EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 67, Issue 02 This issue's topics: A bit of controversy: sampling (48 messages) A bit of controversy: sampling sources (2 messages) Mc Hammer... AAAAaaarrrgggghhhh Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:57:56 LCL From: Michael Carnes Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Copyright law is pretty clear on the subject of sampling. If the original recording is copyrighted, then the owner of the copyright can determine any uses of the material. Anyone wishing to sample the material for use in a public format (by the way, 'public' is pretty broadly defined) must obtain permission and pay any fees that the copyright owner requests. It's not really a first amendment issue at all. You're perfectly within your rights to create something new to espouse any set of beliefs you wish. Sampling is the use of some- one elses property. As far as satire is concerned, the fair use doctrine is often fairly generous if you create your own version of some other material. The intent to satirize must be fairly obvious though. Hope this contributes some useful information. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 12:43:30 PDT From: Casey Dunn Subject: A bit of controversy: sampling Joe, Have you read NegativeLands doctrine on "Fair Use"? I think you will find that discussion enlightening. With their run in with U2's management, followed by the Roy Acuff suit, this topic is getting a fair amount of attention. casey ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 14:48:06 -0500 From: Steve Hills Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling I think that it depends on how long a particular sample is...does it capture the essence of artist A? If so, than you need permission, if it is only a sound than, yes, a particular sound can't be copyrighted...only the particular way that sound is expressed (a sampled 'Jethro Tull flute is one thing...if it's his 'riff' than its another). A drum is a drum is a drum..... "Every truly great accomplishment is at first impossible" - fortune cookie ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 15:16:08 -0500 From: Joe McMahon Subject: A bit of controversy: sampling Let me pose a question which is bothering me: Does artist A have the right (in the US under the First Amendment) to sample another artists work and use it even if the other artist does not want it sampled? Is this a problem from the standpoint of artistic integrity, or is it simply a worry that the sampler may use the material in a manner not complementary to the original artist? More importantly, *should* artist A have the right to lampoon artist B using artist B's own material, even without artist B's permission? Let's go a step further: let's assume artist B is an actor or a politician. Same rules? Different rules? (Different lawyers/profit motive?) --- Joe M. -- "First up, it's John Tesh, with 'Whispering Firestorm', followed by Yanni and his 'Snoremaster of Tralfamadore.'" (MST3K - "Pod People") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 15:27:14 -0500 From: Steve Hills Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Points well taken. Yes, if you can get your flute originally do it...have them MIMICK the Jethro Tull! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:33:18 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling IMHO: There's a difference between parodying another musician's *style* (a bona fide free speech right) and recording that person's actual *work* on whatever recording medium (samplers included) and then making use of that. It's just dishonorable to use someone else's work and claim it's your own, especially since most audiences are so ignorant about the reality of musical creation. (I'm sure many young rap fans don't know that Roy Orbison first recorded "Pretty Woman," and thus wouldn't *get* the parody at that level. Heck, they've never HEARD of Roy Orbison). I tell my students that instead of trying to achieve musical hipness by copping someone else's hip sounds, they'll learn more, go further, be more genuinely hip by learning how to roll their own. Furthermore, the case Mr. McMahon cites invokes laws other than those in the Bill 'o Rights, ie the copyright code, which seeks to protect a creator's economic AND intellectual property, even if little or no commercial profit is involved (cf most contemporary 'classical' music). It's just as wrong to employ 20 bars of X's unpublished 13-tone string quartet dissertation as it is to put 20 seconds of Madonna on track #4 of your mix, unless you get permission from X or M'dna (or their assigned representatives) to use either, and to share fairly whatever financial gain there might be. If B tries to reap financial profit in any way by exploiting A's *work* without that permission, then it's an obvious violation of the copyright laws which protect economic property. Where little economic interest is involved, it's usually pretty easy to get permission to use copyrighted material, if the artistic intention is valedictory or even just merely benign. I've never tried or heard of an appeal to a copyright holder stating that the intention is sarcastic or wickedly parodistic or whatever, but that might even work with some artists. Capitalism, art production, art consumption, and all this great new technology we take for granted make for unhappy bedfellows -- but isn't the sex great? At least a whole lot of lawyers think so.... Bill Matthews wmatthew@bates.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:34:48 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > The only way around it is to produce my own > Anderson-like samples (via my own flute player), or go for a more creative > means of parody (the only practical, and artistically more satisfying > approach). or sell the sampler, buy a flute, and get to work! ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 15:54:05 -0500 From: Steve Hills Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Bill Matthews has good points. However, if we are talking only a 1 second sample of a sound...is there any real issue over this? ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 16:16:01 -0500 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling >(a sampled 'Jethro Tull flute >is one thing...if it's his 'riff' than its another). Well, let's say for the sake of argument that (a) I wanted to do a parody of Ian Anderson's flute-playing and (b) someone concerned, either Ian Anderson himself or a lawyer with his record company, decides that this idea is offensive and that permission is not to be granted to sample anything. In the real world, I am stuck. If I use the samples, I lay myself open to a lawsuit guaranteed to eat me alive (record companies have more money for lawyers than I do). The only way around it is to produce my own Anderson-like samples (via my own flute player), or go for a more creative means of parody (the only practical, and artistically more satisfying approach). Still, this lacks the bite of being able to take something recognizable and to place it in new context. --- Joe M. -- "First up, it's John Tesh, with 'Whispering Firestorm', followed by Yanni and his 'Snoremaster of Tralfamadore.'" (MST3K - "Pod People") ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 18:22:02 -0400 From: William Matthews Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > Bill Matthews has good points. However, if we are talking only a > 1 second sample of a sound...is there any real issue over this? > in the case mentioned, the Tull flute sound - without the recordings at hand & working from memory, I'd guess it takes a bit more than a second for that particular sound and style to establish itself in the listener's ear: quicker if the listener is a pro (geezer voice here... going BACK a ways, eh, Joe?....) If I'm not mistaken, the courts have developed some loose notion of a 'signature' sound, which can be as short as James Brown's "HHUH;" less than a second, in that case. Bill ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Aug 1994 22:45:18 -800 From: Mark Hartshorn Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Yeah Joe!!!! Great source of controversy!!! I believe it is illegal for an artist to use another artists material with-out permission, period.. I would be happy to be told otherwise. Technically, I don't think it matters how long it is... If you have permission though.. (ie. Beautiful People) One common (or at least semi-popular) thereory is that if you can manipulate the sample so much in such an interesting way that not even the orginal artist would notice, your probably home free. (ie. use the sample as an "instrument" as oposed to a fondation) Not that I would do such a thing............ Mark H On Mon, 15 Aug 1994, Joe McMahon wrote: > Let me pose a question which is bothering me: Does artist A have the right > (in the US under the First Amendment) to sample another artists work and > use it even if the other artist does not want it sampled? Is this a problem > from the standpoint of artistic integrity, or is it simply a worry that the > sampler may use the material in a manner not complementary to the original > artist? > > More importantly, *should* artist A have the right to lampoon artist B > using artist B's own material, even without artist B's permission? Let's go > a step further: let's assume artist B is an actor or a politician. Same > rules? Different rules? (Different lawyers/profit motive?) > > --- Joe M. > > -- > "First up, it's John Tesh, with 'Whispering Firestorm', followed by Yanni > and his 'Snoremaster of Tralfamadore.'" (MST3K - "Pod People") ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 11:27:55 -0500 From: Steve Hills Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Well, first let's define what is copyrighted. The PARTICULAR way an idea is expressed NOT the idea itself. So lawyers can sue or think about suing all they want but you can't copyright an idea. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 11:29:30 -0500 From: Jonathan Bauer Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Among other things, I represent musicians on copyright infringement matters. If one of my clients' work was sampled and used without their permission *for commmercial purposes* and they did not like it, I would not hesitate to bring legal action. If the work was used for non-commercial purposes something less harsh might be a first step. I like the response of one individual who said, roughly, get a flute and get to work. If there is something unique about a musician's sound that makes you want to sample it, that, in and of itself should let you know that you are misapproprating someone else's work. It goes beyond copyright. For example, under New York law, the commercial use of a person's likeness (which could include their unique sound) is a violation of the New York Civil Rights Law ss. 50-51 (right to privacy). I believe that California has a similar provision. Other states and countries may as well. As a practical matter, if you can tell that the sound comes from someone else, then that implies an infringement. One can endlessly split hairs about how many milliseconds makes an infringement, but the fact remains that when one appropriates another's work without permission, there is a potential problem, to say the least. You should also know that, to a large extent, copyright law is internationalized through the Berne Convention and other treaties. This is not a question of American law versus the rest of the world. With regard to fair use and satire, there was an important US Supreme Court decision over a rap group's rendition of the Orbison composition, "Oh, Pretty Woman." I can look up the citation if there is any interest. The bottom line is that it _must_ be satire, but if it is, you are protected. The better course of action is always to seek permission. I am quite certain that everyone on this list would be terribly disappointed if one of my clients sampled your work without permission, made a hit (or even semi-hit) album and refused to acknowledge or compensate your work. This is really a matter of common sense. Just my .02 - I'm happy to reply to any comments, maybe email is better so as not to take up the list. /jonathan ---------------------------------- Jonathan Bauer 440 W. 41st St. #202 N.Y. N.Y. 10036 +1 212-239-5158 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 11:38:03 CDT From: "Kevan L. Moore" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling opinion alert!! there seems to be a trend of sampling MEASURES' worth of background from other songs, then 'writing' your own melody/lyrics over it. that's like competing in a 100 yard dash, but YOU start on the 70-yard line. it's cheating, and very cheap in my opinion. do it for fun, yes, but not for money. you pay people for originality. you pay people to come up with their own music. one thing that always annoyed me was when conway twitty (ever think you'd see HIS name on this list?) would redo old songs and not write his own. he did one old eagles song and didn't even bother to change the guitar riff in the middle. just lifted it. and he made money on it. any fool could do that if his name was big enough. and it bothers me greatly to see people cheating by riding on a progression that was already successful and sticking a melody on it. that would be like painting an exact copy of the mona lisa, except with a blue background, and getting rich off of it. i should like an artist because i like the artist, not because they built a song around something i already liked. thank you for your attention (he says, donning his asbestos suit ...) kevan l moore ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 17:35:59 EST From: "" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Re use of sampled sounds, wasn't there some controversy a few years back over a snare drum sampled from a Bowie track and used by several artists without permission? Or has my last remaining memory neuron finally given up the ghost? Clive McFarland CSIRO Australia clive@pelican.dbe.csiro.au ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 19:29:50 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling The reason I brought this up is that I can forsee a possible scenario: 1) You are producing a piece of music. 2) You wish to use a sample of a particular voice or sound in a context with which the origiator does not agree. Perhaps it is a political statement of one's own. Let's say it's samples of the Presidential candidates intercut with, oh, readings from the Congressional Record. Or the Bible. I can envision a way in which a really creative artist could do this. Questions: 1) If this is intended as a serious statement, is it therefore *not* parody and therefore not covered by the Roy Orbison/2 Live Crew ruling? Or does one have to include goofy clown voices and samples of bodily functions to call it a parody? 2) Does, say, the New York privacy statute prohibit someone from putting together a mock press conference in which samples of a candidate's voice are used to "answer" serious questions in a way that does not imply slanderous conclusions, but does point up inconsistencies and evasions? What I'm getting at here is, does the right of "privacy" for items already broadcast over mass media, indeed, even put together specifically for distribution in mass media completely supersede their use in anything *but* a parody? Do intellectual property rights also override free speech rights to use materials as outlined above in a work of art which is *not* specifcally parodistic? Can I simply term an album of surrealist collages of copyrighted sound a collection of "parodies"? Whose sense of humor decides whether a use is a parody or not? Is it simply a matter of "I have enough money to hire lawyers to keep you from using it because I don't like what you're doing"? --- Joe M. --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 21:30:30 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Here's a point of view i just thought of. It really has nothing to do with legality, but more with integrity or the lakc thereof... Every once in a while i'll take a ramdom loop from somewhere and use it as a basis to build things on top of and create a song with it. At the end, i drop out the loop that i used as a basis and see if the work can stand by itself and not sound a new instrumentation of the old loop. Technically, i used someone elses material to help me create the new piece, i just didn't use the lifted material in the final version. If this is ok, without giving credit then the matter of sampling is less that you used someone else's material to create your own, but that the pure recognition factor of someone else's material in your creation lends it a certain name recognition strength that you did not work for... -- Arne F. Claassen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nine Inch Nails on MTV Unplugged - "The whole band is onstage. Chris is behind the drums and a tape deck not plugged in, no sound. Everybody's waiting to play. He hits it again. Nothing. I yell at him. He hits it again. Nothing. Then we smash our gear and walk offstage!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 21:35:21 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Joe M. writes: > Is it simply a matter of "I > have enough money to hire lawyers to keep you from using it because I > don't like what you're doing"? I think that is really what it boils down to. Does a artist (or copyright owner of the artist's material, such as the label) feel that there's somone making money with his/her work? And are the alwyer fee's negligible in light of the money to be made from filing a complaint? In no way, do i want to say that this the right approach. But i do think that that is the approach most likely to be found out there... -- Arne F. Claassen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nine Inch Nails on MTV Unplugged - "The whole band is onstage. Chris is behind the drums and a tape deck not plugged in, no sound. Everybody's waiting to play. He hits it again. Nothing. I yell at him. He hits it again. Nothing. Then we smash our gear and walk offstage!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 22:05:48 -0500 From: Siberian Khatru Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling I'm just wondering if the person who made the statement about using famous progressions ever used one (or more) of the following: Standard 12-bar blues, I-IV-V, ii-V-I, any circle progression, any tritone substitution (this list is definitely not exhaustive). Mind you, this is not a flame (the pop-metal scene in the 80's with the same Dmaj-Cadd9-Gmaj acoustic guitar chord progression drove me nuts!), but it's just a thought I had. However, I don't think anyone complained about Zeppelin's "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You", the Beatle's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps", and Chicago's "25 or 6 to 4" having the same progression (maybe they just did it better? Hmmmm....) Jon Southwood jsouthwo@keller.clarke.edu ****************************************************************************** "I once played poker with a deck of tarot cards. I got a full house and four people died."-Steven Wright "If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."-Albert Einstein "Truly great madness cannot be achieved without significant intelligence." -Henrik Tikkanen ****************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Aug 1994 22:19:16 CDT From: HARRY HAECKER Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling I was just thinking of this same topic last week, after hearing MC Hammer's classic ditty, "Can't Touch Dis". Didn't the bass line (if it can even be glorified as such!) come from another "classic", "Der Kommisar's in Town" ? Harry Haecker, resident expert on forgettable classics :^) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 00:57:59 EDT From: VLeComer@AOL.COM Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling "... after hearing MC Hammer's classic ditty, "Can't Touch Dis". Didn't the bass line (if it can even be glorified as such!) come from another "classic", "Der Kommisar's in Town" ? Actually, the bass line is from a Rick James song called "Super Freak". Hammer actually gave proper credit to the original author, after getting permission to use it. Victor ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 01:15:51 -0400 From: Joshua Fried Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > I was just thinking of this same topic last week, after hearing MC > Hammer's classic ditty, "Can't Touch Dis". Didn't the bass line (if it can > even be glorified as such!) come from another "classic", "Der Kommisar's > in Town" ? > > Harry Haecker, resident expert on forgettable classics :^) > No, it was from Rick James' immortal "Superfreak." I see the "Kommisar" resemblance, though. Falco did "Der Kommisar" which was soon covered in an English version by a band whose name I can't remember. Falco also did "Rock Me Amadeus." Here's my .02 on sampling. Yes, privacy, intellectual property and free speech rights should all be balanced against one another and protected, especially in our society. But would life not be better if everyone took a more "folk" or "oral-traditional" approach to these issues? If themes that are "in the air" were fair game for appropriation, improvement, comment? Isn't that how great folk music and traditional music develop? Years ago , I believe, Mozart and his peers operated in this type of milieu. I heard that Mozart would knock out, say, a suite based on one of his operas--just to get it out there before someone else did it! Or something like that. Livelihood meant NEW pieces for new situations, not the jealous guarding of one's past pearls. But of course that can't work for us in this day and age. Life would have to be pretty different if it could. More's the pity. Does this make me a commie? jf@escape.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 08:32:13 -0400 From: "Keith C. Perry" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling >opinion alert!! > . . . >thank you for your attention (he says, donning his asbestos suit ...) > >kevan l moore You don't even need that suit... I agree 1000% (if you can imagine that) These days people are abusing technology to the 3rd degree. Don't get me wrong I'm an electical/computer engineer myself as well as an electronic musician so I *LOVE* the technology but when I see some of these groups out there and every song I hear is a rendition of someone else's tune or "major" samples of someone's work- I don't know about y'll but I really get ticked... Anyway before I babble, I just wanted to say I support your opinion. Peace.... Keith- "...too much candy is not good, so now I'm closing the shop." Keith C. Perry - (800)-836-4599 ************************************************************************** * * *Floor Supervisor / Senior Consultant - Drexel University CRG, OCS Group * *Owner / Studio K Productions * * * * "Ok, ok, ok, nah wait- ar'ite, wait- ok, yea thats cool- but..." * * * * -Things you hear when someone is talking on the phone- * * * ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 08:50:19 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > and it bothers me greatly to see people cheating by riding on a > progression that was already successful and sticking a melody on it. Jazz musicians certainly seem to have gotten a lot of milage out of "I Got Rhythm." In fact blues musicians have built a whole genre out of sticking melodies on an already successful chord progression. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 10:20:23 -0500 From: Robert Gough Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling In message Tue, 16 Aug 1994 22:19:16 CDT, HARRY HAECKER writes: > I was just thinking of this same topic last week, after hearing MC > Hammer's classic ditty, "Can't Touch Dis". Didn't the bass line (if it can > even be glorified as such!) come from another "classic", "Der Kommisar's > in Town" ? I can't comment on the resemblence mentioned above, not being familiar with "Der Kommisar's in Town", but "Can't Touch Dis" always sounded to me like a blatant rip-off of Rick James' "Super Freak". *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* * * * "My head is my only house. Except when it rains" * * - Don Van Vliet * *=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=* * Robert Gough * * Power Technologies, Inc. * * Schenectady, NY * * rc.gough@pti-us.com * *=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 12:20:55 -0700 From: "Shawn T. Rutledge" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > No, it was from Rick James' immortal "Superfreak." I see the "Kommisar" > resemblance, though. Falco did "Der Kommisar" which was soon covered in > an English version by a band whose name I can't remember. Falco also did > "Rock Me Amadeus." Could you expound further on who Falco is and where to find that? -- _______ KB7PWD shawn.rutledge@asu.edu (_ | |_) html: http://enuxsa.eas.asu.edu/~rutledge/home.html __) | | \__________________________________________________________________ * PIC * fusion * virtual reality * Star Trek * SunSparc * RISC * electronics * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 14:27:32 CST From: "Harry F.P. Haecker" Subject: Re[2]: A bit of controversy: sampling >Actually, the bass line is from a Rick James song called "Super >Freak". Hammer actually gave proper credit to the original author, after >getting permission to use it. Actually, in a way, that's my point exactly! With today's 6 note (max) bass/melody line repeated ad nauseum, one *can't* even tell sometimes WHICH dance song came from where! BTW, I don't really consider myself an expert on popular songs. However, it does disgust me greatly that with the potentially infinite number of songs in the universe, altogether too many re-makes are made...at a profit! I'm not talking about jazz here, since IMHO, the beauty of good jazz is the improv played on top of the (somewhat modified?) chord structure. HFPH (haeckerh@nwrc.gov) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 17:04:45 -0500 From: Siberian Khatru Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling On Tue, 16 Aug 1994, HARRY HAECKER wrote: > I was just thinking of this same topic last week, after hearing MC > Hammer's classic ditty, "Can't Touch Dis". Didn't the bass line (if it can > even be glorified as such!) come from another "classic", "Der Kommisar's > in Town" ? I thought it came from "Super Freak" by Rick James. Jon Southwood jsouthwo@keller.clarke.edu > > Harry Haecker, resident expert on forgettable classics :^) > ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 21:29:51 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > No, it was from Rick James' immortal "Superfreak." I see the "Kommisar" > resemblance, though. Falco did "Der Kommisar" which was soon covered in > an English version by a band whose name I can't remember. Falco also did > "Rock Me Amadeus." I'm pretty sure that Falco did the english version of "Der Kommisar", but then again, it's been a while. > But would life not be better if everyone took a more "folk" or > "oral-traditional" approach to these issues? If themes that are "in the > air" were fair game for appropriation, improvement, comment? Isn't that > how great folk music and traditional music develop? I have two things on this viewpoint: 1) No problem with the oral traditional. But at least there is still some work involved in recreating the theme that is expanded on, not just a button that is pressed and voila, instant replication. The difference is that in the folk music approah, at least the stolen bit is reinterpreted in performance, while as a sample the actual original performance is used. Although i find that more of an aestetic ground than a legal ground. 2) I believe in the sampler as a tool to take sounds and use them in a fashion that they were not previously intended, so most of the time the original should not be recognizable anyhow. Hence, it is a form of appropriation, but unlik the folk approach it is not the theme that is appropriated but a specific effect.. and that's where the legal problems begin.> > Does this make me a commie? I don't think so. More a person that is more interested in the joy of music than eager appropriation of more funds. -- Arne F. Claassen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nine Inch Nails on MTV Unplugged - "The whole band is onstage. Chris is behind the drums and a tape deck not plugged in, no sound. Everybody's waiting to play. He hits it again. Nothing. I yell at him. He hits it again. Nothing. Then we smash our gear and walk offstage!" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 08:47:10 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > Every once in a while i'll take a ramdom loop from somewhere and use it as a > basis to build things on top of and create a song with it. At the end, i drop > out the loop that i used as a basis and see if the work can stand by itself > and not sound a new instrumentation of the old loop. Technically, i used > someone elses material to help me create the new piece, i just didn't use > the lifted material in the final version. If this is ok, without giving credit > then the matter of sampling is less that you used someone else's material to > create your own, but that the pure recognition factor of someone else's > material in your creation lends it a certain name recognition strength that > you did not work for... How you come up with your music is your own business. Music doesn't exist in a vacuum, rather it's the result of myriads of influences, many of which you're not even aware of. Many worthy composers have started out by saying "I like 'Music X' and I'd like to write something just like it", and then in the process of emulating Music X, have added their own ideas and eventually came out with something all their own. As long as none of Music X is actually in the finished product then "Dey can't touch dis". Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:18:59 -0400 From: "Keith C. Perry" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling >How you come up with your music is your own business. Music doesn't exist >in a vacuum, rather it's the result of myriads of influences, many of >which you're not even aware of. Many worthy composers have started out by >saying "I like 'Music X' and I'd like to write something just like it", >and then in the process of emulating Music X, have added their own ideas >and eventually came out with something all their own. As long as none of >Music X is actually in the finished product then "Dey can't touch dis". > >Mark Simon >mgs2@cornell.edu Not to but into this convo, but are you saying that it is impossible for someone to "create" music- in other words all composers draw on past material that they have heard (ie "myriads of influences"??). I would hope that is not what you meant. Speaking strictly for myself as a Jazz artist, I know that sometime you maybe be playing and perhaps a certain phrase or "lick" inspires you to play a certain passage but, I think more often than not, my compositions are based on emotion, thoughts or the environment I'm a currently in "tune" with. This "experience" (the emotion, thougthts, etc) could be occuring now or from memories of an experience. So I agree with to a point but I think that is probaby like I said the smaller percentage of what actually happens when composing. Again all IMHO :) Keith C. Perry - (800)-836-4599 ************************************************************************** * * *Floor Supervisor / Senior Consultant - Drexel University CRG, OCS Group * *Owner / Studio K Productions * * * * "If you leave it, it will grow" * * * * >-Voices heard by people with short hair-< * * ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ * ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 11:55:50 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > Not to but into this convo, but are you saying that it is impossible for > someone to "create" music- in other words all composers draw on past > material that they have heard (ie "myriads of influences"??). I would hope > that is not what you meant. Speaking strictly for myself as a Jazz artist, This is exactly what I meant and if you think otherwise you're only kidding yourself. Furthermore, there is no shame in this. I have written previously to this list that music only has meaning when a listener can relate what he/she hears with what he/she has heard before, that composition means stringing familiar elements together in a way that seems to convey a new meaning, that it entails finding the proper balance between novelty and redundancy. > I know that sometime you maybe be playing and perhaps a certain phrase or > "lick" inspires you to play a certain passage but, I think more often than > not, my compositions are based on emotion, thoughts or the environment I'm No music is created directly from emotion (though of course it certainly ought to convey some emotion to the listeners). Examine your own music with a very critical ear and see if you can honestly tell me that what you've done is completely "original". The very fact that you call yourself a jazz musician shows that you are aligning yourself with a certain body of pre-existing music. I can't imagine what kind of jazz it could possibly be that didn't employ licks or riffs. By way of analogy: In this entire posting there is not one word that hasn't been used before by speakers of English. Now read this sentence: Qurck xor spttl wuouori ldgrell spoll glztsher skkkk! Now, did you understand what I was trying to say there. Did you feel the profound emotion that coursed through my veins as I typed out those words? No, I thought not. Well I made up those words myself, and therefore it's the most creative sentence I've ever written. It's totally original and owes nothing to anybody. (actually I sampled the third word from a 2 Live Crew record, but don't tell anybody). Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 09:47:01 MST From: "Trent Hare GD.Flagstaff 602556-7245" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Mark, I'm sorry but I have to say this =:} (By the way I totally agree with you. I'm trying to remember some quote by De Vince or Mozart or somebody historically big, that stated something about coping others work. Basically stating that copying is a given. What's that quote: Imitation is the best form of flattery) Anyways, you said: >Qurck xor spttl wuouori ldgrell spoll glztsher skkkk! Now even if these are made up words, you are still imitating by using the alphabet. :) Sorry (I really did get your point) thare //////////////////// Listen to your "id" \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 10:25:46 -0700 From: "Shawn T. Rutledge" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > Now even if these are made up words, you are still imitating > by using the alphabet. :) Yep. Likewise most composers imitate by not having invented the twelve tone scale themselves. -- _______ KB7PWD shawn.rutledge@asu.edu (_ | |_) html: http://enuxsa.eas.asu.edu/~rutledge/home.html __) | | \__________________________________________________________________ * cyberspace * electronics * sci fi * PIC * alternative energy * rave on * ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:05:18 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > >Qurck xor spttl wuouori ldgrell spoll glztsher skkkk! > > Now even if these are made up words, you are still imitating > by using the alphabet. :) Yeah, isn't it terrible. I find this e-mail system terribly stifling to my creativity. Say, didn't Prince change his name to some kind of graphic symbol? Now there's a *real* artist. :) Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 16:24:12 -0400 From: "Keith C. Perry" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling >This is exactly what I meant and if you think otherwise you're only >kidding yourself. Furthermore, there is no shame in this. I have written >previously to this list that music only has meaning when a listener can >relate what he/she hears with what he/she has heard before, that >composition means stringing familiar elements together in a way that >seems to convey a new meaning, that it entails finding the proper balance >between novelty and redundancy. Like I said before, you ARE correct to a point- however that it is possible for humans to create- if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. You must acknowledge the fact that if you study musical structure and theory, yes of course you are going to be composing a standard set of algorithms that have been established but that is a moot point. The algorithm are methods for composition (which is guess you refer to as "familiar elements"). Composition is the "stringing" of these element and like I said before does not have to be imitation. Also, keep in mind, the reason why everyone dones not "like" the same kind of music is because it somehow, the "elements" in the song do not convey a comprehensible meaning- just because you find a "proper balance" (very subjective condition) between your elements does not mean you have a song. >No music is created directly from emotion (though of course it certainly >ought to convey some emotion to the listeners). I simply disagree... > Examine your own music >with a very critical ear and see if you can honestly tell me that what >you've done is completely "original". I always do and by your definition of orginal I would have to answer "no" it is not- after all, I have done remakes of other tune and even played around with existing songs of my own to create "new" tunes. This however is not the case all of the time which was my original/current statement. > The very fact that you call >yourself a jazz musician shows that you are aligning yourself with a >certain body of pre-existing music. I can't imagine what kind of jazz it >could possibly be that didn't employ licks or riffs. Well, I would never criticize someone else's music experiences- so I won't stoop to that level and tell you what I think of your knowledge of Jazz. You might want to do some research though, into some of the artists whose names aren't plastered all over the history books. Second, my upbringing and study is based in Jazz and Classic music. The reason why I say I a Jazz musician is because whenever I used to do a gig, that's what was going on- the Jazz. The roots of my music stem from this but most people who have heard my album fall into two categories: Those who know something about music and say "well its not really Jazz its more..."- then they get tongue tied because they don't know what to call it and those who say its Jazz simply because the music is instrumental. In other word, it is a matter of convience. Depending on how much someone may understand music I explain thing differently. Licks and riffs as they are called are musical phrases that by definition stand out in song as some sort memorable element. Now, if it is something familiar to you the FIRST time you here the song then it was not created by the musician per se (and that relative because you may recognize something that I don't and to me its "new")- this could be something sampled like the Rick James sample that Biz Markie used of that Human Nature sample that SWV (and a whole lot of other people) used. You can't tell me that everytime you here a lick or riff you recognize it- mathematically speaking it would be impossible. >By way of analogy: In this entire posting there is not one word that >hasn't been used before by speakers of English. Now read this sentence: > >Qurck xor spttl wuouori ldgrell spoll glztsher skkkk! > >Now, did you understand what I was trying to say there. Did you feel the >profound emotion that coursed through my veins as I typed out those >words? No, I thought not. Well I made up those words myself, and >therefore it's the most creative sentence I've ever written. It's totally >original and owes nothing to anybody. (actually I sampled the third word >from a 2 Live Crew record, but don't tell anybody). > >Mark Simon >mgs2@cornell.edu (laffing) funny Mark- the humor was good but your point was blowing in the wind. Oops, I used a song title- betta go get my lawyer before I get in troble Peace and Love, Keith- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:13:26 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > Like I said before, you ARE correct to a point- however that it is possible > for humans to create- if you think otherwise you are kidding yourself. You > must acknowledge the fact that if you study musical structure and theory, > yes of course you are going to be composing a standard set of algorithms > that have been established but that is a moot point. The algorithm are > methods for composition (which is guess you refer to as "familiar > elements"). Composition is the "stringing" of these element and like I > said before does not have to be imitation. Also, keep in mind, the reason > why everyone dones not "like" the same kind of music is because it somehow, > the "elements" in the song do not convey a comprehensible meaning- just > because you find a "proper balance" (very subjective condition) between > your elements does not mean you have a song. I get the feeling that we're really not disagreeing about a whole lot, especially since your refutation thus far has amounted only to a restatement of my argument. Perhaps we're only looking at the same thing from opposite angles. For instance, I would change your last sentence around to say that if you don't have a song it's because you haven't found the "proper balance". Of course this is a very subjective condition. Everything in music is subjective. That's what makes it so fascinating. Perhaps we disagree over the definition of the word "create". I find composing a very creative and fulfilling occupation, not just in spite of the familiar materials that wind up being reassembled in my music, but because of them. Learning to manipulate your materials in a way that makes them express what you want to express is part of the craft of composition. Music is something that has to be learned; you have to become familiar with your material. > >No music is created directly from emotion (though of course it certainly > >ought to convey some emotion to the listeners). > > I simply disagree... You are fooling yourself here, you know. Think back on when you first picked up your instrument. You were full of emotion then just as you are now. But what kind of music did you produce at that time? I'm willing to bet it was not something you're very proud of today. No, you had to learn your craft. You had to train your muscles to produce the notes you wanted to produce and you had to train your mental muscles too, to familiarize them with the musical elements that would eventually coalesce to form what you call your music. So now, congratulations, you've internalized all of these elements to the point where you don't even think about them any more. You think it's just your emotions generating all of these notes, but "it ain't necessarily so". Oops there's another song title. Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:51:40 -0400 From: Bob Ceely Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling I believe the expression is:"Imitation is the best form of flatulence RPC ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 11:02:53 -0500 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling May I interject a comment at this point? To make a parallel from another art-form, painters all use pigments applied to a surface. But even the Abstract Expressionists at their wildest and wooliest use basics that can be seen in other paintings - motion to distribute paint, for instance, as a very, very basic similarity. But no one accuses painters of being uncreative simply because they use the same materials or methods that other painters do. As Mark has said, using the same tools as someone else, whether they be basic tools such as instruments and voices, or complex ones such as jazz standards for chord progressions, just means that you have given yourself a well-understood base to stand on while creating. It seems to me that there are two diametrically-opposed methods of composing being discussed here - one which assembles the pieces, makes the plans, and then after the basic structure is determined, spends the time and effort on infusing this structure with a personal viewpoint to create a piece. The other method concentrates upon the effort of creating the personal viewpoint and subordinates structure to this. The first, in my opinion, allows one to create larger-scale pieces, while the second tends to work better in shorter pieces. I personally am jazz-trained, rather than classically-trained, so I tend to follow the second method than the first. (As a tangential observation, from what I have read it seems that this is almost exactly opposite to the way things work for writers: short stories and essays have to be tightly controlled in terms of material and structure, while the novel allows the writer to "spread out" more.) Of course, there are no doubt many pieces or composers which could be held up as counterexamples (e.g., Webern's very short but intricate pieces, and Terry Riley's "In C", with its near-improvisational, dynamically-planned performances), but these seem to be more the exception than the rule. --- Joe M. -- "First up, it's John Tesh, with 'Whispering Firestorm', followed by Yanni and his 'Snoremaster of Tralfamadore.'" (MST3K - "Pod People") ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 09:27:00 -0700 From: Peter Mueller Subject: Re[2]: A bit of controversy: sampling > >Qurck xor spttl wuouori ldgrell spoll glztsher skkkk! > > Now even if these are made up words, you are still imitating > by using the alphabet. :) Yeah, isn't it terrible. I find this e-mail system terribly stifling to my creativity. Say, didn't Prince change his name to some kind of graphic symbol? Now there's a *real* artist. :) Mark Simon How about all those Braxton tunes? mgs2@cornell.edu >-- Saved internet headers (useful for debugging) >Received: from AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU by ucsd.edu; id LAA20885 sendmail 8.6.9/UCSD-2 >Message-Id: <199408181806.LAA20885@ucsd.edu> >Received: from AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU by AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with >Received: from AMERICAN.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@AUVM) by AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU (LM >Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 14:05:18 -0400 >Reply-To: Electronic Music Discussion List >Sender: Electronic Music Discussion List >From: Mark G Simon >Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling >Comments: To: Electronic Music Discussion List >Comments: cc: Multiple recipients of list EMUSIC-L >To: Multiple recipients of list EMUSIC-L >X-CCaddr: Bcc: peter mueller AT ucsdlibrary >X-CCaddr: *To: EMUSIC-L@AMERICAN.EDU at @UCSD ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 20 Aug 1994 16:04:53 +1000 From: DAVID O'DONOGHUE Subject: Re[1]: A bit of controversy: sampling Reply to message text: >I believe the expression is:"Imitation is the best form of >flatulence >RPC Sounds like just so much hot air... ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 15:13:05 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling >Every once in a while i'll take a ramdom loop from somewhere and use it as a >basis to build things on top of and create a song with it. At the end, i drop >out the loop that i used as a basis and see if the work can stand by itself >and not sound a new instrumentation of the old loop. That's a very nice idea. I've thought about using that approach in the past: start with something old and then layer over it and transmute it or whatever. One day I'll try it. Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 15:13:46 +0100 From: Nick Rothwell Subject: Re: Re[2]: A bit of controversy: sampling >Say, didn't Prince change his name to some kind of graphic symbol? Now >there's a *real* artist. :) Hasn't he just changed it back? Nick Rothwell CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance nick@cassiel.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 21 Aug 1994 11:03:27 EDT From: VLeComer@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Re[2]: A bit of controversy: sampling ">Say, didn't Prince change his name to some kind of graphic symbol? Now >there's a *real* artist. :) Hasn't he just changed it back?" Actually, his record label Warner Bros. did. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 12:19:43 -0400 From: Mark G Simon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > It seems to me that there are two diametrically-opposed methods of > composing being discussed here - one which assembles the pieces, makes the > plans, and then after the basic structure is determined, spends the time > and effort on infusing this structure with a personal viewpoint to create a > piece. The other method concentrates upon the effort of creating the > personal viewpoint and subordinates structure to this. The first, in my > opinion, allows one to create larger-scale pieces, while the second tends > to work better in shorter pieces. I personally and jazz-trained, rather > than classically-trained, so I tend to follow the second method than the > first. There may well be some truth in this comparison between classical and jazz working methods, in the same way that major is supposed to be "happy" and minor is supposed to be "sad" and I think it's similarly over-simplified. As a classical-based musician I can only expound upon the creative act from my point of view, but I can tell you that any composer who tries to pour musical content into jello-mold forms is probably going to produce rather artificial, or at best superficial music. I am just as concerned as anyone about subjugating the total form to a personal vision. But I do think there should be a total form, a feeling of large-scale architecture in which all parts contribute to the coherence of the whole; this applies whether the piece is large or small scale. It seems to me large-scale form is not of paramount importance to jazz musicians. In improvisation, moment-to-moment continuity is the most important thing. Someone will no doubt contradict me here. Both jazz and classical idioms have expanded beyond the point where any tidy generalizations can really fit all the time. I like the sound of jazz though and never hesitate to use it as one of those "familiar elements" out of which a composition is based. (I say this to divert the flames of sensitive jazzers who may think I'm slighting them). Now I seem to remember that at one point we were talking about sampling and the legal and ethical issues surrounding it. Over the weekend I dug out my June issue of Keyboard and read their summary of the "new, interrelated fair use rules" which I assume arose out of the 2 Live Crew ruling. It says: 1) The less the new work replaces the original work in its own market, the more likely it is to be fair use. 2) The more the new work comments upon the original work, the more likely it is to be fair. 3) The less taken from the original, the more likely the use is fair. 4) The more transformative the use, the more likely the use is fair. 5) The less commercial and/or less distributed the new work is, the more likely it is to be fair [this seems to be a restatement of 1)]. Now it sounds to me like I, as a classical composer, could get away with sampling somebody's rap groove because my use of it will not compete in the same market, it will not take a cent away from Ice-T or whoever, and certainly will not be very commercial or widely distributed. Another rapper who took the same groove, on the other hand, would get the book thrown at him. Also, my use would of necessity be highly transformative. Of course this is all very hypothetical because I'm not very likely to sample anybody's rap groove, but supposing my next work was called "As symphonic as I want to be" and employed samples from rap records. Am I a bad guy? Mark Simon mgs2@cornell.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 13:07:18 -0400 From: Joe McMahon Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > There may well be some truth in this comparison between classical and > jazz working methods, in the same way that major is supposed to be > "happy" and minor is supposed to be "sad" and I think it's similarly > over-simplified. Sweeping generalizations usually are, but this seemed to be what I was hearing from the conversation. > Of course this is all very hypothetical because I'm not very likely to > sample anybody's rap groove, but supposing my next work was called "As > symphonic as I want to be" and employed samples from rap records. Am I a > bad guy? You are evil for even conceiving of this idea. :-) --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 22 Aug 1994 21:48:58 -0500 From: Arne Claassen ISE Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling > > Of course this is all very hypothetical because I'm not very likely to > > sample anybody's rap groove, but supposing my next work was called "As > > symphonic as I want to be" and employed samples from rap records. Am I a > > bad guy? > > You are evil for even conceiving of this idea. :-) Apart from the evil of Marks' idea, wouldn't it be ironic if someone made a song using samples from some rap act and got sued by the copyright holder that the rap group originally infringed upon? -- Arne F. Claassen ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nine Inch Nails on MTV Unplugged - "The whole band is onstage. Chris is behind the drums and a tape deck not plugged in, no sound. Everybody's waiting to play. He hits it again. Nothing. I yell at him. He hits it again. Nothing. Then we smash our gear and walk offstage!" ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Aug 1994 13:09:40 -0700 From: atomic city Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: sampling Nick Rothwell jotteth.... > >>Every once in a while i'll take a ramdom loop from somewhere and use it as a >>basis to build things on top of and create a song with it. At the end, i drop >>out the loop that i used as a basis and see if the work can stand by itself >>and not sound a new instrumentation of the old loop. > >That's a very nice idea. I've thought about using that approach in the >past: start with something old and then layer over it and transmute it or >whatever. One day I'll try it. I, on the other hand, almost always compose this way....especially when working with David Turner, my songwriting partner whom I've mentioned a number of times here before. We start with a simple idea, build on it, and jettison the idea somewhere along the way when the song has outgrown it. -- mike metlay | atomic city | p.o. box 81175 | "There seems to be a certain quality of the human pittsburgh pa 15217-0675 | mind that requires the owner to get silly from atomic@netcom.com | time to time." (j. randi) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 17:06:41 -0400 From: Joshua Fried Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: Falco/MC Hammer > > > No, it was from Rick James' immortal "Superfreak." I see the "Kommisar" > > resemblance, though. Falco did "Der Kommisar" which was soon covered in > > an English version by a band whose name I can't remember. Falco also did > > "Rock Me Amadeus." > > Could you expound further on who Falco is and where to find that? > > -- > _______ KB7PWD shawn.rutledge@asu.edu OK. If you buy the "Rock Me Amadeus" single, you will be buying a mini- history of Falco himself as well as of W.A. Mozart! Falco is the first well-known Austrian to have made rap/ dance records in the English language. The original version of "Der Kommissar" (without "back in town" in the title) came out on Gig Records in Austria and A&M in the states, in 1982. Sparse, smart, danceable, fun. Back when drum machines could be drum machines and did not have to sound cavernous or trendily cheap. Another great track from the album "Einzelhaft" was "Maschine Brennt" which got some club play in '82 (at least at New York's Pyramid Club.) But what's wrong with Rick James and the immortal "Super Freak"? --jf@escape.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 18 Aug 1994 08:51:02 -0700 From: "Shawn T. Rutledge" Subject: Re: A bit of controversy: Falco/MC Hammer > OK. If you buy the "Rock Me Amadeus" single, you will be buying a mini- > history of Falco himself as well as of W.A. Mozart! > > Falco is the first well-known Austrian to have made rap/ dance records in > the English language. The original version of "Der Kommissar" (without > "back in town" in the title) came out on Gig Records in Austria and A&M in > the states, in 1982. Sparse, smart, danceable, fun. Back when drum > machines could be drum machines and did not have to sound cavernous or > trendily cheap. > > Another great track from the album "Einzelhaft" was "Maschine Brennt" which > got some club play in '82 (at least at New York's Pyramid Club.) Thanks for the info. Will try to find it one of these days. -- _______ KB7PWD shawn.rutledge@asu.edu (_ | |_) html: http://enuxsa.eas.asu.edu/~rutledge/home.html __) | | \__________________________________________________________________ * packet * C++ * Interpedia * Star Trek * SunSparc * RISC * PIC * techno * ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 17 Aug 1994 11:26:58 -0400 From: "Keith C. Perry" Subject: Mc Hammer... AAAAaaarrrgggghhhh *Geeeeeeeesssssss* All this talk about MC Hammer makes me want to pu.... Well, y'll get the idea. hmmm- 'about 3 cents poorer now but tomorrow's payday :) Keith C. Perry - (800)-836-4599 ************************************************************************** * * *Floor Supervisor / Senior Consultant - Drexel University CRG, OCS Group * *Owner / Studio K Productions * * * * "Ok, ok, ok, nah wait- ar'ite, wait- ok, yea thats cool- but..." * * * * -Things you hear when someone is talking on the phone- * * * ************************************************************************** ------------------------------ End of the EMUSIC-L Digest ******************************