Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:49:56.247Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Re-composing Sounds … and Other Things

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2019

Leigh Landy
Leigh Landy*
Affiliation:
Music, Technology and Innovation – Institute for Sonic Creativity (MTI2), De Montfort University, Leicester, UK
*
Email: llandy@dmu.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, based on four decades of experience of using samples in diverse ways in experimental, particularly electroacoustic compositions, the author investigates the world of what he calls ‘sample-based sound-based music’ and suggests that there is a relative lack of scholarship in this important area. The article’s contextual sections focus on briefly delineating this world of sonic creativity and placing it within today’s sampling culture as well as dealing with two political aspects of sampling, a musician’s attitude towards the reuse of sonic materials and the legality of sampled sounds, including musical passages, in the discussion of which current legislation related to sampling is challenged. Following this, a number of categories are presented in terms of the types of sampling material that is being used as well as how sample-based works are presented. The subsequent section is perhaps the most poignant in the article, namely the opening up of this form of innovative composition from a more traditional ‘artist creates work’ mode of operation to a more collaborative one which is essentially already part of most other forms of sampling culture. The objective here is to suggest that such collaborative approaches will enable sample-based sound-based music to become part of the lives of a much broader group than those currently involved with it.

Type
Articles
Information
Organised Sound , Volume 24 , Issue 2: Borrowing, Quotation, Sampling and Plundering , August 2019 , pp. 130 - 138
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press, 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Jenkins, H. 2010. Multiculturalism, Appropriation, and the New Media Literacies: Remixing Moby Dick. In Sonvilla-Weiss, S. (ed.) Mashup Cultures. Vienna: Springer.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 1991. What’s the Matter with Today’s Experimental Music: Organized Sound Too Rarely Heard. Chur: Harwood Academic.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 1994. The ‘Something to Hold on to Factor’ in Timbral Composition. Contemporary Music Review 10(2): 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, L. 2006. The Intention/Reception Project. In Simoni, M. (ed.) Analyticial Methods of Electroacoustic Music. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Landy, L. 2007. Understanding the Art of Sound Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, L. 2012. Making Music with Sounds. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landy, L., Hall, R. and Uwins, M. 2013. Widening Participation in Electroacoustic Music: The EARS 2 Pedagogical Site. Organised Sound 18(2): 108–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessig, L. 2004. The Nature and Future of Creativity. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Lessig, L. 2008. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. London: Bloomsbury Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLeod, K. and DiCola, P. 2011. Creative License: The Law and Culture of Digital Sampling. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Navas, E. 2012. Remix Theory: The Aesthetics of Sampling. Vienna: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oswald, J. 1989. Plunderphonics (CD, produced by author, no label – withdrawn).Google Scholar
Right2Remix. n.d. right2remix.org.Google Scholar
Tomkins, C. 1997. Duchamp. London: Chatto and Windus.Google Scholar
Weale, R. 2006. Discovering How Accessible Organised Sound Can Be: The Intention/Reception Project. Organised Sound 11(2): 189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar