31–40 of 98 posts
" More Spell On You " was actually produced by Daniel Vangarde (a.k.a Thomas Bangalter's father). It might be the reason why Daft Punk were able to avoid legal complications.
Nitpicking, but that comment in the closing paragraph is jarring: "Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art". It's clearly a reference to Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - a key work in the argument of what is and isn't art. However, that urinal, and its reproductions, were pointedly never mounted on a wall, but flat on a pedestal where it couldn't be used. It's like the author had heard the phrase but didn't kn…
Also, you have misquoted (?) the article. When quoted like that, it sounds like the author is criticizing Daft Punk, when in fact the author is addressing potential detractors.
Nitpicking, but that comment in the closing paragraph is jarring: "Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art". It's clearly a reference to Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - a key work in the argument of what is and isn't art. However, that urinal, and its reproductions, were pointedly never mounted on a wall, but flat on a pedestal where it couldn't be used. It's like the author had heard the phrase but didn't kn…
I'm not sure this is too far from the point of duschamp's piece, which is that you can "put anything on a pedastal" and the "sign it", and as long as it's done by someone with a certain "aura", such an act becomes transformative.
The "wall" and the "pedastal" need not be taken literally, IMHO. There is a whole "deconstruct the art gallery" theme that followed. Things like..."pile of rocks in a white cube". And for that matter, the actual "white cube" itself.
see, eg.
http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Cube-Ideology-Gallery/dp/...
" More Spell On You " was actually produced by Daniel Vangarde (a.k.a Thomas Bangalter's father). It might be the reason why Daft Punk were able to avoid legal complications.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the final product of the sample taken produced a newly created track. at least for sake of brevity, created seems acceptable in this context. it also probably is a good way of conceptualizing the legal issues involved (©) when an artist manipulates a sample enough to create a new derivative work so distinct that it ought be deemed a separate entity from the original. These legal limits are still being tested but afte…
Agreed, so the sample is taken/used to create something new. I'm not saying that sampling is not creative, and I've done it myself on plenty of tracks. But a sample only becomes creative after it is taken. You can't 'create' a sample because it is just a snippet of audio. As the article says, it's about "building songs from samples". I'm not being pedantic by the way.. I just see the person who 'created' the sample a…
This is a perpetual debate =D. Although I'm not sure its black or white. A good artist can use a "sample" in the same way a panatone color is used by a pointillist painter. At that stage, its all about the spectrum of color, the contrast, and the entire effevt of many points of color...not just the quality of the sampled pigments in any one brush-stroke.
I normally don't read Slate because of stuff like this; apparently it was a mistake to give them another chance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it's tedious semantic quibbling, and it's not even correct. One samples a record, by doing this one creates a sample in ones sampler. One then plays this sample in a record of ones own, just like you would any other instrument or sound. You will likely manipulate the sample, like in the video, and then you will have created a new sample. This isn't very clear in the video, because the editing process in moder…
So by your description, if it was really about how Daft Punk 'created' that sample, the article would just be a description of how they plugged a record player into a sampler and pressed the record button. Which it clearly isn't. Hence my first comment.
So most people interpret would instead interpret it as snide commentary on the illegitimacy of sampling as an art.
Which most people also don't like.
Hence the downvoting.
See also this great recreation of a Prodigy track: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI
That one is a lot more enlightening as to the creative process for this kind of music. (Of course the prodigy didn't do it like that, all point and click. There would have been a lot more twiddling of knobs and generally wigging out with actual hardware.)
I know I've done stuff just point and click on the train home from work in both ableton live and Reason.
It's not quite as fluid as having a real keyboard (or other instruments around), but it is completely doable.
On a side note: How does the whole legal process work? I mean, the original tracks, or at least parts of it, are taken from a song and re-sampled to create something new. So far so good. But is everybody allowed to do it or do you have to ask the original creator for permission, especially if you want to use the new sample in/as commercial products?