[TR026] Baby Ford - Mystery Falls

[pure_evil]

He should definitely dig out something extra nice after this. Hopefully this whole misunderstandig inspires him to do so

[Jap_]

let you nerds do the leg work

Not meant to be endearing I'm sure, but, I'll take it as a compliment. I take pride in being an old techno geek and having a broad understanding of this music we all supposedly love. Glad to be the one to have helped uncovered the "mystery".

Mates, Themis is right, cut the guy some slack.

For sure. Sounds like it's being sorted out.

The excuse holds up for me. he just didn't go about releasing the material in the best way. I have a regular weekly studio session with a mate and every once in a while he'll be playing something, and I like it and ask if that's something he's worked on, and it'll be from a previous session of ours. Sometimes the previous week! After 10+ years it is totally plausible that he wouldn't have any recollection of some of the things he's worked on.

Anyways water under the bridge now. Looking forward to hearing something new...

[marbleheadjohnson]

Ford's situation is understandable -- I think a good majority of people who follow Ford are disappointed because the guy rarely releases anything at all any more, and when he does, we expect something special. So when the first Baby Ford single in a year and a half comes out, and half of it is someone else's track from 12 years ago, it's rather lame and annoying.
At any rate, I'll be looking forward to the next Ford release, as I have done since 1994.

[Nicola Kazimir]

I think it doesn't matter if he sampled nor how much he actually took from the "original". Sampling isn't a crime. Who defines the rules of sampling?

In art you can sample 1:1 and your a genius - but in music the general perception of sampling is a bad one in my opinion.
Some of you sound like major labels pointing the finger on someone who took a sample 1:1 and made a few tweeks cause it really didn't need more - "Let's sue him cause he used a sample which is longer than 3 seconds". Well that is the big problem we have in the music industry - we still think a original composed track has this aura which can't be reproduced or taken - and if we take it we have to credit or pay for it (or change it that it doenst sound like the "original"). Warhols take on this is really interesting too (thirty are better than one). For me nothing has an aura - it's somewhat a subjective illusion by the one who recieves art/music. If we can get rid of this thinking in music - maybe one day music will get it's recognition it deserves - as something for everyone and a fine art.

Whoever wants to do it - shall be allowed to do it without any big discussions and terms like "I'll forgive Baby Ford because it happened once in 20 years". I think being relevant for so long - Peters sense of sampling restrictions goes beyond most idealogical opinions in here.

Walter Benjamin important essay on reproduction -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Work_o ... production

[Themis]

i think you misunderstood what was going on.

he didnt sample anything, he just released a old DAT tape which wasnt his.

and i think nobody has a problem with sampling - as long as you dont take credit for the sampled parts, its not so hard to understand really.

[breton]

Sampling isn't a crime.

Stealing is.

In art you can sample 1:1 and your a genius

What a moronic statement.

For me nothing has an aura - it's somewhat a subjective illusion by the one who recieves art/music.

I like that idea. No aura (whatever that means)... Subjective illusion... Check out my latest track:
84529364

[Jap_]

Check out my latest track:

Wait.. there's a problem here. I think I remember hearing this track before like over a decade ago and from a different artist.

What gives?

[John Clees]

Check out my latest track:

What gives?

Must be that ever so delicate sample1:1 technique.