1. Men interviewed: so many I didn’t count. Women interviewed: 3, 1 artist (her music was not played); total time on screen maybe 1 minute of 54 (plus extra interview footage of 3 guys).
2. Someday I should try to write a piece on How to suppress women's remix.
3. I liked best Siva Vaidhyanathan’s statement about the early cases on sampling: the courts were uninterested in hearing young black men speak about their creative processes.
4. A recording engineer, who to his credit doesn’t think the law should prohibit sampling, advanced the anti-sampling aesthetic ideology that participation is bad. He argued that sampling makes making music too easy: one should be ashamed of sampling, he stated, much as one should be ashamed of dancing badly.
What seems easy to me, of course, are the responses: Assuming you value good dancing, where do you think good dancers come from? (Hint: bad dancers play a role, sometimes even the role of Young Good Dancer.) Is shame a good motivator to improve one’s creative output, or is it more likely to suppress the creative impulse entirely? Do I get to decide what I think good dancing is, even if I don’t like the ballet (or hip-hop)? Once you’re out of adolescence, are you ashamed when your family members dance badly? Look, I get the idea that there is One True Standard of aesthetic goodness. What I don’t get is the further conclusion that if we only got rid of the dreck we’d have more of the good stuff. I guess it’s yet another expression of the romantic idea that Art comes out of nowhere, rather than in reaction to the creator’s surroundings.