**rant warning**
I got into an argument with my friends about this album today. I'm
actually of the opinion that the wanton blues sampling not only does not
carry the tunes for me, but that the very way in which these powerful
blues lyrics got ripped out of their original context and stuck into
Moby's tepid beats is the true travesty of this album. It's like the
robustness of those intense blues inflections need to be "made safe" for
the mainstream consumer market, divested of their power. Ordinarily the
disorientation caused by sampling is something that I find quite
wonderful, but here it seems so questionable where the politics of this
album seem so dubious to begin with. It's not that someone like Leadbelly
is sampled *per se* that annoys me, it's that Moby's electrono-muzak does
those samples a disservice. (Sorry about the rant.)
Dale
On Tue, 30 May 2000, Erik Gaderlund wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I think Moby's alright. But personally I think you're giving him more
> >> credit than he deserves...Don't you think all those blues singers he
> >> sampled should get the credit for the "catchy lyrics"? :)
> >>
> >
> >An interviewer on Australian TV asked Moby about the issue of not crediting
> >the "singers" on his latest album. Moby came up with the lamest excuses, he
> >said something to the effect of "if I sample a drum I don't credit the
> >person who built the drum so why credit the singers". Basically his
> >attitude was those performances were just fodder for his tracks. I lost any
> >respect I had for him after that, I haven't heard the album but I've heard
> >"Why Does My Heart ...." umpteen times and it is the vocal that carries that
> >tune, not Moby's 2nd rate electronica. I did notice on Juno that someone
> >has put out an album featuring the tracks Moby sampled so maybe the original
> >artists will end up getting some recognition.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 11:04:48 MET DST