Interesting words about the amen break

[kensuguro]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac

A detailed overview of the amen break and copyrights.. sort of stating the obvious, but stated very well.

[hubird]

so true.

[garyb]

what, that since samplers music has all been the same?

i'm reminded of Lili Von Shtupp...
unfortunately, i couldn't find a clip with the classic line "oh...a wed wose...how owdinawy", so this clip from just after that line will have to do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9JqbCH4aVw

maybe i'll go with this old line:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qf6Sv3A9zs

[hubird]

what, that since samplers music has all been the same?

not exactly, Garyb.
Or the arguement is the same for 4/4 rock&roll, style differences set beside.

Anyway, my 'so true' hooked up to the proposition of the clip Ken posted.

[kensuguro]

I think it's also interesting to note that maybe related to the copyright changes of using sampled loops, in the meanwhile hiphop and other traditionally more loop based music has adopted more non-sample based approaches. (like using a bunch of trance synths)

You can counter that regardless of amen breaks being protected or not, or whether any other break is protected or not affects the creation of new idioms or refinement of older forms. Seems to happen either way, regardless of whether the constituent elements are regulated or not. Of course, loops being more tightly regulated than before might make it harder for heavily loop based (like jungle) forms to become mass produced as once before.. (and nothing says those are more valuable than other forms) So then what affect does regulation of sampling really have anyway? It affects certain genres more than others, but I feel it still speaks to only a very tiny portion of contemporary music.

It's true ideas are born from ideas, and "sampling" seems to be a good metaphor for the "reinvention" and reinterpretive nature of the organic growth of ideas, but I don't think the metaphor necessarily works the other way around. Restricted "sampling" doesn't mean restricted ideation. Restricted sampling means more ownership of recording rights returning to its rightful owners. If you wanted to borrow and idea from a cool drum break and your only means of borrowing was to literally sample it, then I think it's more a problem of the definition of "borrowing" or the lack of imagination in borrowing.

Music is a stream of information, and the literal recording is only one aspect of it. Recording rights are owned by the people who paid for the recording. The other streams may belong to the author, or the idea may have been public domain to begin with. The idea, or the concept that makes the recording what it is, will forever be open to interpretation or borrowing. I wouldn't get too hung up on not being able to sample the thing. As part of music culture, you have sampling, but sampling does not represent all of music culture.

Of course, this is just a couter viewpoint that I created to illustrate that it can be supported to be equally valid. I think the it's important to take away nostalgia and romanticizing to understand what is really happening, and what real problems (if any) it's causing. I feel a lot of it is an intellectual exercise and does not underline a specific (pragmatic) problem.

[garyb]

Ken, i basically agree with what you are saying. actually, if you look at all the hit music from 1969, it's a dizzying variety of styles and textures.

what sampling has done(and i certainly use sampling), it to make things easier, but at the same time, more standardized. since people who don't really have an idea or skill can use ready-made components, everything has become quite inbred. actually, by using other people's successful components, sound and vibration has both become more effective, and dull, boring, and predictable at the same time.

[hubird]

interesting note, Ken.
I was thinking the same way, espacially about the 'scientific' approach. It's there, so hello, and then check it for possible merits.

My personal experience is that in the late eighties I had enough of all rock&roll make-overs and variations since the seventies, as I made it from the beginning (from the young Beatles and Stones erea).
Slowly it has been dried up, the real thing I mean.
As a dance lover black funk music made me through the seventies, and Reggea and good Salsa through the belly-looking Dark Eighties, but after all I was just a white guy

When I heard dance music (house) for the first time, I immediately knew that's it for me.
It's dance, 'industrial', and DIY, I just had to buy an Atari ST.

Except the jukebox it was the radio which make rock&roll big.
Dance still isn't popular on classic radio, if not absent.
That's perfect, it keeps the shit out.
If it's 25 years all the same music, than it's even more remarkable that electronic music is still growing, with Trance music as most popular and most commercial style also.

For me however Trance music get's quite boring after 10 climaxes in half an hour.
Tiësto, Armin van Buuren, Afrojack, those are the big names, totally by accident all Dutch.

It seems Trance parties are going popular in the US these days.
We Dutch sell everything

[kensuguro]

Ken, i basically agree with what you are saying. actually, if you look at all the hit music from 1969, it's a dizzying variety of styles and textures.

what sampling has done(and i certainly use sampling), it to make things easier, but at the same time, more standardized. since people who don't really have an idea or skill can use ready-made components, everything has become quite inbred. actually, by using other people's successful components, sound and vibration has both become more effective, and dull, boring, and predictable at the same time.

I see your train of thought. More like standardized ingredients, standardized tools (=standardized or similar methodology) result in a common playfield, everyone playing a similar game. Especially when speaking strictly about sampling and other sample manipulation, there's only so much you can do before it just becomes mangling and destruction. Then you get to the whole fsu thing (in search for something more 'different', an identity). I guess on a wider scale though, the jungle era and big beat era did establish a sort of standard "vocabulary" for beat mangling and also chord based/melodic slicing of hiphop and to a degree, house, that has now become a part of every modern producer's toolset. I see it as an era that has passed, and left behind a lot of useful parts (as in can be used repetitively, with known results) in the collective musical culture.. pretty good I think.

But again, I think it's one of those things that has more or less concluded. It doesn't need to happen again in the exact same way, and I'm not sure if it's a valid argument to have to shape copyright structures to secure the second coming of the beat mangling era.

Speaking to Hubird's point about trance.. I think trance suffers under a similar paradigm of being technologically bound. Similar constituent parts, similar equipment (and even revival of old equipment), emphasis on using established tools (onboard sequencers, etc), that level the playfield. A quick comparison between many genres and styles that have become established and have become formulaic show similar signs. They are all very standardized in timbre, structure, and musical parts. Which limits the width, but also standardizes and defines character. But I think there lies an important set of ingredients.. 1. Clear definition of what you can or can't do 2. Tools to produce results are easy to come by, or reproduce by alternate means 3. The rules are easy enough for many people to reproduce. Obviously, if all 3 aren't met, the style is niche, or particular to a specific scene, or person, and therefor will not proliferate.

So it's interesting to note that the method of proliferation and dissemination seem to directly contradict with originality or exclusivity of a particular style. If trance, or any genre for that matter, required a minimum of $20 million worth of equipment, and a girl vocalist who had the looks, could sing really well, and was also an astrophysicist, and was a olympic gold medalist, then trance would not have been mainstream. This is an important distinction when compared to jazz musicians, who I think are great musicians, but have also signed up for the circus / olympic game.. That race is only for the selected... and that exclusivity and refined definition of character also means that no one can follow nor help proliferate the style. It's pursuit of something true has also sealed its (marketing) doom.

Anyway, just throwing more ideas into the mix. I think it's all an interesting conversation to have. Styles and formulas come and go, but having seen a handful of these come and go, I think it's worthwhile to discuss what's really important about these cycles. (truly sounds like and old far thing to say)

[garyb]

yes, i can agree to that.