is not
art." my opinion is that such expressions are nothing more than personal
taste disguised with high sounding words.
Fabio
Richard Thurston
The post by 'Someone' I responded to did in fact say 'yes, everyone is an artist'.
Richard Thurston
JimValiant
>logical argument, I'll be happy to participate. If you just want to be
>an asshole, you can do it alone.
I wish Usenet discussions could properly convey emotion, the way that live
discussions do. All we have to work with are capital letters and exclamation
marks to convey emphasis and things are always misconstrued. I participate in a
newsgroup music discussion with a smile on my face. I'm never mad or being an
"asshole" and, if the person(s) and I were talking face-to-face, that would be
completely obvious. I'll try to make my point, sometimes being silly, but it's
all completely light-hearted and every statement has an asterick next to it
that says:
*Music, of course, is completely subjective and we're just having fun here!*
So, anyway, put me in the "wide-open mind" category and, meanwhile, I'll
tackle (all in fun) a few things I think we've gotten a little too liberal on,
like sampling, which is BULLSHIT! (just kidding) (not really).
Dennis J. Kosterman
Perhaps I overreacted. But your position seems overly
"all-or-nothing". When I claim that a DJ can be creative, I'm not
saying that he/she is creative on the same level as Mozart or Charlie
Parker. But it's certainly on a higher level than the people who clean
the studio (your example). You seem to be saying that if you're not
Charlie Parker, you're not creative at all. Or that if your chosen
instrument is a sampler instead of a saxophone, you can't be creative
at all. And I'm not buying that.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net
Michael Leahy
doing is scratching. I had the questionable honour of webcasting a 10-day
Techno/Drum'n'bass/House festival in Ghent two years ago. We could argue
about the aesthetics, but in the right hands a turntable can be used in a
totally musical manner. The craftier DJs were using 3 or 4 tables, plus
occasionally a rhythm machine and even a sampler. The result was a
tightly-woven soundscape of considerable texture - and all that on a 4/4
beat.
Michael
Mike C. <Funki...@MSN.com> a écrit dans le message :
zf3k8.28791$ia.53...@typhoon.ne.ipsvc.net...
> What is this level thing? Give me a clear, concise, absolute definition of
> instrument "level", and then there can be an argument about violin vs.
> turntable. Hip-hop listeners would laugh in exactly the opposite way:
"this
> guy thinks that violin is an instrument on the same level as
> turntable/sampler/synth."
>
> And what makes the turntable a novelty percussion instrument? Because it
> hasn't been used as a percussion instrument for the length of time that
the
> timpani has? Percussion instrument is percussion instrument.
>
> "SomeGuyOnTheInternet" <Som...@TheInternet.com> wrote in message
> news:LI2k8.3509$a04....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
> > >> In article <a6pa6r$2c2m$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>,
> > >> f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU (Fabio Rojas) wrote:
> > >> That was my whole point! An earlier poster wrote that he didn't
think
> > >> that turntables/scratching/sampling was music because you couldn't
> play
> > >> scale. My point was that different instruments do different things,
> > >> and it's the musician's job to make the noise interesting. I did not
> > >> mean to imply that people should drop the trumpet and go to
turntables
> > >> but merely that you can't diss the turntable because it you can't
play
> > >> scales (which it most obviously can) or other arbitrary musical
> criteria.
> >
> > My point wasn't to "diss" turntables because they can't play scales. I
> > agree it can be used as a musical instrument, but I was trying to point
> out
> > that it's a percussion instrument, a novelty percussion instrument.
> You're
> > arguing that it's something greater than that, that it's an instrument
on
> > the same level as a violin (!). I disagree. To claim that a turntable
> can
> > play scales is stretching the truth. It is not a melodic instrument.
It
> > could be forced into that role, but it's not a good fit. Try
improvising
> > over Giant Steps on a turntable. (And I don't mean scratching a Giant
> > Steps record back and forth).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ** The only good velocity-switch is an inaudible velocity-switch **
>
>
void
<f...@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU> wrote:
> I agree that the turntable is not a melodic instrument, heck, when
> it was invented, no one ever thought it would be an instrument of
> any kind. However, you specifically say "novelty". What counts
> as novelty?
Saxophone. It will never be a serious instrument.
--
Ben (good thing too, seriousness can be so dull)
"An art scene of delight
I created this to be ..." -- Sun Ra
void
> are able to paint, carve, hum, make sand castles and keep a
> If so much of what we do is "artistic," how does one decide
> to describe himself as an artist? What meaning does it have?
There's artists and there's professional artists. Music is a big part
of who I am, and I make music. So I am a musician. Am I a full-time
musician, or a great musician? Certainly not.
I have never seen any evidence that art is inherently exclusive as
opposed to inclusive, and much evidence to the contrary. For example,
even a minor work may evoke aesthetic enjoyment, even in a person of
refined tastes.
--
Ben