How so? Are you more bothered by the article or what it describes?
The central point about pop musicians sampling underground musicians isn't necessarily wrong, but the way it's presented and framed is so fucking stupid it makes me hate the article and whoever wrote it.
How so? Are you more bothered by the article or what it describes?
The central point about pop musicians sampling underground musicians isn't necessarily wrong, but the way it's presented and framed is so fucking stupid it makes me hate the article and whoever wrote it.
How so? Are you more bothered by the article or what it describes?
The central point about pop musicians sampling underground musicians isn't necessarily wrong, but the way it's presented and framed is so fucking stupid it makes me hate the article and whoever wrote it.
Again, how so?
The article pushes a lot of ideas that I cannot stand. The idea that persons chiefly concerned with electronic music inherently have a knowledge of hip-hop and are entitled to speak about it, the idea that there was a golden age of electronic and/or rap music that is now over because a creative bankruptcy has somehow emerged, the idea that a sampler is always a criminal and a samplee is always a victim regardless of circumstances (and the article does push that, even if pretends to not), the idea that sampling a large portion of another track is inherently wrong or uncreative, and the idea that the modern underground music scene is an unsustainable one where artists are starving on the streets when in reality they're often doing almost as well as their popular counterparts. I could go on, but I'm not going to.
In the end, this all comes back to yet another thoughtpiece that boils down to a guy who doesn't listen to a certain kind of music complaining about said kind of music. It'd be like me writing an article on why thrashcore is going downhill.
The article pushes a lot of ideas that I cannot stand. The idea that persons chiefly concerned with electronic music inherently have a knowledge of hip-hop and are entitled to speak about it, the idea that there was a golden age of electronic and/or rap music that is now over because a creative bankruptcy has somehow emerged, the idea that a sampler is always a criminal and a samplee is always a victim regardless of circumstances (and the article does push that, even if pretends to not), the idea that sampling a large portion of another track is inherently wrong or uncreative, and the idea that the modern underground music scene is an unsustainable one where artists are starving on the streets when in reality they're often doing almost as well as their popular counterparts. I could go on, but I'm not going to.
I think that you are reading a lot of things into the tone of the article that are not actually there, although I do agree that the author's attitude toward mashups and long-form sampling in pop are pretty simplistic and reductive. But it does raise an interesting question: At what point does sampling cease to be creative in its own right and become a kind of theft? And to whit, at what point is that "theft" no longer justifiable?
Really, I love Dada and Pop Art and the musical equivalents thereof, but I think that there is a distinct difference between clever transformation of a work by changing the context and simply imitating or cutting up that work to sell something as your own. There is a Borges story that satirises the matter, but I'm not sure whether I want to get into that...
...OK, on second thought, the last few paragraphs of that article are annoying and silly, and many of your points that did not apply to the rest of the article do apply there. I liked most of the article, but that weird turn into "oh, woe unto us!" nostalgia at the end was unwarranted. The point is not bad in the least, but the framing is weak and vaguely reactionary. I am particularly miffed at the fact that the author used a thesis by one of my favourite music writers in a really ham-fisted way.
after googling there is a cracked article that lists pretending to like jazz as a way stupid people attempt to appear smart and presents an amusing anecdote about a young man who professed a love of jazz and did not know who thelonious monk was
My little brother is lying to look cool at the tender age of six by pretending to like museums, just as I lied by spending a night at the museum when I was a kid.
"I've done a course on philosophy of physics which is basically telling physicists that they're not rational. I am therefore more rational than physicists by some finite amount. But physicists are more rational than Muslims, therefore I am also more rational than Muslims. Mohamed was a Muslim. The only Muslim more rational than Mohamed was Allah, who was infinitely rational because he's Allah.
Now, as I am more rational than Allah my rationality = Allah's rationality + some finite number. But Allah's rationality is infinite meaning that Allah's rationality + some finite number = Allah's rationality = my rationality.
Now as anyone from lesswrong can tell you rationality is pretty much the only important character trait. Thus if my rationality = Allah's rationality then me = Allah.
I have therefore mathematically proved that I am Allah, from a few basic premises as supplied by lesswrong (which are therefore correct). Salaam."
Comments
In the end, this all comes back to yet another thoughtpiece that boils down to a guy who doesn't listen to a certain kind of music complaining about said kind of music. It'd be like me writing an article on why thrashcore is going downhill.
This is important information that belongs on the page of a film, in some Wikipedia editor's opinion.
And Ma-Ti, from South America, with the power of Heart.
Guess I'm making the little guys dinner tonight. :/
Museums.
Adam Tod Brown says so.
"I've done a course on philosophy of physics which is basically telling physicists that they're not rational. I am therefore more rational than physicists by some finite amount. But physicists are more rational than Muslims, therefore I am also more rational than Muslims. Mohamed was a Muslim. The only Muslim more rational than Mohamed was Allah, who was infinitely rational because he's Allah.
Now, as I am more rational than Allah my rationality = Allah's rationality + some finite number. But Allah's rationality is infinite meaning that Allah's rationality + some finite number = Allah's rationality = my rationality.
Now as anyone from lesswrong can tell you rationality is pretty much the only important character trait. Thus if my rationality = Allah's rationality then me = Allah.
I have therefore mathematically proved that I am Allah, from a few basic premises as supplied by lesswrong (which are therefore correct). Salaam."