The Mellotron Group

Chris,

You are so off base here, imho, that I can't even respond coherently. The Beastie Boy's "Paul's Boutique" was the first album to be assembled entirely using samples (Mix master Mike) and it is a work of art!! It has influenced everything that came after it. I will go to my grave trumpeting DJs/turntablists as REAL musicians and composers, because they are. I have taken a few lessons on the turntable and I know how extremely difficult it is to play. Wake up folks!!

fritz

We all know of some great technical guitarists, but there are very few proficient or innovative DJ's.

Most are just playing back two records at a time, and re-mixing. That is something that anyone can learn to do.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Dale <unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com>
To: newmellotrongroup <newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Mon, May 28, 2012 7:11 am
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?

I think a musician is someone who 'intends to make sound and craft' music.

As far as the attention span goes - yes people seem to be getting 'dumber' these days and failing education systems where music and reading have been cut back are partly to blame. There's no question about that.

I agree that a DJ 'can' be a musician and composer, but often times they aren't. I don't think DJ music as a genre has been explored fully and because of that it lacks credibility alongside historic genres of music.

We all know of some great technical guitarists, but there are very few proficient or innovative DJ's.

Most are just playing back two records at a time, and re-mixing. That is something that anyone can learn to do.

The difference is there is a world of musical technique involved in physically playing an instrument, and so far there is a real lack of manufactured dynamic turntables that respond the same way a guitar, piano, etc. do .

So I personally don't attach the same amount of musical credibility to DJ's partly because we don't see too much physical innovation there. But I do welcome it and can see it happening in the future.

As far as sampling goes - the idea of sampling someone else's art without their consent is unethical to me.

If I took a piece of the Mona Lisa and put it into my own painting, I wouldn't think I would be that great or inspiring. It would suggest I'm at worst a thief, and at best, someone who needs to rely on the work of others because I can't come up with something better or original. If I painted Leonardo DaVinci painting the Mona Lisa - well that might be interesting.

To me Mellotrons and their ilk are different from contemporary sample use because the performers knew and intended the recordings they made would be used in the creation of other music. Sampling someone else's work or even re-mastering it or altering it after they've died is an artistic rape because it's not in keeping with what the original artists intended.

For example, the Isley Brothers, Kraftwerk, etc.etc. didn't consent to having their music sampled and just because it's a common practice, that doesn't make it morally right.

As far as album credits go, they go from both outright lies to total truth.

You will never have me believe someone like Justin Timberlake (who can't play an instrument) can compose and arrange a movie soundtrack. I don't care what the movie credits say. That's where politics and back scratching are an influence.

The music industry as a whole is completely different than what it was in the 1970's. Marketing and selling is now a science.

In the mid 70's smaller music labels were bought up and absorbed by bigger music labels.

This happened again on a big scale in the 80's when Warner took over Time / Life and Seagrams Liquor bought up most of the major record labels. And it happened again in the 90's and again in the early 2000's.

Today music is completely corporate, and the multinational companies that own the music industry are not interested in selling music with ideas about dragons and fairies, or brewing your own beer, saving your money, meditation, or anything that takes you out of the 'Matrix" so to speak.

The simple reason why is that they can't make big money from it.

They are interested in selling ideologies related to consumerism of products like tobacco, alcohol, and fashion, and also a group-think homogenized mentality where everyone should largely react or think the same way in the world.

Politically, you would do this by removing or censoring diversity of expression on multiple levels.