Is Remixed Music Art?

I think people are under the impression that I completely despise sampling, which is wrong. 'It Takes A Nation..." was great, and Entroducing... by DJ Shadow is a masterpiece, but I ....fear, I suppose, that the seeming greater and greater acceptance of sampling (especially as less instances of the original artists actually get credited emerge) in more and more genres of music, especially as we head into this century, is going to eventually drive down people's desire to actually pick up their instruments and PLAY something they try to write themselves.

And also, even if Dylan carried on the sentiments, style and the 4/4 chord of others, were his lyrics and compositions not his own? Also, he played his own damn guitar: he didn't sit up there on stage and just talk every once in awhile while somebody's recorded playing blared out of nearby speakers.
 
I could pick up a guitar & fashion a song out of a couple of chorRAB , I don't have to be a creative genius to do that either. So does that make it any less legitimate?
 
Its not the destruction o art, its the creation o a new interpretation. Endtroducing is one o the most creative albums ever concieved... and there isnt an original note on it
 
You're missing the point. I'm not saying that having technical ability means you don't have artistic ability, I'm saying that it doesn't necessarily mean you have artistic ability. They are two separate things.

And I have to question the premise of your second paragraph. I would venture to say that most modern composers are actually less technically proficient than many of the people who wind up playing their stuff, because otherwise why wouldn't they just play it all themselves?

Also, who says something has to be made by a "creative genius" in order to be artistic? To use your example, if you put something together in GarageBand that's really unique and emotionally moving then you've accomplished something artistic. It doesn't matter if you are a creative genius or not. As I said before it's the final product that matters.
 
I think of sampling as musical collage. If its all you do then you're an amateur. If you use it sometimes it can be great. If you alter what you use, you are introducing originality and making it your own. Its not a problem that people are sampling... its a problem when people get rich adding nothing to whatever they are sampling. In hip-hop there are original lyrics even if everything else is stolen. And by the way... I'm sorry but its not enough to throw your own ****ty MIDI 4/4 grove underneath one or two samples and call it your own.
 
Sure.


Absolutely.


I would say so.


Yes and no. I think most people above a certain age don't really get it, but that doesn't mean that they all don't get it.


I have no idea, but there certainly seem to be a lot of remixes that are done with the approval of the original artist. I'd imagine those are completely legal.
 
If I stole your English paper, rearranged a few sentences, slapped my name on it, turned it in, and it got accepted without any qualms...does that truthfully make it my paper even when everyone else has no problem with it?

And Sam, I think something like that speaks volumes about how little historians care about which came from what rather than whether or not their lack of originality is something to be respected.
 
After nearly 50 odd years of listening to music I am damned if I care about this style of argument. I have heard it all before in its various guises. "They can't play their instruments." "They are only in it for the money" Music is an aesthetic value in the end. Just enjoy it or don't listen to it.
 
thanks again all.. i am still intrigued on where this conversation is going because a lot of you brought up a lot of strong points. If i use a couple, i will make sure that you are quoted in my piece, i will for sure send you a PM to do so.

Also another question do discuss is has the evolution of music and technology and the way it is created today changed the way we view music or at least remixed music?

Has remixed music been looked at as better or worse than the original song? (can i even ask that question being that it has to do with subject matter?)
 
I'm a massive Nine Inch Nails fan....they (He) has lots of awesome remixes, I consider Trent Reznor to be artist in many area's of entertainmet. "Just a mainstream example"
 
There are a lot of remixers out there who may not be classed as artistically skilled but that is taring everyone with the same brush. Once again it comes down to actually getting out there and searching for music that is relevant. take these two tracks. The original (which I don't much care for TBH) and a remix version by my favourite remixers Kruder & Dorfmeister. I would certainly say that they are artistically skilled.

[YOUTUBE]bpBP9dALcWw[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]6ZDGIllgIlE&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
 
That doesn't answer my question, but no. That's not what sampling artists do though. They use another musical piece and make it their own by inserting it into the song to make their own music. They usually won't straight off sample the whole song, unless they're Apathy. Plus they have to give credit to the artists who they sampled.

Basically, what Sam said. I almost used Warhol too.
 
Back
Top