From Cesium5Hz Sent Thu, Feb 17th 2000, 20:44
In a message dated 18/02/00 3:57:15 xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx writes: > > perhaps the problem is aesthetic, not moral. Moby managed to make a sow's > ear out of a silk purse. His collages were too heavily reliant on the > strength of somebody else's material, his creative contribution was to " > personalize" something better heard on its own terms. had the result been > truly creative and interesting, I don't think "moral" questions would arise > about Moby. > > another issue lies in the old dialog about what constitutes a legitimate use > of someone else's music vis a vis sampling. using little snippets or riffs to > give color to a truly original piece of music is not problematic. using > someone's entire song (as Moby does) without their consent becomes > problematic, and that has nothing to do with class or race. > What would we really say if Moby tried to do so with a UR track??? Is there any real difference with the issue of the Jaguar commercial copy - or does he get away with a more subtle rip-off of an original because he is Moby. A_Zed ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Program Co-ordinator, Ambient Zone RTRFM 92.1 [http://rtrfm.ii.net] Sunday Electronic Listening ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Perth, W.Australia (WST) 23.00-01.00 Chicago (CST) 09.00-11.00 London (GMT) 15.00-17.00 Detroit/ Windsor (EST) 10.00-12.00 Frankfurt (CET) 16.00-18.00