I have to say I've been on board with everything you've said so far.
Naturally, I have no problem with people making as much money as they
can off their work, and I think it's only fair that one acknowledge
the artist responsible for the original source material, but people
need to lighten up about their "artistic integrity" and talk of
And these winey sensitive artist types need to realize that all art,
form of expression, or even communication in general (hello! the
freaking language that you speak, for that matter) is built on what
has come before.
If one doesn't think ones's work can stand on its own, in spite of
constant reworkings, remixings, and reshapings, then one obviously
doesn't have much confidence in one's ability to express oneself.
This happens in other art forms, why are people so resistant to it
happening in music? Think how ridiculous it would be if we applied
this same silly form of thinking to architecture.
I guess this is all a matter of personal taste, too. For instance,
many think that collage is a bogus art form, but it's one of my
favorite forms of visual art.
I think U.N.K.L.E.'s mix of his "In a State" mashed up with Moby's
"God Moving Over the Face of the Waters" is as beautiful or more than
both of those songs combined, without detracting from either original.
He did something equally powerful with DMX's "Who We Be" and Tears
for Fears' "Shout." Fantastic. Mos Def does a beautiful tribute to
Marvin Gaye with little echos of Marvin singing in the background.
Jazz musicians have been "quoting" from other musicians in the midst
of their own improvisational solos for a long time. I guess it's a
little different from sampling, but to me the effect is the same.
I'll quote (steal?!) from Oscar Wilde and say: "Talent borrows, Genius steals."
On 8/22/06, Patrick Shirkey wrote: