*** BAAAAD NEWS for artists who sample (RIAA=suckage) ***
Bat
(Brian MacDonald) wrote:
> So much for a fine summer of 1998...
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:20:56 -0700
> From: peter conheim
> To: bri...@kuci.org
> Subject: Fair Use: the big chill?
>
> Amazingly bad news has just come down the pike that I thought worth
> mentioning here. It would appear that the R.I.A.A. (the dreaded
> Recording Industry Association of America, they who wanted a blank
> tape tax, among other things) has rather recently begun their latest
> Major Crackdown on "piracy", this time on "uncleared" samples - and
> the target is pressing plants.
Ya know, this entire RIAA thing is a load of fucking crap. If anyone
deserves to be burnt to the ground, it's these people and not because of
what you might think. While talented artists who reshape and re-form sound
into new ideas, there are those stupid fucking retards who blatently
sample riffs from very obvious sources and then rap over them about
nothing more then the size of their very puny cock and very deflated ego.
You'll notice the RIAA will skip over these types of talentless fucks.
Why? Because the people in THAT scene would cap their asses.
RIAA will die by their own hippocrasy or by their own stupidity.
Labels and bands can wipe their own asses thank you. We don't need some
stupid money hungry committe to pretend to have authority bestowed upon
them only by themselves to no means then to fatten their own and larger
label's pockets.
Great, a fucking musical police state. Go fuck youself RIAA.
Bat
An ASCAP member, former BMI member, and RIAA opposer from the start. I
didn't even sign the DAT tape tax bill and in fact sent BMI (who I was
with at the time) a very long and nasty letter regarding this...
It went basically like this.
The entire theory of this DAT/cassette/CD tax is flawed seriously. You
see, the tax is divided up amongst those artists in the world who are
registered with BMI/ASCAP, etc... BUT it's divided up and spread out in a
pyramid fashion in that the top selling artists are on the top and
everyone else at the bottom.
So do the fucking math assholes... who do you think thought of this stupid
tax law in the first place. I'll fucking name them:
Michael Jackson, Barry Manilow, Elton John, Barbara Streisand, Billy Joel,
Willie Nelson, etc... You see, these people will see 99% of this money and
could never record another fart in their life.
So who's really making bank off this? All the artists that everyone
already has 10000 copies of already and all the other artists that really
need the money never see a fucking dime.
Am I bitter? You fucking bet. Ego, Greed and Stupidity is what makes up
99% of the music industry today.
--
The CyberDen http://www.cyberden.com/
Digital Wings CD is now out! http://www.cyberden.com/digital
House Of Usher http://www.cyberden.com/usher
Custom Music and Sound Design http://www.cyberden.com/ic
*** LEGAL NOTICE: All parties involved in sending any spam to any
account at the cyberden.com domain will be fined $500 per item.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B),(b)(1)(C),(b)(3)(C).
Brian MacDonald
So much for a fine summer of 1998...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:20:56 -0700
From: peter conheim
To: bri...@kuci.org
Subject: Fair Use: the big chill?
Amazingly bad news has just come down the pike that I thought worth
mentioning here. It would appear that the R.I.A.A. (the dreaded
Recording Industry Association of America, they who wanted a blank
tape tax, among other things) has rather recently begun their latest
Major Crackdown on "piracy", this time on "uncleared" samples - and
the target is pressing plants.
We were informed yesterday by our manufacturer for years of releases
that they were refusing to manufacture the new Negativland OVER THE
EDGE disc due to a Pink Floyd sample that they detected within which
we had not cleared. Trying to explain that this was a radio show with
lots of sources mixed in was obviously a failure and rather suddenly
our production schedule ground to a halt...but that's only part of the
story. Through this incident, we learned of an industry-wide R.I.A.A.
clampdown.
Apparently, they've declared war on this heinous form of piracy by not
only citing disc manufacturers $100,000 per supposed infraction, but
by presenting new guidelines stating, among other things, that a
pressing plant possessing an item in question (and I emphasize IN
QUESTION) must turn over that item and all master parts to the
R.I.A.A. for "investigation". In other words, it's no longer the case
that a LABEL is solely responsible for its "content": the pressing
plants are both the new cops _and_ the new victims. Pressing plants
are actually LISTENING to the masters they get and looking for
ringers! It had previously seemed very hard to imagine some staff
person at a pressing plant sitting in front of a CD player, finger on
the scan button, searching for unauthorized reproductions. It's
happening. The R.I.A.A. has positioned itself as judge and jury. The
ramifications for this are rather enormous.
We immediately learned of several other releases by various labels
around the country who have suddenly had their pressings refused by
different makers (this is by no means exclusive to our
manufacturer...we learned of huge fines being levelled at other
plants). In one case, a CD was refused that was to be a not-for-sale
short-run for club DJ's only.
The R.I.A.A. is basically a corporate watchdog for the Big Six
mega-companies (Time Warner, et al) in the US. They are being
extremely vague about just what "guidelines" they have instituted,
which they expect to be complied with, are. My friend Steve (who was
on the committee which helped fund SONIC OUTLAWS) remarked something
to the effect of, "what AUTHORITY does the RIAA really have? They're
not the state, and a pressing plant might not necessarily be paying
them dues or considering them in any way, so what right do they have
to dictate manufacturing?" And if he's on-the-money here, WHY
shouldn't plants be telling them to fuck off or butt out?? He also
questioned how they could enforce payment of a fine.
Naturally, everyone is immediately thinking the same thing: taking it
BACK into the home studio is such the logical choice. Big problems,
though: CD-R's are delicate. Accelerated aging tests have shown that
they don't retain their information indefinitely, and more to the
point, they are very sensitive to heat and light. And also to
touching the top layer (with a sticker or some sort of writing) is
risky. AND there are compatibility issues with them: evidentally they
have trouble being read by some CD players (www.fadden.com is a great
resource for CD-R FAQ).
In any case, on the level of mass replication, this will very likely
have a huge effect on the entire found/recycled music culture should
the R.I.A.A.'s Big Brother tactics not abate soon. At the very least,
very close to home, the new Negativland release and the ENTIRE back
catalog is now completely up in the air. We think we've found a plant
to handle the current release but we have no idea if it will actually
go through or not! Who would have touched DISPEPSI under
circumstances like these??
P C
on behalf of NEGATIVLAND
==================================================================
Brian MacDonald <bri...@kuci.org>
KUCI 88.9 fM in Irvine, CA -- Orange County
"I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ
in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this."
-- Emo Phillips
==================================================================
name
>In article <pltw1.186$lM3.2...@news.intelenet.net>, bri...@kuci.uci.edu
>(Brian MacDonald) wrote:
>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:20:56 -0700
>> From: peter conheim
>> To: bri...@kuci.org
>> Subject: Fair Use: the big chill?
>>
>> Amazingly bad news has just come down the pike that I thought worth
>Am I bitter? You fucking bet. Ego, Greed and Stupidity is what makes up
>99% of the music industry today.
>
How can one find out more about the RIAA? This doesn't seem right
and I'd like to educate before forming any opinions.
Thanks,
-name
hope raudive (just enough to annoy you)
wrote:
>what you might think. While talented artists who reshape and re-form sound
>into new ideas, there are those stupid fucking retards who blatently
>sample riffs from very obvious sources and then rap over them about
>nothing more then the size of their very puny cock and very deflated ego.
>You'll notice the RIAA will skip over these types of talentless fucks.
>Why? Because the people in THAT scene would cap their asses.
Why? Because the people in THAT scene, backed by big-time lawyers and
major label dollars, can quickly and easily get their samples cleared
and properly credited. They aren't doing anything illegal.
hope
|
esir | r a u d i v e v o i c e s
eveile | http://members.tripod.com/~raudive (temporary home)
etaer | featuring lyrics and soundclips from
eviece __\|/__ the upcoming full-length release
amen /|\ a . v i r o u s . d e v i c e
|
Stig Mathausen
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:01:45 -0800, dontspa...@cyberden.com (Bat)
> wrote:
>
> >what you might think. While talented artists who reshape and re-form sound
> >into new ideas, there are those stupid fucking retards who blatently
> >sample riffs from very obvious sources and then rap over them about
> >nothing more then the size of their very puny cock and very deflated ego.
> >You'll notice the RIAA will skip over these types of talentless fucks.
> >Why? Because the people in THAT scene would cap their asses.
>
> Why? Because the people in THAT scene, backed by big-time lawyers and
> major label dollars, can quickly and easily get their samples cleared
> and properly credited. They aren't doing anything illegal.
>
...and besides, Death Row types aside, none of those guys would have the balls/
truly pissy attitude to "cap" anyone. Don't forget that, for ex., the
ur-gangstas NWA were all nice middle class boys who made up a story about their
record label being started by drug profits to cover the fact it was really
founded via loans arranged by their (white) manager.
__________
- Advertisment -
tension hook online: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/tropica
The slowly-evolving homesite of Alberta's finest Ottawa-based noise project
Tanner/Thine Eyes
>
> On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:01:45 -0800, dontspa...@cyberden.com (Bat)
> wrote:
>
> >what you might think. While talented artists who reshape and re-form sound
> >into new ideas, there are those stupid fucking retards who blatently
> >sample riffs from very obvious sources and then rap over them about
> >nothing more then the size of their very puny cock and very deflated ego.
> >You'll notice the RIAA will skip over these types of talentless fucks.
> >Why? Because the people in THAT scene would cap their asses.
That's a blatantly dismissive and racist generalization. Don't forget
that besides Negativland's U2 case, the majority of high-profile
sampling/un-licensed appropriation cases have involved rap artists,
contrary to this assertion. The most famous appropriation cases of the
past decade involved 2 Live Crew and Biz Markie. Nobody got "capped."
> Why? Because the people in THAT scene, backed by big-time lawyers and
> major label dollars, can quickly and easily get their samples cleared
> and properly credited. They aren't doing anything illegal.
Correct. The so-called "retards" at least have learned that they need to
protect themselves from the limitations of the law, an unfortunate
necessity. Our law, though well-meaning, doesn't allow for the artful
re-construction or collage of existing works. The only sure way to
protect yourself from a lawsuit is to clear every sample. Sad but true.
Don Muerte
>
> How can one find out more about the RIAA? This doesn't seem right
> and I'd like to educate before forming any opinions.
http://www.riaa.org
--
Live long and prosper,
- 'Coffee'
* ICQ: 5378217 *
-- Have your mind tingled and receive --
-- unlimited pleasure: --
-- 'n3ur0c0r3.cach3' --
-- http://members.aol.com/xbaconbitz/dragons.html --
** Dive: http://members.aol.com/tl7705/ **
Geir Hongro
--
Geir Hongro
******************************************************
Beatles,Beach Boys,Hollies,Byrds,Tamla Motown,Paul
Simon,Genesis,Yes,Pink Floyd,10cc,Queen,ELO,Bob Marley,
Marillion,Split Enz,Madness,XTC,Squeeze,Aztec Camera,
Prefab Sprout,Scritti Politti,Gangway,Depeche Mode,
Human League,OMD,Yazoo,Erasure,Cure,Prince,Lightning
Seeds,Crowded House,Dodgy,Blur,Oasis,Radiohead,Kula
Shaker,Supernaturals,Super Furry Animals,Orbital
*******************************************************
Norwegian: http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/
English: http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/andnow.htm
Adam Glover
Geir Hongro wrote in message <6pvkq8$4v7$1...@news1.sol.no>...
>Good news for those of us who appreciate originally composed music.
And then they responded "Just like most Britpop, of course". I
bet *nobody* saw that coming.
I think hangups about originality in general are silly, every
musician has influences.
--
Adam Glover, kool...@interlog.com
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
WWSWD - What Would Scott Weiland Do?
np: The Posies - Amazing Disgrace
james
merely quoted...
>"Good news for those of us who appreciate originally composed >music.
H. West
dontspa...@cyberden.com says...
< In article <pltw1.186$lM3.2...@news.intelenet.net>, bri...@kuci.uci.edu
< (Brian MacDonald) wrote:
<
< > So much for a fine summer of 1998...
< >
< > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
< > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 17:20:56 -0700
< > From: peter conheim
< > To: bri...@kuci.org
< > Subject: Fair Use: the big chill?
< >
< > Amazingly bad news has just come down the pike that I thought worth
< > Recording Industry Association of America, they who wanted a blank
< > tape tax, among other things) has rather recently begun their latest
< > Major Crackdown on "piracy", this time on "uncleared" samples - and
< > the target is pressing plants.
<
< deserves to be burnt to the ground, it's these people and not because of
< into new ideas, there are those stupid fucking retards who blatently
< sample riffs from very obvious sources and then rap over them about
< nothing more then the size of their very puny cock and very deflated ego.
< You'll notice the RIAA will skip over these types of talentless fucks.
< Why? Because the people in THAT scene would cap their asses.
Actually, it's because those people got permission and paid royalties for the
samples.
But they would cap their asses.
Floyd Diebel
>
>"Adam Glover" <kool...@interlog.com> wrote:
>>I bet *nobody* was expecting this response from Geir ...
>
>
>Britpop musicians are sure really influenced by various kinds of music, but whenever
>they write a song there is always a NEW song within the same old style. The people
>who base their music on samples do not seem to want to provide the songbooks and
>classic radio stations of tomorrow with anything new at all, and that is what I don't
>like about them.
WTF?
-----
fdi...@boulez.emrl.com
a/v composition and engineering.
Geir Hongro
>I bet *nobody* was expecting this response from Geir ...
>
>
>bet *nobody* saw that coming.
>
>I think hangups about originality in general are silly, every
>musician has influences.
I am very for influences, but I am very against using an exact same thing over again.
Britpop musicians are sure really influenced by various kinds of music, but whenever
they write a song there is always a NEW song within the same old style. The people
who base their music on samples do not seem to want to provide the songbooks and
classic radio stations of tomorrow with anything new at all, and that is what I don't
like about them.
I want new songs withing existing styles, not new styles.
--
Geir Hongro
******************************************************
Beatles,Beach Boys,Hollies,Byrds,Tamla Motown,Paul
Simon,Genesis,Yes,Pink Floyd,10cc,Queen,ELO,Bob Marley,
Marillion,Split Enz,Madness,XTC,Squeeze,Aztec Camera,
Prefab Sprout,Scritti Politti,Gangway,Depeche Mode,
Human League,OMD,Yazoo,Erasure,Cure,Prince,Lightning
Seeds,Crowded House,Dodgy,Blur,Oasis,Radiohead,Kula
Shaker,Supernaturals,Super Furry Animals,Orbital
*******************************************************
Ben
> I want new songs withing existing styles, not new styles.
>
Are you serious? Imagine if blues had never evolved into new styles and
just stayed in its existing style. Wow we wouldve missed out on rock,
R&B, country, metal, techno, rap and any other sort of 'modern' music I
can think of...
Bat
> hope raudive (just enough to annoy you) wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 31 Jul 1998 23:01:45 -0800, dontspa...@cyberden.com (Bat)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >what you might think. While talented artists who reshape and re-form sound
> > >into new ideas, there are those stupid fucking retards who blatently
> > >sample riffs from very obvious sources and then rap over them about
> > >nothing more then the size of their very puny cock and very deflated ego.
> > >You'll notice the RIAA will skip over these types of talentless fucks.
> > >Why? Because the people in THAT scene would cap their asses.
> >
> > Why? Because the people in THAT scene, backed by big-time lawyers and
> > major label dollars, can quickly and easily get their samples cleared
> > and properly credited. They aren't doing anything illegal.
> >
>
> ...and besides, Death Row types aside, none of those guys would have the
balls/
> truly pissy attitude to "cap" anyone. Don't forget that, for ex., the
> ur-gangstas NWA were all nice middle class boys who made up a story
about their
> record label being started by drug profits to cover the fact it was really
> founded via loans arranged by their (white) manager
"Cap" can mean many things. But of course, it's so easy for artists in the
industrial and gothic scene to get the $$,$$$.$$ required to hire a lawyer
and clear samples for a song that is monumentally better then 99% of most
the other crap that is put out by worthless rip-off artists.
Stig Mathausen
>
> "Adam Glover" <kool...@interlog.com> wrote:..
> >
> >Geir Hongro wrote in message <6pvkq8$4v7$1...@news1.sol.no>...
> >>Good news for those of us who appreciate originally composed music.
> >
> >And then they responded "Just like most Britpop, of course". I
> >bet *nobody* saw that coming.
> >
> >I think hangups about originality in general are silly, every
> >musician has influences.
>
> I am very for influences, but I am very against using an exact same thing over again.
>
> Britpop musicians are sure really influenced by various kinds of music, but whenever
> they write a song there is always a NEW song within the same old style. The people
> who base their music on samples do not seem to want to provide the songbooks and
> classic radio stations of tomorrow with anything new at all, and that is what I don't
> like about them.
>
People always try and equate stylistic similarities and riff copying with sampling, which
is truly silly IMHO - although I do believe that certain chord sequences are so overused
that they should be declared public domain and their use should lead to deductions in
songwriting royalties. It overlooks the most basic fact that the person(s) being sampled
have a right to renumeration because of their direct contribution to the new work being
created, esp if said contribution is critical to the structure of the new track. Damn
right if some businessman like Puff Daddy made a few mil on a track which substantially
used a sample of mine I'd sue his ass off.
Having said that, I certainly believe in "fair use" guidelines - lord knows if I put out
some of my unreleased noisework pop-folks from Tori Amos to Ride could get on my case for
certain of my loop-cut up tracks. These guidelines can be a nightmare to deliniate - what
constitutes unfair expropriation or overuse of a sample track's "Defining
"chararcteristics", for ex. - but if anyone believes in returns for labour (something
common to commies and suits) the effort's gonna have to be made.
J. Mcglinchey
> I want new songs withing existing styles, not new styles.
LOL! Geir, you outdo yourself every time... :)
Joe M.
U of Washington
Daniel McKernan
Geir Hongro wrote in message <6pvkq8$4v7$1...@news1.sol.no>...
>Good news for those of us who appreciate originally composed music.
>
>Simon,Genesis,Yes,Pink Floyd,10cc,Queen,ELO,Bob Marley,
>Marillion,Split Enz,Madness,XTC,Squeeze,Aztec Camera,
>Prefab Sprout,Scritti Politti,Gangway,Depeche Mode,
>Human League,OMD,Yazoo,Erasure,Cure,Prince,Lightning
>Seeds,Crowded House,Dodgy,Blur,Oasis,Radiohead,Kula
>Shaker,Supernaturals,Super Furry Animals,Orbital
You don't think any of those bands have ever used samples?
Daniel
--
http://www.gothic.net/~wilt/
Geir Hongro
>>
>> I want new songs withing existing styles, not new styles.
>>
>
>
>just stayed in its existing style. Wow we wouldve missed out on rock,
>R&B, country, metal, techno, rap and any other sort of 'modern' music I
>can think of...
In that case blues should never have involved in itself. At that time rock really
NEEDED something new, to provide it with something more melodic and harmonic. But
after, say, 1985 all new styles have been steps in the wrong direction (that is: less
melodic and less harmonic).
--
Geir Hongro
******************************************************
Beatles,Beach Boys,Hollies,Byrds,Tamla Motown,Paul
Simon,Genesis,Yes,Pink Floyd,10cc,Queen,ELO,Bob Marley,
Marillion,Split Enz,Madness,XTC,Squeeze,Aztec Camera,
Prefab Sprout,Scritti Politti,Gangway,Depeche Mode,
Human League,OMD,Yazoo,Erasure,Cure,Prince,Lightning
Seeds,Crowded House,Dodgy,Blur,Oasis,Radiohead,Kula
Shaker,Supernaturals,Super Furry Animals,Orbital
Geir Hongro
>People always try and equate stylistic similarities and riff copying with sampling, which
>is truly silly IMHO - although I do believe that certain chord sequences are so overused
>that they should be declared public domain and their use should lead to deductions in
>songwriting royalties.
There is only ONE overused chord structure. It was overused already in the late 40s
and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music though.
Geir Hongro
>So do the fucking math assholes... who do you think thought of this stupid
>tax law in the first place. I'll fucking name them:
>
>Michael Jackson, Barry Manilow, Elton John, Barbara Streisand, Billy Joel,
>Willie Nelson, etc... You see, these people will see 99% of this money and
>could never record another fart in their life.
So who has been sampling Manilow, Streisand, Joel and Nelson?
skag...@pathcom.com
> Good news for those of us who appreciate originally composed music.
Fuck you're daft, aren't you? People who use samples are composing new
works. What do you think the Beatles were doing when they used carnival
music samples? Hint: sampling. Even if one agreed to go along with the
idiotic thesis that a song created with/using samples was not
"originally composed music," the issue of the RIAA's actions would have
no impact whatsoever upon those who did create "originally composed
music," and therefore could not be construed as "good news". If you're
going to waste bandwith with a one-liner, at least have the good manners
to employ some element of logic, ok?
Cameron Lewis
6q2nfs$q31$1...@news1.sol.no...
>Stig Mathausen <trop...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
>>People always try and equate stylistic similarities and riff copying with
sampling, which
>>is truly silly IMHO - although I do believe that certain chord sequences
are so overused
>>that they should be declared public domain and their use should lead to
deductions in
>>songwriting royalties.
>
>There is only ONE overused chord structure. It was overused already in the
late 40s
>and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
>
>People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
>
>There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music
though.
Here's an example: Oasis. Name two of their songs that don't sound the
bloody same. ;P
-Cam
TIMOTHY GUEGUEN
: Ben <ben.goo...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
: >>
: >> I want new songs withing existing styles, not new styles.
: >>
: >
: >
: >Are you serious? Imagine if blues had never evolved into new styles and
: >just stayed in its existing style. Wow we wouldve missed out on rock,
: >R&B, country, metal, techno, rap and any other sort of 'modern' music I
: >can think of...
: In that case blues should never have involved in itself. At that time rock really
: NEEDED something new, to provide it with something more melodic and harmonic. But
: after, say, 1985 all new styles have been steps in the wrong direction (that is: less
: melodic and less harmonic).
A rather silly statement, given that there is no, and in fact cannot be,
general agreement on what constitutes a move in the "wrong direction" in
regards to music.
tim gueguen 101867
Gondola Bob
> There is only ONE overused chord structure. It was overused already in
the late 40s
> and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
>
> People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
>
> There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music though.
This is a *particularly* stupid post, Geir. Even for you.
So, I guess this means that any blues-based music which DOESN'T use the
exact progression above is fine with you, right? You know, I wonder if your
detested Led Zeppelin has ONE song with this exact sequence....
GB
H. West
The problem with this argument is that you're overstating his overstatement. The
composition is new, but if you're using a sample it's not as new as it could be.
If these regulations work, music will be more original since you'll be using all
original elements instead of creating an original song from existing sounds. Of
course it won't improve quality or creativity, but even the most generic EBM
song would be less original if it was comprised of a bunch of samples, and more
original if it isn't.
--
мм мм мм мм ммммммммммм мммммммммммм мммммммммммм
АГллл АААААГллл ААААГллл АААААГллл ллВБАААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл ллВБААААААБВл А
АГлВл АААААГллл ААААГлВл АААААГллл лВллпплпплпл лВллппллпплпп пплпппппппплл А
ГлБл Гллл ГлБл Гллл лБлп п л п лБлп пл п п ллл пл А
АГлАл АААААГллл ААААГлАл АААААГллл лАл АААА п АГлБл АА л АААААААААГллл АА л А
АГлАлммммммммммм АААГлАл АААААГллл лАлммммммммм лВл мммммммм ААААГллл АА А
АГлААААААААААБВл АААГлАл АААААГллл лААААААААБВл ллл ллллллллл ААААГллл АААААА
БГлАллплпллппппп БББГлАл БББББГллл лАлппллппплп пл ллппппллл ББББГллл ББББББ
ВГлАл п лГллл ВВВВГлАл ВВВВВГллл лАл л В ВВ л л ВВГллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
лГлАл ллл пГллл ллллГлАл ммм ллл лАл л лллллл л ммлллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
лГлАл лллллГллл ммм лБлллплллм пл лАл ллллллллллмммлллллГллл ллллГллл лллллл
ВГлБл ВВВВВГллл ллВл лВВл лппл п лБл мммммммм ммммммммммллл ВВВВГллл ВВВВВВ
БГлВл БББББГллл лллл лллп Б п пл лВл лллллллл ллллллллллллл ББББГллл ББББББ
Б лпл БББББ плл пплл плл ББББББ лл плл пппппллп ппллпппплпплл ББББ плл ББББББ
А л л ААААА пл пл пл АААААА л пл АААА пл АА пл АА п пл ААААА пл АААААА
л л л л л л п л л л
л л л л л л л л
еЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭИ
кСФФФФФ Ф Ф Ф Ф ФФСП
ГолВБА H. WEST 1998 АБВлнГ
РТФФ Ф Ф Ф Ф ФФФФФТй
дЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭЭО
H. West
< Stig Mathausen <trop...@istar.ca> wrote:
<
< >People always try and equate stylistic similarities and riff copying with sampling, which
< >is truly silly IMHO - although I do believe that certain chord sequences are so overused
< >that they should be declared public domain and their use should lead to deductions in
< >songwriting royalties.
<
< and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
<
< People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
<
< There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music though.
I wonder what this crackdown will do to breakbeats. Alot of jungle will suddenly
become very illegal.
And Panacea will have to pay some hefty royalties to the No U-Turn boys.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
sam dellaria
> "Disguised" what? Page was clearly influenced, but to compare influence with straight
> out appropriation, as "Rolling Stone" has, is utterly ridiculous. As per my original
> argument, there is a clear diffenence between being musically influenced, and adding
> something very original in the interpretation, and direct sampling, which requires
> nothing in the way of creativity (assuming Puffy/Hammer/De La Soul levels of
> appropriation). You might as well argue that making up yr own words to a karaoke
> performance constitutes the pinnacle of creativity.
Well, yeah, it does constitute a level of creativity. But that doesn't
mean it's good. Anyone with a guitar could pick out a Page riff.
However, it takes talent to play that solo well; it takes even more
talent to add something original in the interpretation and to make that
riff into a wholly new piece of music (with its influences of course).
The same applies to sampling. Anyone with the equipment can sample a
Page riff, loop it, and call it a new song, but it takes talent (and
lots of it) to turn that sample into a new, interesting, original piece
of music. Puff Daddy certainly hasn't been able to do that, but he isn't
the standard bearer for all sampled music. Someone like DJ Shadow,
however, has clearly demonstrated the possibility for originality and
quality while using appropriated material. Whether you are a fan of his
or not, it is impossible to deny that his music has merit and identity
outside of the samples he uses. You can't judge the method of
composition by the artists who use it. There is good and bad in every
genre.
-Sam
Nicole
H. West wrote:
> In article <35C419...@pathcom.com>, skag...@pathcom.com says...
> < Geir Hongro wrote:
> <
> < > Good news for those of us who appreciate originally composed music.
> <
> < Fuck you're daft, aren't you? People who use samples are composing new
> < works. What do you think the Beatles were doing when they used carnival
> < music samples? Hint: sampling. Even if one agreed to go along with the
> < idiotic thesis that a song created with/using samples was not
> < "originally composed music," the issue of the RIAA's actions would have
> < no impact whatsoever upon those who did create "originally composed
> < music," and therefore could not be construed as "good news". If you're
> < going to waste bandwith with a one-liner, at least have the good manners
> < to employ some element of logic, ok?
>
> The problem with this argument is that you're overstating his overstatement. The
> composition is new, but if you're using a sample it's not as new as it could be.
> If these regulations work, music will be more original since you'll be using all
> original elements instead of creating an original song from existing sounds. Of
> course it won't improve quality or creativity, but even the most generic EBM
> song would be less original if it was comprised of a bunch of samples, and more
> original if it isn't.
I think a little too much face value is being placed on the idea that sampling is
unoriginal. Oftentimes the sample is manipulated in such a way that it becomes
another sound that bears little relationship to the original song, and has as much
originality as anything that can be conjured up on an instrument would. And to be
honest, I would much rather hear a fantastic song that was unoriginal than a dull
and uninspiring one that was original.
Nicole
Bat
wrote:
> What do you think the Beatles were doing when they used carnival
> > music samples? Hint: sampling. Even if one agreed to go along with the
> > idiotic thesis that a song created with/using samples was not
> > "originally composed music," the issue of the RIAA's actions would have
>
>
>
> My favorite is people who think that 'rock' musicians like Jimmy Page
> are the most original thing in the world. They get all bent out of shape
> when someone (who will remain nameless to protect the Puffiness of this
> argument) samples him. Thats very ignorant to think because all Page
> does is rip off Howlin Wolf and Albert King guitar solos. He just
> disguised it a bit better.
Not exactly. Style is copied and handed down through the eons, there is NO
original thought. However, some people actually will implement their own
style and shape things as these are what is known as /INFLUENCES/.
Don't confuse this with blatently utilizing someone elses talent through
directly sampling someone else and ending up with a musical piece that is
over 90% looped samples or exact melodies that required NO original
thought or influetical changes.
Don't miss my point - I'm not saying what Puff Person did was a piece of
shit. I'm saying anyone, and I MEAN, ANYONE could of done what he did. No
Talent Required. However, he could NOT of done it without Page AND he
could NOT of done it with Wolf or King as those were NOT the finished
products of what struck the ear as a backing track for Puff's Stuffs.
In all honesty, why do you think that song was chosen? Sniff Sniff
Sniff... it wasn't a mistake - If I had the $$$ and the gall, I could just
sample any fucking top 10 hit song, say from the Beatles ok, and then just
blow my wad all over it. Stupid? Yes - Lame? Yes - Listened to by
1000000000's? Yes. With the right lawyers and $$$, you can push it into a
movie or on a billboard and the sheep will flock.
Oh... yea... movie... Puff Daddy... Godzilla... Need I say more?
Bat
Bat
> dontspa...@cyberden.com (Bat) wrote:
>
> >So do the fucking math assholes... who do you think thought of this stupid
> >tax law in the first place. I'll fucking name them:
> >
> >Michael Jackson, Barry Manilow, Elton John, Barbara Streisand, Billy Joel,
> >Willie Nelson, etc... You see, these people will see 99% of this money and
> >could never record another fart in their life.
>
> So who has been sampling Manilow, Streisand, Joel and Nelson?
Has nothing to do with it. The tax is paid out to the artists of BMI/ASCAP
in accordance to their overall sales, hense, who ever is already rich as
hell will get most of this $$$.
Bat
Provided what has been added shows actual thought processes were in place.
So many people can again, just sit there and take other peoples work,
perhaps mix some stuff and walla - I'm a musician... WRONG... you're a DJ
and a bedroom producer. Nothing more.
I will admit it is a /bit/ frustrating when some band comes along and gets
on a major record deal by doing nothing more then just sampling other
people and hardly adding anything really original, dabbling some lyrical
crap and walla - signed only because of the psychology that people like it
because it's OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF - It sounds familure already - It was
ALREADY FUCKING PRODUCED... you see this is another REAL SORE SPOT... all
these people who abuse sampling, make it their backbone... MOST of them
would shit their pants if put into a studio with the original layout of
instruments to create that sample in the first place.
We're no longer talking EQ with the Bass / Mid / Highs... let's talk about
phase cancellation, frequency modulation, feedback, oversaturation,
seperation, harmonics, psycho-acoustics, mix too hot, too cold.... and
don't even start in with effects..... oh, how to Mic a guitar, a drum....
ugh... so when someone who takes a combined 100 hours to create a
finished piece of work get's his due recognition, it's kinda flaky for the
stupid public lambs to actually listen to this sampled based crap and
actually respect /most/ of these people.... not ALL, but most...
Anyways, there are only a few people in I know who really abuse sampling
BUT they add quite a bit to the finished product and are excellent
producers:
Bill Leeb/Rhys with Delerium and Synaestesia
David Thrussell with SOMA/SNOG and Black Lung
And yes, I do like the likes of early Beastie Boys, Six-Mix-A-Lot, and
hell, I even liked the first 2-Live-Crew CD... but the craze now is
showing signs of marketing turds to people who will eat them and I would
only hope the mass public would snap out of it and think for themselves
rather then for what is molded in the image of what isn't really there.
Hey, this sounds like our government!
Bat
Gondola Bob
> If there is some kind of climax and traditional western use of harmony:
Yes. And
> anyway it is better than 12 bar blues.
Um, so blues isn't "traditional" then? You really don't realize how shallow
your assessment of music is, do you?
> Too many of their songs used even less than those three chords btw, which
is also
> overused.
Yeah, yeah...more feeble, unsubstantiated babble.
GB
Ben
> NEEDED something new, to provide it with something more melodic and harmonic.
At what time? The was no rock before blues...
But
> after, say, 1985 all new styles have been steps in the wrong direction (that is: less
> melodic and less harmonic).
You're a straight up idiot man! That first part doesnt even make sense.
Ok maybe for you and your musical tastes, nothing has evolved but for
the rest of the world theres been alot of development. How about mixes
of jazz/techno? Or rap/rock? Theres lots of examples of what has evolved
since 1985.
And by the way, why do you think things are less meoldic and harmonic?
Is that your way of judging music? On harmony and melody? Theres alot of
other factors that go into it. Hell, Journey had melody and harmony and
they SUCK! I could argue that before '85 things were less expressive or
less powerful then.. How is something less harmonic? Look at Sonic
Youth, they've done things with different frequencies that no one had
ever heard of.
Ben
Ben
> and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
>
> People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
>
> There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music though.
Are you on fucking crack? Ok dipshit, how about a 2-5-1 in jazz? Dont
try and impress us with your limited musical knowledge either. You cant
seriously think that 1-4-5 is the only overused chord progression can
you?!? And 'Britpop' is a fucking parody of itself.
Stig Mathausen
>
> My favorite is people who think that 'rock' musicians like Jimmy Page
> are the most original thing in the world. They get all bent out of shape
> when someone (who will remain nameless to protect the Puffiness of this
> argument) samples him. Thats very ignorant to think because all Page
> does is rip off Howlin Wolf and Albert King guitar solos. He just
> disguised it a bit better.
"Disguised" what? Page was clearly influenced, but to compare influence with straight
out appropriation, as "Rolling Stone" has, is utterly ridiculous. As per my original
argument, there is a clear diffenence between being musically influenced, and adding
something very original in the interpretation, and direct sampling, which requires
nothing in the way of creativity (assuming Puffy/Hammer/De La Soul levels of
appropriation). You might as well argue that making up yr own words to a karaoke
performance constitutes the pinnacle of creativity.
__________
- Advertisment -
tension hook online: http://www.angelfire.com/ca/tropica
The slowly-evolving homesite of Alberta's finest Ottawa-based noise project
Geir Hongro
>You're a straight up idiot man! That first part doesnt even make sense.
>Ok maybe for you and your musical tastes, nothing has evolved but for
>the rest of the world theres been alot of development. How about mixes
>of jazz/techno? Or rap/rock? Theres lots of examples of what has evolved
>since 1985.
For me it would have been a lot more interesting with mixes of melodic pop/techno or
melodic pop/jazz. (Combining rap and melodic pop is unthinkable in itself since they
are such utter opposites).
>And by the way, why do you think things are less meoldic and harmonic?
>Is that your way of judging music? On harmony and melody? Theres alot of
>other factors that go into it. Hell, Journey had melody and harmony and
>they SUCK!
Journey had melody and harmony - yet they were not good at it. The fact they had
melody and harmony isn't what made them bad.
I'm not much into Journey or other hair metal/AOR bands, but I'd prefer them any day
rather than modern crap such Public Enemy.
>I could argue that before '85 things were less expressive or
>less powerful then.. How is something less harmonic? Look at Sonic
>Youth, they've done things with different frequencies that no one had
>ever heard of.
And so what?
First of all I need melodies, which still doesn't mean all melodies are good.
Still for me a recording is worthless unless there is a good (preferrably originally
composed) melody on it.
Geir Hongro
>Geir Hongro <geir...@online.no> wrote in message
>6q2nfs$q31$1...@news1.sol.no...
>>
>>>People always try and equate stylistic similarities and riff copying with
>sampling, which
>>>is truly silly IMHO - although I do believe that certain chord sequences
>are so overused
>>>that they should be declared public domain and their use should lead to
>deductions in
>>>songwriting royalties.
>>
>late 40s
>>and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
>>
>>People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
>>
>>There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music
>though.
>
>bloody same. ;P
There are NONE of their songs that don't sound the same.
Try analysing the chord structures and you won't find similarities between the tunes
at all. They may play and sing the same, but the melodies and harmonies (which is
what matters after all) are completely different.
Geir Hongro
>Are you on fucking crack? Ok dipshit, how about a 2-5-1 in jazz?
Using 2-5-1s you are free to change to whatever key you want. Therefore there are an
almost unlimited number of combinations to explore.
Geir Hongro
>In article <6q2nfs$q31$1...@news1.sol.no>, Geir Hongro <geir...@online.no> wrote:
>
>> There is only ONE overused chord structure. It was overused already in
>the late 40s
>> and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
>>
>> People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
>>
>> There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music though.
>
>
>So, I guess this means that any blues-based music which DOESN'T use the
>exact progression above is fine with you, right?
If there is some kind of climax and traditional western use of harmony: Yes. And
anyway it is better than 12 bar blues.
Too many of their songs used even less than those three chords btw, which is also
overused.
Geir Hongro
>What do you think the Beatles were doing when they used carnival
>> music samples? Hint: sampling. Even if one agreed to go along with the
>> idiotic thesis that a song created with/using samples was not
>> "originally composed music," the issue of the RIAA's actions would have
>
>
>
>are the most original thing in the world. They get all bent out of shape
>when someone (who will remain nameless to protect the Puffiness of this
>argument) samples him. Thats very ignorant to think because all Page
>does is rip off Howlin Wolf and Albert King guitar solos. He just
>disguised it a bit better.
I'm not a big fan of Page (or any other blues based musician), but he sure was more
original. There is a BIG difference between doing something that _sound like_ or is
_inspired by_ something done in the past and lifting the entire thing in its
entirety.
If the entire "Don't Look Back In Anger" was using the same chord structure as "Let
It Be" it would be a rather crappy song, but because it changes completely towards
the chorus it is still a work of genius and one of the best songs of the 90s.
Ben
> melodic pop/jazz. (Combining rap and melodic pop is unthinkable in itself since they
> are such utter opposites).
Not really.. look at some stuff out there now.. they have a hard rap
verse with a melodic chorus..
>
> Journey had melody and harmony - yet they were not good at it. The fact they had
> melody and harmony isn't what made them bad.
>
> I'm not much into Journey or other hair metal/AOR bands, but I'd prefer them any day
> rather than modern crap such Public Enemy.
Are you serious?!? Just because you dont like the music of Public Enemy
doesnt mean they arent good. Have you listened to the lyrics of PE and
then compared them to the lyrics of Journey or any hair metal bands?
They dont even compare!!!
> >I could argue that before '85 things were less expressive or
> >less powerful then.. How is something less harmonic? Look at Sonic
> >Youth, they've done things with different frequencies that no one had
> >ever heard of.
>
> And so what?
What do you mean so what? So you're wrong is what I mean. You said
nothing past 1985 has progressed harmoniclly or melodically. Maybe not
in the traditional sense but thats how things change. Theres always a
large percentage of the populartion scared by change in anything and I
guess it holds true in music too.
Ben
> It Be" it would be a rather crappy song, but because it changes completely towards
> the chorus it is still a work of genius and one of the best songs of the 90s.
Isnt that the one that starts out with the same chords as 'Imagine"?
Yeah... thought so..
Ben
> overused.
...unlike the harmonic geniuses of Oasis who sometimes use up to 4
chords per song. My argument isnt against 4 chord music. My argument is
against your closedmindedness and contradictions. You speak against
sampling (obviously youve never used one) and yet defend Oasis who may
as well be sampling.
Ben
>
> Ben <ben.goo...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>
> >Are you on fucking crack? Ok dipshit, how about a 2-5-1 in jazz?
>
> Using 2-5-1s you are free to change to whatever key you want. Therefore there are an
> almost unlimited number of combinations to explore.
>
Fine but I mean a traditional 2-5-1 is just as overused as a traditional
1-4-5
Ben
> There are NONE of their songs that don't sound the same.
> Try analysing the chord structures and you won't find similarities between the tunes
> at all. They may play and sing the same, but the melodies and harmonies (which is
> what matters after all) are completely different.
Arent you the guy that doesnt like sampling? But here you are defending
the best (worst?) Beatles cover band in the universe...
Ben
> "Disguised" what? Page was clearly influenced, but to compare influence with straight
> out appropriation, as "Rolling Stone" has, is utterly ridiculous.
Come on, look at any given Zepelin solo. He basically does play note for
note alot of old blues solos. And I give him more credit than someone
like Pearl Jam who are in essence, ripping off Zepelin songs.
I should point out now that I have no problem with this. My problem is
quite the opposite, I cant stand it when people who have A) never tried
sampling or B) Are too closed minded about sampling, knock all over it.
I enjoy the influance and sampling by artists throughout the years. And
I think that everyone who thinks sampling sucks should try it. First off
it is very hard to do well, its not quite as easy as just taking 4 bars
of a song and calling it a new song. Puff Daddy is NOT a good example of
good sampling. Second off I think everyone who thinks sampling sucks
should run out and buy an album by a guy named "DJ SHADOW" He constructs
entire albums based purely out of samples...
As per my original
> argument, there is a clear diffenence between being musically influenced, and adding
> something very original in the interpretation, and direct sampling, which requires
> nothing in the way of creativity (assuming Puffy/Hammer/De La Soul levels of
> appropriation).
I dont know if putting De La Soul in the same catagory as joke music as
Puff and Hammer is correct. Didnt they play their own instruments? Also
their lyrics were (are?) well done from what Ive heard.
You might as well argue that making up yr own words to a karaoke
> performance constitutes the pinnacle of creativity.
Well not the pinnacle...
Colonel Panic
> First of all I need melodies, which still doesn't mean all melodies are good.
> Still for me a recording is worthless unless there is a good (preferrably originally
> composed) melody on it.
This being the case - what, may i ask, are you doing /here/?
Noise is powerful, emotional, mind-crushing (see below) and many
other things; what it is NOT is melodic in the traditional sense.
np: Storm Leather Kaori Candyland (She crushes my mind) by OVMN
!panic!
--
If the payment to after does not receive 10 days the period of
the exit, the client is entaktiviert. The clients of
Entaktivierte can come close they themselves in a deep calm the
email and can be riattivati, transmitting to the restor of the
email.
Tom Ewing
wrote:
>Don't miss my point - I'm not saying what Puff Person did was a piece of
>shit. I'm saying anyone, and I MEAN, ANYONE could of done what he did.
Yes, but the *point*, at least from a listener's p.o.v., is whether or
not the results sound good or shit. Why does it matter whether fifteen
minutes or a hundred hours labour went into a song, why not judge it
on results? Puffy's main asethetic problems are that he's an atrocious
rapper, and that the source material he uses is so dull anyway it's
very difficult for me to get any kick out of hearing it again, though
the Page collaboration was entertaining for a listen or two.
Cheers,
Tom.
np: Little Richard - "I Don't Know What You Got"
Brad Bizzolt
>And to be honest, I would much rather hear a fantastic song that was unoriginal
>than a dull and uninspiring one that was original.
Aha! I've finally figured out why I really dislike Tortoise. ;)
==
The Fantastics! - a generic noise assault.
http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Halfpipe/2685
My email is: bizzolt(at)hotmail(dot)com
Brad Bizzolt
>This being the case - what, may i ask, are you doing /here/?
The original message (Re: RIAA) was written by someone from Negativland,
and I guess they're vaguely topical here, so the message was crossposted to
these groups.
Geir? Next time you post, please trim some headers... people wishing to
flame him back, could you do the same? I'm sure the people in the groups
that aren't a.m.a would appreciate this immensely.
Antho...@yahoo.com
Geir Hongro <geir...@online.no> wrote:
> At that time rock really NEEDED something new, to provide it with something
> steps in the wrong direction (that is: less melodic and less harmonic).
What is this stupid shit doing in alt.noise? Geir, at least I admit that
many of the dozens of noise bands I listen to sound a hell of a lot alike.
Same for black metal and power violence and grindcore and free jazz. There's
nothing wrong with only liking melodic and harmonic music, but for me, rythm
and abrasiveness are the key. Then again, lots of black metal is *very*
musical, marduk and emperor could easily be interpreted as classical music,
albiet with the addition of insanely fast drumming and very different
instrumentation and visual aestetic tastes.
Blah blah blah blah.
Sprinting towards the wrong musical direction,
Anthony EID
Assume Power Focus issue #5 coming soon!
Exercise In Disgust "Dedicated To David Gunn" c30
on Anti-Power Electronics also coming soon!
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Mason Jones
: I'm not a big fan of Page (or any other blues based musician), but
Oh? The following blues-based musicians are from your sig, you idiot:
Beatles, Byrds, Yes, Pink Floyd, Queen, Marillion, Prince, Radiohead...
Shame people don't seem to think before typing anymore.
=============================================================
Mason Jones Charnel Music, Automatism Press
ma...@charnel.com P.O. Box 170277
San Francisco, CA 94117-0277
Phone & Fax 415.664.1829 www.charnel.com
=============================================================
F.B.
writes:
>What do you think the Beatles were doing when they used carnival
>> music samples? Hint: sampling. Even if one agreed to go along with
the
>> idiotic thesis that a song created with/using samples was not
>> "originally composed music," the issue of the RIAA's actions would
have
>
>
>
>My favorite is people who think that 'rock' musicians like Jimmy Page
>are the most original thing in the world. They get all bent out of
shape
>when someone (who will remain nameless to protect the Puffiness of
this
>argument) samples him. Thats very ignorant to think because all Page
>does is rip off Howlin Wolf and Albert King guitar solos. He just
>disguised it a bit better.
"All Page does is rip off Howlin' Wolf and Albert King guitar solos?"
Have you been in solitary confinement for the last 30 years? This
might have been valid around 1969. Page has evolved into a very
creative and original guitarist. As far as straying from influences,
he's far beyond, say, Eric Clapton.
When Puff Daddy can learn to play in instrument, we can talk about
musical influences. Suffice it to say, Page is an excellent musician,
while Puff Daddy is an unoriginal hack who re-makes other people's
music. For an example of how to densly use many samples, see the
Beastie Boys or Public Enemy. For an example ripping off, see Puff
Daddy.
Matt P
Ben
> "All Page does is rip off Howlin' Wolf and Albert King guitar solos?"
> Have you been in solitary confinement for the last 30 years? This
> might have been valid around 1969. Page has evolved into a very
> creative and original guitarist. As far as straying from influences,
> he's far beyond, say, Eric Clapton.
> When Puff Daddy can learn to play in instrument, we can talk about
> musical influences. Suffice it to say, Page is an excellent musician,
> while Puff Daddy is an unoriginal hack who re-makes other people's
> music. For an example of how to densly use many samples, see the
> Beastie Boys or Public Enemy. For an example ripping off, see Puff
> Daddy.
>
But I was making a point. Pick a name, Page, Clapton, Beck (Jeff),
anyone from that so-called 'classic rock' era. Their influances shine
through so strongly that alot of times it sounds to me like they're
regurgatating old stuff. Hey dont get me wrong, I dont mind Led Zepplin,
what Page did with open tunings, time signatures and chords was
excellent. Music evolves one way or another, Pearl Jam or whomever could
be accused of ripping off classic rock as well because in essence, I
guess they are. But almost all music is valid and generally says
something new. I get upset when people who know shit all about sampling,
get all bent out of shape because they see 'their' music being tampered
with.
And BTW wasnt Led Zep 1 half blues covers?
Ben
> Sniff... it wasn't a mistake - If I had the $$$ and the gall, I could just
> sample any fucking top 10 hit song, say from the Beatles ok, and then just
> blow my wad all over it. Stupid? Yes - Lame? Yes - Listened to by
> 1000000000's? Yes. With the right lawyers and $$$, you can push it into a
> movie or on a billboard and the sheep will flock.
Also, Jimmy Page has performed the song with him and is in the video as
well... Its not like hes bitter about this, he's making big money as
well.
Ben
> on a major record deal by doing nothing more then just sampling other
> people and hardly adding anything really original, dabbling some lyrical
> crap and walla - signed only because of the psychology that people like it
> because it's OTHER PEOPLE'S STUFF - It sounds familure already - It was
> ALREADY FUCKING PRODUCED... you see this is another REAL SORE SPOT... all
> these people who abuse sampling, make it their backbone... MOST of them
> would shit their pants if put into a studio with the original layout of
> instruments to create that sample in the first place.
>
> We're no longer talking EQ with the Bass / Mid / Highs... let's talk about
> phase cancellation, frequency modulation, feedback, oversaturation,
> seperation, harmonics, psycho-acoustics, mix too hot, too cold.... and
> don't even start in with effects..... oh, how to Mic a guitar, a drum....
> ugh... so when someone who takes a combined 100 hours to create a
> finished piece of work get's his due recognition, it's kinda flaky for the
> stupid public lambs to actually listen to this sampled based crap and
> actually respect /most/ of these people.... not ALL, but most...
You think the average 3 chord punk band knows any of that stuff?
Geir Hongro
>Not really.. look at some stuff out there now.. they have a hard rap
>verse with a melodic chorus..
And in all cases that melodic chorus is composed sometime in the past rather than
newly composed. You don't provide the songbooks of tomorrow with new material by
recycling "Every Breath You Take", "Forget Me Nots" or "Islands In The Stream".
>Are you serious?!? Just because you dont like the music of Public Enemy
>doesnt mean they arent good.
Just because you and I don't like the music of Journey doesn't mean they aren't any
good either. This is, after all, completely a matter of personal taste and nothing
else.
Geir Hongro
>Then again, lots of black metal is *very*
>musical, marduk and emperor could easily be interpreted as classical music,
>albiet with the addition of insanely fast drumming and very different
>instrumentation and visual aestetic tastes.
I haven't heard much black metal, but I know some of it has musical ability. What I
don't like about black metal is the noise and the satanic content.
Geir Hongro
>Geir Hongro wrote:
>
>> First of all I need melodies, which still doesn't mean all melodies are good.
>> Still for me a recording is worthless unless there is a good (preferrably originally
>> composed) melody on it.
>
In rec.music.industrial and alt.noise? Actually being crossposted this thread....
>Noise is powerful, emotional, mind-crushing (see below) and many
>other things; what it is NOT is melodic in the traditional sense.
Music (noise I see as something else than music) is powerful, emotional,
mind-crushing, many other things AND melodic AND harmonic.
Geir Hongro
>Arent you the guy that doesnt like sampling? But here you are defending
>the best (worst?) Beatles cover band in the universe...
Oasis have _never_ recorded a Beatles cover in the studio. There is a BIG difference
between sounding a bit like Beatles (not that much, actually - Oasis make a lot more
noise) and using old melodies (or chord sequences) exactly the way they used to
sound.
Geir Hongro
>Fine but I mean a traditional 2-5-1 is just as overused as a traditional
>1-4-5
No, because a 1-4-5 has to contain the same three chords all the time, while using
2-5-1 you may modulate to any key using as much as 12 different chords in the same
song.
Geir Hongro
>> Too many of their songs used even less than those three chords btw, which is also
>> overused.
>
>
>
>...unlike the harmonic geniuses of Oasis who sometimes use up to 4
>chords per song.
"Stand By Me" sounds like a very simple song, yet it contains six or seven different
chords.
Geir Hongro
That's 10 second, while the rest of the songs lasts for well over 4 minutes.
Tell me EXACTLY which song (a single one, not a particular style of music) that
"Gonna start a revolution from my band" bridge part is ripped off from, or SHUT UP
about the song being ripped off.
Geir Hongro
>In alt.noise Geir Hongro <geir...@online.no> wrote:
>: I'm not a big fan of Page (or any other blues based musician), but
>
>Oh? The following blues-based musicians are from your sig, you idiot:
>
>Beatles,
Their most blues based songs (most of which made by John Lennon towards the end
of their career) were mainly their worst moments
Byrds,
They were always folk based and VERY melodic
Yes,
Not much blues, but a lot of Western classical music.
> Pink Floyd,
No, I don't like "Money" - their only blues based song.
> Queen
Definitely much more than blues to their music.
>, Marillion
Must be the least bluesy band in the world.
>, Prince,
I like him best when he is melodic and not too funky. Never been a big fan of "Kiss"
or "Girls And Boys"
> Radiohead...
I have no problem with forgiving "Electioneering" - their only truly blues based
song.
Rev. Derek
> Geir Hongro <geir...@online.no> wrote in message
> 6q2nfs$q31$1...@news1.sol.no...
> >Stig Mathausen <trop...@istar.ca> wrote:
> >>People always try and equate stylistic similarities and riff copying with
> sampling, which
> >>is truly silly IMHO - although I do believe that certain chord sequences
> are so overused
> >>that they should be declared public domain and their use should lead to
> deductions in
> >>songwriting royalties.
> >There is only ONE overused chord structure. It was overused already in the
> late 40s
> >and it goes like this: C F C / F / C / G F C /
> >People usually call it the 12 bar blues, and it sure is overused.
> >There is nothing overused about today's Britpop and melodic pop music
> though.
> Here's an example: Oasis. Name two of their songs that don't sound the
> bloody same. ;P
> -Cam
Weird, "bloody same"... You sound like a "bloody" brit... heh... Oh and
hey back off of Oasis... We all know how some of their songs go... they
write great pop songs with hooks that are so catchey they get stuck in
your head for days. Oh, and "Champagne Supernover" and "Right Here,
Right Now" sound totally different. Kinda. As different as a pop band
can get. Hey, some Ipecac loop sounds alike, and most techno/house
sounds alike...
Robert P. Beveridge
On 3 Aug 1998 20:00:11 GMT, Geir Hongro <geir...@online.no> wrote:
>Mason Jones <mas...@shell4.ba.best.com> wrote:
>>Oh? The following blues-based musicians are from your sig, you idiot:
Erm, as I recall _every_ style of music save noise since 1945 has been
based on blues. (Bennett et al. were smart enough to forget most of
this century ever existed and focused on Cage, Copland, and
Stockhausen, if I recall my Noise 101 class correctly.) Perhaps they
took it in different directions, but if you can't listen to early
Beatles and hear blues influence, perhaps you should be headed back to
WW2 and digging out Chess singles.
Fr.Goatley
on: webcast from Saratoga
Robert P. Beveridge
>Music (noise I see as something else than music)
'least you got THAT right. (Anyone want to start the "what is noise"
discussion again?)
>is powerful, emotional,
>mind-crushing, many other things AND melodic AND harmonic.
Heh. I think the last "mind-crushing" piece of music (per se, of
course) that I heard was... well, come to think of it, under your
definition of music I can't think of a single one. How would you class
Ligeti and Xenakis? Not that anything beats a good trip through the
work of Sutcliffe Jugend for sheer mind-crush-ness.
Fr.Goatley
Cameron Lewis
> Weird, "bloody same"... You sound like a "bloody" brit... heh...
Hey, back off, my parents are from New Zealand. ;)
Cameron Lewis / Ipecac Loop / Forced Evolution Media
http://www.forcedevolution.com
Floyd Diebel
>
>>Noise is powerful, emotional, mind-crushing (see below) and many
>>other things; what it is NOT is melodic in the traditional sense.
>
what about music that is written outside of western music's scales? does
it cease to be melodic? if not, where does one draw the line?
if two sounds played simultaneously create a new combined
sound/oscillation, can that somehow be NOT harmonic or creating harmonics?
opinions are one thing, blanket statements are near-sighted at best.
-----
fdi...@boulez.emrl.com
a/v composition and engineering.
Floyd Diebel
>Ben <ben.goo...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>>> If the entire "Don't Look Back In Anger" was using the same chord structure as "Let
>>> It Be" it would be a rather crappy song, but because it changes completely towards
>>> the chorus it is still a work of genius and one of the best songs of the 90s.
>>
>>
>>Isnt that the one that starts out with the same chords as 'Imagine"?
>
>That's 10 second, while the rest of the songs lasts for well over 4 minutes.
so are you saying you can forgive a creative failure based on its duration?
an interesting thought.
if not, what are you saying?
-f
Stig Mathausen
>
> >
> > "Disguised" what? Page was clearly influenced, but to compare influence with straight
> > out appropriation, as "Rolling Stone" has, is utterly ridiculous.
>
> Come on, look at any given Zepelin solo. He basically does play note for
> note a lot of old blues solos.
Well, I dunno about "note-for-note" - clearly there's a lot of similarity and bouts of
outright borrowing ("Whole Lotta Love", of course), but his solos are pretty distinctive
nevertheless.
>
> I should point out now that I have no problem with this. My problem is
> quite the opposite, I cant stand it when people who have A) never tried
> sampling or B) Are too closed minded about sampling, knock all over it.
> I enjoy the influance and sampling by artists throughout the years. And
> I think that everyone who thinks sampling sucks should try it. First off
> it is very hard to do well, its not quite as easy as just taking 4 bars
> of a song and calling it a new song. Puff Daddy is NOT a good example of
> good sampling. Second off I think everyone who thinks sampling sucks
> should run out and buy an album by a guy named "DJ SHADOW" He constructs
> entire albums based purely out of samples...
As I said in a previous post, I don't have a problem with sampling per se, so long as you
don't treat it as a free ride past original ideas, and due credit is given when a sample is
substantial or utterly essential to the "working" of the track it's used in.
>
> As per my original
> > argument, there is a clear diffenence between being musically influenced, and adding
> > something very original in the interpretation, and direct sampling, which requires
> > nothing in the way of creativity (assuming Puffy/Hammer/De La Soul levels of
> > appropriation).
>
> I dont know if putting De La Soul in the same catagory as joke music as
> Puff and Hammer is correct. Didnt they play their own instruments?
No they didn't, alas. Anyway, I used to think some of DLS's stuff seemed interesting -
until I heard some of the stuff they were sampling, and found that it was all messed up to
begin with - the Soulsters didn't add much at all! Compare, say, "Me, Myself, and I" to the
PFunk track they sampled (name forgotten).
>
__________
F.B.
writes:
>Ben <ben.goo...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>
>>Not really.. look at some stuff out there now.. they have a hard rap
>>verse with a melodic chorus..
>
>And in all cases that melodic chorus is composed sometime in the past
rather than
>newly composed. You don't provide the songbooks of tomorrow with new
material by
>recycling "Every Breath You Take", "Forget Me Nots" or "Islands In The
Stream".
>
>>Are you serious?!? Just because you dont like the music of Public
Enemy
>>doesnt mean they arent good.
>
>Just because you and I don't like the music of Journey doesn't mean
they aren't any
>good either. This is, after all, completely a matter of personal taste
and nothing
>else.
No it isn't; Journey really does suck.
And PE really were great artists.
Matt P
F.B.
writes:
I like a lot of artists that sample, so I'm definitely not
"anti-sample" or anything like that. I'll reiterate that artists like
the Beastie Boys and Public Enemy use samples so densly and creatively
that one could hardly ever accuse them or "ripping off" anything.
Conversely, the music of Puff Daddy rightly deserves such criticisms,
as his "music" is so derivative as to cast doubt on his credibility as
an artist in general.
>And BTW wasnt Led Zep 1 half blues covers?
Heh. That's why I made a point of saying "after 1969," as with their
third album and beyond, with the exception of "When the Levee Breaks,"
Zeppelin stopped borrowing much from the past.
And, no, half of Zep I was not blues covers. To be a cover, you have
to acknowledge the source and identify it somewhere. :) What Zep did
was just more or less indiscriminantly borrowing, stealing, etc. from
a lot of old blues material. Since the stealing was used as a
springboard for some truly original takes on the blues, and since they
nearly completely stopped doing it after the first album, I can forgive
this from an artistic standpoint (though not a legal one; royalties
really should have been paid to the original creators of some of the
more obvious stuff).
In any event, what Zeppelin did, IMO, is still more analogous to stuff
like Public Enemy than Puff Daddy.
Matt P
Fabulous Lulu
>I'm not a big fan of Page (or any other blues based musician),
We know, Geir. Dear god, we know :)
>but he sure was more
>original. There is a BIG difference between doing something that _sound like_
>or is _inspired by_ something done in the past and lifting the entire thing in
>its entirety.
Well, explain the difference. Does Puffy's I'll Be Missing You sound *just
like* Every Breath You Take? Hell, even the Verve changed that symphonic
Stones song a *little*. What's the difference between Puffy and, say, Noel
Gallagher (at times) besides the fact that Noel actually replays each note
and Puffy doesn't? I mean, give Puffy the credit for not being an idiot
and slavishly replaying something ;)
Cheers,
Lulu
--
np: Still the One, Shania Twain
Fabulous Lulu
wrote:
>Also, Jimmy Page has performed the song with him and is in the video as
>well... Its not like hes bitter about this, he's making big money as
>well.
This is, of course, the thing I've never understood about the argument.
Well, one of the many things. It's not like the artists involved in the
'originals' of Puffy's rip offs are horrified by it. Sting has appeared in
performance with Puffy. Jimmy Page not only performs the song with him,
but he was in the damned video. Aren't these lads guilty of heinous crimes
as well?
Cheers,
Lulu
--
np: oddly enough, that Puffy/Page song.
Fabulous Lulu
[don't look back in anger]
>Tell me EXACTLY which song (a single one, not a particular style of
music) that
>"Gonna start a revolution from my band" bridge part is ripped off from,
or SHUT UP
>about the song being ripped off.
Geir, the line is 'revolution from my BED', not band. And it's about John
Lennon. The entire song is a mix of Beatles/Lennon songs.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
np: station searching ATM
Bat
> In article <35C52D85...@vanilli.earthlink.com>,
> pure...@vanilli.earthlink.com says...
> >
>
> >I think a little too much face value is being placed on the idea that
sampling
> is
> >unoriginal. Oftentimes the sample is manipulated in such a way that it
becomes
> >another sound that bears little relationship to the original song, and
has as
> much
> >originality as anything that can be conjured up on an instrument would.
And to
> be
> >honest, I would much rather hear a fantastic song that was unoriginal than a
> dull
> >and uninspiring one that was original.
> >
>
> So this thread started out as a warning, and degenerated into the usual
crap.
> Defending the use of samples on 'artistic' merits is probably the corner they
> (RIAA) want you to paint yourself into.
No, I think the RIAA should clarify what constitutes use. Something like
the so called 2, 4, or 8 second rule or perhaps if the song is comprised
of 25% or more of unoriginal material, then it's in need for licensing and
clearance.
Bat
--
The CyberDen http://www.cyberden.com/
Digital Wings CD is now out! http://www.cyberden.com/digital
House Of Usher http://www.cyberden.com/usher
Custom Music and Sound Design http://www.cyberden.com/ic
*** LEGAL NOTICE: All parties involved in sending any spam to any
account at the cyberden.com domain will be fined $500 per item.
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B),(b)(1)(C),(b)(3)(C).
Bat
wrote:
Meaning what? Probably not but the /producer/ does and is paid for that.
On top of all of this, you have to get at least 3 punks in a room to
perform in sync and somewhat harmony with each other which takes a lot
more talent then sampling someone's riff, throwing a kick here and a bass
bloop there and then calling it your own.
simon paul
afterall the "recording industry association of _America_"..
spaul
"music is just organized noise, and noise is poison to the mind"
-stolen from a 60's British psychedelic movie called 'Wonderwall'sampled by pwei.
Jeremy Tolsma wrote:
> In article <35C52D85...@vanilli.earthlink.com>,
> pure...@vanilli.earthlink.com says...
> >
>
> >I think a little too much face value is being placed on the idea that sampling
> is
> >unoriginal. Oftentimes the sample is manipulated in such a way that it becomes
> >another sound that bears little relationship to the original song, and has as
> much
> >originality as anything that can be conjured up on an instrument would. And to
> be
> >honest, I would much rather hear a fantastic song that was unoriginal than a
> dull
> >and uninspiring one that was original.
> >
>
> So this thread started out as a warning, and degenerated into the usual crap.
> Defending the use of samples on 'artistic' merits is probably the corner they
> (RIAA) want you to paint yourself into. Defend the use of sampling with the
> simple fact that you want to sample. Then when they throw the law in place,
> stop sampling altogether. Don't borrow anything, make your own samples. Yeah,
> it might be rough at first if you're used to borrowing heavily for your
> compositions, but the point is you won't have to get any samples 'cleared' with
> your pressing plant, and you won't have to hire a lawyer to help you pay some
> washed-up hasbeen for his sample. If you leave sampling in the hands of the
> top40 end of the industry (who have embraced it to the point where it probably
> already isn't very cool anymore), the real culture promoters will move on to
> promoting the true underground as they usually do, and sampling will be
> entirely passe, shunned as much as (and hopefully relegated exclusively to)
> Nike ads.
> .
sam dellaria
>
> Ben <ben.goo...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
>
> >Fine but I mean a traditional 2-5-1 is just as overused as a traditional
> >1-4-5
>
> No, because a 1-4-5 has to contain the same three chords all the time, while using
> 2-5-1 you may modulate to any key using as much as 12 different chords in the same
> song.
You can modulate just as easily with a 1-4-5 progression as you can with
a 2-5-1. Ever hear of a five of five chord? Please learn some theory
before you continue making an ass out of yourself.
-Sam
Jeremy Tolsma
Nnirquist
<6q2nah$q31$1...@news1.sol.no>...
At that time
rock really
> NEEDED something new, to provide it with something more melodic and
harmonic. But
> after, say, 1985 all new styles have been steps in the wrong direction
(that is: less
> melodic and less harmonic).
Who are you to define what is a step in the right direction and what is a
step in the wrong direction? If it appeared you had a clue what you were
defending you might not seem so arrogant. I suggest you think about the
wider significance of the entire R.I.A.A. monopoly before continuing your
spouting.
Ben
> it cease to be melodic? if not, where does one draw the line?
Yeah its just closed mindedness and ignorance that makes people think
that music ends at what they like. He should go listen to Nusrat Fateh
Ali Khan if he wants melody, not friggin Oasis...
>
Ben
> >the best (worst?) Beatles cover band in the universe...
>
> between sounding a bit like Beatles (not that much, actually - Oasis make a lot more
> noise) and using old melodies (or chord sequences) exactly the way they used to
>sound.
See Geir, I didnt mean it literally, I guess that doesnt come through
over the computer, I meant they sound so much like them that they may as
well be a Beatles cover band...
Ben
> >1-4-5
>
> No, because a 1-4-5 has to contain the same three chords all the time, while using
> 2-5-1 you may modulate to any key using as much as 12 different chords in the same
> song.
>
This is getting kinda silly but in a TRADITIONAL overused 2-5-1 they
stay within the confines of a 2-5-1 without changing and modulating or
using circle of fifths or something. Just because the opprotunity is
there doesnt always mean they do it..
Ben
>
> Geir Hongro wrote:
> >
> > Ben <ben.goo...@shaw.wave.ca> wrote:
> >
> > >Fine but I mean a traditional 2-5-1 is just as overused as a traditional
> > >1-4-5
> >
> > No, because a 1-4-5 has to contain the same three chords all the time, while using
> > 2-5-1 you may modulate to any key using as much as 12 different chords in the same
> > song.
>
> a 2-5-1. Ever hear of a five of five chord? Please learn some theory
> before you continue making an ass out of yourself.
>
> -Sam
Yeah, circle of fifths baby...
Ben
I dont understand why you defend them when its there PLAIN AS DAY. How
is Oasis ripping off John Lennon for 10 seconds any worse than Public
Enemy ripping off George Clinton for 10 seconds in a sample?
Ben
>
> Their most blues based songs (most of which made by John Lennon towards the end
> of their career) were mainly their worst moments
>
In what, your professional opinion?
> > Pink Floyd,
>
> No, I don't like "Money" - their only blues based song.
Are you smoking crack right now? I dont know if you play an instrument,
but listen to pretty much ANY David Gilmour solo from ANY Pink Floyd
song. They're ALL blues based!!!!!!!
>
> >, Prince,
>
> I like him best when he is melodic and not too funky. Never been a big fan of "Kiss"
> or "Girls And Boys"
>
Thanks for the update...
Ben
> until I heard some of the stuff they were sampling, and found that it was all messed up to
> begin with - the Soulsters didn't add much at all! Compare, say, "Me, Myself, and I" to the
> PFunk track they sampled (name forgotten).
> >
How about "Mo MOney Mo Problem" with "Im Coming Out" by Diana Ross? The
songs dont even compare cause Diana's is so much better.
Geir Hongro
>what about music that is written outside of western music's scales? does
>it cease to be melodic? if not, where does one draw the line?
African drumming is not melodic, Indian and Pakastani "classical" music plus the
pentatone "classical" music of China are. There are always differences, but I accept
that some cultures use a note system more (in the case of India) or less (in the case
--
Geir Hongro
******************************************************
Beatles,Beach Boys,Hollies,Byrds,Tamla Motown,Paul
Simon,Genesis,Yes,Pink Floyd,10cc,Queen,ELO,Bob Marley,
Marillion,Split Enz,Madness,XTC,Squeeze,Aztec Camera,
Prefab Sprout,Scritti Politti,Gangway,Depeche Mode,
Human League,OMD,Yazoo,Erasure,Cure,Prince,Lightning
Seeds,Crowded House,Dodgy,Blur,Oasis,Radiohead,Kula
Shaker,Supernaturals,Super Furry Animals,Orbital
*******************************************************
Norwegian: http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/
English: http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/andnow.htm
Geir Hongro
>so are you saying you can forgive a creative failure based on its duration?
>an interesting thought.
>
>if not, what are you saying?
I'm saying that grabbing an intro from a song is not that important. What makes up a
song is first and foremost the tension between bridge and chorus and since both
bridge and chorus is 100% original in this case the song is still original.
Geir Hongro
Because PE are basing the entire song on the same sample while Oasis are only basing
the intro on it.
Geir Hongro
>Erm, as I recall _every_ style of music save noise since 1945 has been
>based on blues. (Bennett et al. were smart enough to forget most of
>this century ever existed and focused on Cage, Copland, and
>Stockhausen, if I recall my Noise 101 class correctly.) Perhaps they
>took it in different directions, but if you can't listen to early
>Beatles and hear blues influence, perhaps you should be headed back to
>WW2 and digging out Chess singles.
Still what makes Beatles so very different from early rock is even in their earliest
work there is so much more than blues to their music. From day one Beatles had a
certain amount of European melodicness within their music.
Geir Hongro
>Are you smoking crack right now? I dont know if you play an instrument,
>but listen to pretty much ANY David Gilmour solo from ANY Pink Floyd
>song. They're ALL blues based!!!!!!!
The solos may be as blues based they want to be as long as the tune is based on more
conventional Western song structures.
Geir Hongro
>In article <6q392i$23g$5...@news1.sol.no>, Geir Hongro <geir...@online.no> wrote:
>
>>I'm not a big fan of Page (or any other blues based musician),
>
>We know, Geir. Dear god, we know :)
>
>>but he sure was more
>>original. There is a BIG difference between doing something that _sound like_
>>or is _inspired by_ something done in the past and lifting the entire thing in
>>its entirety.
>
>Well, explain the difference. Does Puffy's I'll Be Missing You sound *just
>like* Every Breath You Take?
I say it does. Apart from the fact that the song is moved one note down and lines
like "Every Move You Make" and "I'll Be Missing You/Watching You" are slightly
changed the song sounds completely the same, except in Puff Daddy's version the best
parts of the original (The "Oh Can't You See..." part especially) are left out.
>Hell, even the Verve changed that symphonic Stones song a *little*.
"Bitter Sweet Symhony" is too much based on a past song. I like "The Drugs Don't
Work" and "Sonnet" much more.
>What's the difference between Puffy and, say, Noel
>Gallagher (at times) besides the fact that Noel actually replays each note
>and Puffy doesn't?
Noel Gallagher has never replayed each note of anything, apart from his cover
versions.
And cover versions are actually SUPPOSED to be replayed
Geir Hongro
>See Geir, I didnt mean it literally, I guess that doesnt come through
>over the computer, I meant they sound so much like them that they may as
>well be a Beatles cover band...
Dodgy would have been a better Beatles cover band than Oasis. Again Oasis make too
much noise with their guitars.
Geir Hongro
>This is getting kinda silly but in a TRADITIONAL overused 2-5-1 they
>stay within the confines of a 2-5-1 without changing and modulating or
>using circle of fifths or something.
And it is boring, yet far from as overused as the 12 bar blues.
--
Geir Hongrø
Brad Bizzolt
>Again Oasis make too much noise with their guitars.
Are you having fun posting this to these particular groups?
==
The Fantastics! - a generic noise assault.
http://www.geocities.com/Pipeline/Halfpipe/2685
My email is: bizzolt(at)hotmail(dot)com