|
>you are moving the goalpost. people came in praising him like
>he is supportive of sampling artist. i said he is
>appreciative of sampling when $ is involved. his own words
>show his hate and bias for sampling. he came to appreciate it
>once nautilus had been sampled 100x
I agree that folks are maybe glossing over the caveats that James puts down in the interview. But beyond that, I guess I'm not sure what your point is?
Looking back in time, is it at all realistic to expect artists working in pre-sampling models of intellectual property and publishing, not to mention artistic merit/aesthetic value, to just "get" sampling right away. To not: a) feel insulted if they don't like what was done with the music? and b) wonder why they're getting paid, or paid how they expect? and even c) wonder if the practice is legit.
Especially in jazz where there is such an emphasis on collaboration and give and take. If that's part of where you draw your artistic energy from, are you going to hear someone playing music you don't really understand that lifts straight loops of your work and just have an epiphany that completely transforms the way you think about copyright and ownership and creativity, etc. (and yes, $$$)
By your logic, there's no way for James to put any conditions or expectations on sampling at all at any point in his career -- and so you've literally left no opportunity for a change of view. If he wasn't on board with sampling 100%, no strings attached, from the beginning, his changing views of sampling, in your view, can only be financially motivated. (And this motivation, somehow, is apparently the wrong motivation to have.)
Is it really impossible that the combination of getting paid (ameliorating one issue) and time/experience has made him adjust his understanding of sampling? I'm sure this is not the first time someone like 9th has given a speech in front of James about how much of a legacy he's left through hip hop production -- there's no chance those types of stories changed his view at all? It's absolutely all $$$? He talks about himself starting to play with sampling to better understand it -- we can be skeptical but does skepticism have to be the last response?
Radical alternative:
- it's ok for people to hold complicated and even contradictory views of sampling even if we ourselves believe in a more radically open understanding. it's ok for those views to change over time.
- it's understandable for people to feel that they should get paid when sampled even if we ourselves disagree about what that looks like. there's a larger system and history at play, a complicated range of influences and traditions, that shapes the way we all think about these issues -- we can respect that even if we don't 100% understand it or agree with it
- it's ok for people to wish that they had more of a say in the sampling process (or other forms of clearance), or to take a more active role in the process based on their own goals for their art, even if we disagree with the conditions they place. it doesn't mean that they harbor "hate and bias" toward sampling as an art. it does mean that they aren't on board with an absolutely no-strings-attached approach, and that's ok (again, even if we disagree with it)
-thebigfunk
~ i could still snort you under the table ~
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
