Posted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 11:43 pm
Just read the recent addition to this thread, and I shouldn't be so surprised that I feel somewhat dumbfounded.
Editing songs is entirely appropriate and, indeed, rather responsible and praiseworthy for those DJs who actually take the time to successfully accomplish the job so as to bring to dancers some music that otherwise would never be played because it either is simply too long or has some parts that break the rhythmic flow necessary for our purposes: sometimes even including long, self-indulgent, rambling solos that do little more than give the musician some self-indulgent practice at his scales.
It's not as if we're editing the dancing version of the Mona Lisa: a perfectly elegant yet efficient work of art in its pristine shape that needs nothing to be and always remain perfect for our purposes (the 2:33 King Porter Stomps out there). We're generally editing otherwise unheard of songs that have rarely made it to a dance venue--no less anywhere else--and thereby allowing those songs to see the light of day. To the extent that we are foolish enough to edit the "Mona Lisa" of jazz songs, it's not like we're editing the original copy hanging in the Louvre so as to ruin it for eternity; we're doing the equivalent of clipping a piece of a 50-cent poster for a collage. If we do it well, good. If not, so what?!?!
(Actually, come to think of it, it's like clipping a photocopy of a 50-cent poster, because usually we don't (and can't) alter the "poster").
Any a priori criticism presumes that the editor will do a slipshod job of editing and will inevitably edit out worthy material, which is especially ironic because Greg (who first mentioned his editing) is perhaps the Swing DJ I would trust the MOST with editing a song because of his background and his knowledge of the structure and quality of music such that he would NEVER just butcher the song haphazardly. Moreover, the image of the obsessed and possessive "artist" is a distorted perception of what real musicians are like, and, indeed, what they should be like. They are generally thrilled to have anyone, anywhere pay attention: edited, sampled or what-not. (The only protest that usually comes up involves their share of royalties, not artistic integrity).
But that's just my humble opinion.
Editing songs is entirely appropriate and, indeed, rather responsible and praiseworthy for those DJs who actually take the time to successfully accomplish the job so as to bring to dancers some music that otherwise would never be played because it either is simply too long or has some parts that break the rhythmic flow necessary for our purposes: sometimes even including long, self-indulgent, rambling solos that do little more than give the musician some self-indulgent practice at his scales.
It's not as if we're editing the dancing version of the Mona Lisa: a perfectly elegant yet efficient work of art in its pristine shape that needs nothing to be and always remain perfect for our purposes (the 2:33 King Porter Stomps out there). We're generally editing otherwise unheard of songs that have rarely made it to a dance venue--no less anywhere else--and thereby allowing those songs to see the light of day. To the extent that we are foolish enough to edit the "Mona Lisa" of jazz songs, it's not like we're editing the original copy hanging in the Louvre so as to ruin it for eternity; we're doing the equivalent of clipping a piece of a 50-cent poster for a collage. If we do it well, good. If not, so what?!?!
(Actually, come to think of it, it's like clipping a photocopy of a 50-cent poster, because usually we don't (and can't) alter the "poster").
Any a priori criticism presumes that the editor will do a slipshod job of editing and will inevitably edit out worthy material, which is especially ironic because Greg (who first mentioned his editing) is perhaps the Swing DJ I would trust the MOST with editing a song because of his background and his knowledge of the structure and quality of music such that he would NEVER just butcher the song haphazardly. Moreover, the image of the obsessed and possessive "artist" is a distorted perception of what real musicians are like, and, indeed, what they should be like. They are generally thrilled to have anyone, anywhere pay attention: edited, sampled or what-not. (The only protest that usually comes up involves their share of royalties, not artistic integrity).
But that's just my humble opinion.
Ah... the irony.It's just not my thing to tell someone what they should or should not do.