March 10th, 2012

My Brain the Sampler

The customary song-stuck-in-head is rarely a mystery. It’s either present in its entirety, or at least some self-evident chunk like the chorus or a key bit of lyric. When we only have a snatch of melody, it falls into another category. Unidentifiable, incomplete, and caught between irksome and haunting, these fragments have no value in themselves. They are signposts toward a whole—unsatisfying riffs, wordless melodies that defy Google—and can cause you to itch out your skull for entirely different reasons. Lately, though, I’ve hit on a third, and altogether less torturous, variation on this: the phantom sample.

I can’t really claim any intimate knowledge of samples. I’ve listened to hip-hop since elementary school, and plenty of soul and jazz after, but never much got into staking out or cataloguing source material. I’ve had very little first-hand experience with making beats, even as a spectator, and never felt the need to stock up on awesome breaks or totally flip-able joints. Yet just from having hip-hop on around me for so long, my brain has, on some level, wired itself to work like a sampler. I can’t help but catch myself thinking “that would totally work,” and over the last couple years, finding myself with prospective samples stuck in my head—stripped, however, of all context or identifying markers.

I know where they come from: Somewhere in the stack of records (these days mostly funk-less 70’s and early 80’s soul) that I listened to the day before. Once or twice, before I had an infant around, I’ve gone back and tried to track them down. Most of the time, I’m content to let them cycle, usually while I’m out on a walk with a stroller. I’ve got no use for them, and I’m sure I’m not the first person to home in on them. I’m most interested in the way that my brain seems capable of segmenting, even packaging, musical information in a way that doesn’t scream out for the whole. It’s as if I’ve become so accustomed to the sample that it’s now an acceptable unit of meaning in my brain. Or, to get even more aggressive about it, these loops rise to the surface, keeping out the distracting “what song is that” queries or the debilitating song-in-the-head (the violence of that metaphor is both apt and a little shocking).

Certainly, no one making these records was thinking in terms of atomization, and the best sample-based music is never as simple as one single loop. And I don’t think I’ve developed any great ear for samples. On some cognitive level, though, it’s become an ingrained part of how I make sense of whatever musical information is sloshing around in my head. I like to think of it as part-cultural symptom, part-coping mechanism. 

June 16th, 2011

You know I had to comment on Jonah Lehrer’s “basketball is brain jazz” piece, which I had to try and comment on at some point. The comparison (meme, even?) is close to my heart, and not something I only think about in terms of lazy analogies.

My main question concerns the, ahem, metaphysical differences between basketball play and jazz improvisation. While if both do involve lightning-quick decisions based on assimilated/practice material, in basketball, there’s clear goal in mind. The rebounder is trying to come down with the ball; the point guard, set up a scoring possession. Even the most baroque one-on-one players are trying to find a path to the basket for the best look—or the one that looks the best, maybe.

In jazz, there simply isn’t that same clear-cut point to it all. One can be trying to stay within the changes, or interact with bandmates. But neither of these present anything like an overall goal of the improvisation. I guess there are approaches to a solo that make a point of developing, and dissecting, thematic material—Sonny Rollins’s “Blue Seven” is the most famous example—and yet by definition, an improvisation involves not knowing where it will end up.

Why do soloists solo? It’s as banal as “to express themselves”, or the even more vague “to say something”. Jazz is discourse, with its own internal logic and emotional narrative. There’s no clear argument; “good” and “bad” solos are largely the result of critical, or peer, consensus. But that only underscores how basketball, where everything is a means to an end, differs from improvisation, an end in itself even as the brain is engaged in similar activity. Sadly, I lack the training necessary to know whether this difference is substantive, or just a matter of semantics.