quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What is a remix and how is it different from any other work of art?

While we're at it... what is "music", really?

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael No, I don't think it has to be a small part of a tune. What I was referring to is just taking an entire section of song and using it as an entire section of your own, essentially.

Ok, so this is your line. This is what I want to start to hear.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

i got to get to class, but i'll be back tonight to respond because i like this topic

Also, I think it is possible to sample part of a song and use it in the "same way" in your track... I guess "conceptual stealing". Whereas perhaps you can sample part of a track and use it in a totally new and innovative way, which would be more acceptable to me.

Dunno. Hard to explain in text.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What is a remix and how is it different from any other work of art?

re·mix
tr.v. re·mixed, re·mix·ing, re·mix·es

To recombine (audio tracks or channels from a recording) to produce a new or modified audio recording.


As for your second question, it all depends on how you define "art", which is rather subjective.

___________________

quote:

Originally texted by Jakhira Out with the dog at the moment. Chicks love him, and I love chicks... The world is in harmony

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller i got to get to class, but i'll be back tonight to respond because i like this topic

+1... leaving work now, I know this is going to explode into a million pages before I can respond further...

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations So each sample work should be reviewed in an individual basis?

I think that's probably the best approach.

For instance, hypothetically, I could read a thread about "X" tune on TA and perhaps come across something like this:

quote:

This tune uses a 45 second samples from this other tune.

It's a fact, there's no inflection of opinion in that statement. Now, if I read that and automatically dismiss the tune as not worth my time solely because I live by the rule "Samples over "X" seconds long shouldn't be used," I think it's fair to say I'm taking a very narrow view.

What if the tune uses a full sample but so drastically altered that it surpasses the original work in quality? I missed it because I had some general rule about how samples should be used.

Perhaps it's a convoluted explanation, but I think it's probably best not to generalize about sample use, but rather to take them on an individual basis and discuss why it is we think that use is particularly bad or good.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller i got to get to class, but i'll be back tonight to respond because i like this topic

It's a bit of an experiment I'm going to use for one of my courses. My course deals with Reproductive Media and Contemporary Art and the ramifications of digital technologies and our ability to reproduce on our culture.

I have chose to focus my interests around this topic of discussion.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by TOR re·mix tr.v. re·mixed, re·mix·ing, re·mix·es To recombine (audio tracks or channels from a recording) to produce a new or modified audio recording. As for your second question, it all depends on how you define "art", which is rather subjective.

What I'm asking is a remix a work of art that can stand on it's own or is it dependent on the 'original mix'? Essentially it's (usually) never presented with the original- so this could create problems.

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What about that drummer in the 70's who recorded that kick? What about owner of that song it was in? Should these people be cut out of the loop completely?

That was just a tongue-in-cheek response m8! Nothing serious

And to answer your question, in a perfect world, everyone would be compensated fairly - But to define fair compensation for a single beat of music is in my eyes a legal "grey area." I'm inclined to say that for a single kick beat there is no substantial claim to royalties from the artist who played it, because honestly it more than likely appears on countless records. The people who own the record on may have more of a claim to royalties, but proving that a single kick came from their tune and in no way could have come from any other recording would be one hell of an uphill legal battle that I doubt would be worthwhile.

___________________
last minute disco dot net

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I think that's probably the best approach. For instance, hypothetically, I could read a thread about "X" tune on TA and perhaps come across something like this: It's a fact, there's no inflection of opinion in that statement. Now, if I read that and automatically dismiss the tune as not worth my time solely because I live by the rule "Samples over "X" seconds long shouldn't be used," I think it's fair to say I'm taking a very narrow view. What if the tune uses a full sample but so drastically altered that it surpasses the original work in quality? I missed it because I had some general rule about how samples should be used. Perhaps it's a convoluted explanation, but I think it's probably best not to generalize about sample use, but rather to take them on an individual basis and discuss why it is we think that use is particularly bad or good.

Is this a practical solution? There are 6 billion people in the world, even if %.01 were sampling and needed their works [approved] that's still a ridiculous amount of people.

Does out whole system of copyright need to be reworked? Is something like the "Creative Commons" the way of the future?

http://creativecommons.org/

(Essentially I agree with you, I'm just trying to move the discussion forward-)

___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.