Almost every consideration of remixing or sampling that I have ever read, including this one, fails to adequately understand the form, simply because the writer can't get past certain assumptions. Chief among those is the Romantic notion that genius resides within one individual, or a group of collaborators acting as one, to whom we can offer up praise, adulation and lucrative record deals. Remixing and sampling directly challenge the notion that any one person, even the supposed originator, owns art, which naturally boggles the minds of music critics whose livelihoods depend upon being able to own and sell their writing. This review also has a typically logocentric view of art which shows up when the reviewer piously chides King Britt for failing to priviledge the original vocal material over the non-verbal contributions. If remixers are even granted status as legitimate artists at all, they are exhorted to sit at the back of the bus, play the deferential role of accompanist and never ever step on the toes of the real star of the show, the single Romantic artist-hero. Perhaps this is a projection of our own anxieties about anonymity, not getting the credit, and ultimately about death. For how can we achieve immortality through our works if our greatest triumphs vanish into nothing but faint echoes and shadows in someone else's production?

It seems to me that even Moby himself is aware of his own essential cheesiness.

Writing about vacuous music as if were serious, and using the language of art criticism to describe it strikes me as a huge waste of everyone's time, including the writer's. Music appreciation studies might lead the writer to subjects more worthy of analysis.

Good article-

But "Sea Lion Woman" is the most unintent. hilarious typo I've ever seen..

I could be wrong- maybe that was the original title- but Nina Simone's "See-Line Woman" is SO much better on its own, -the "Verve Remixed" is intensely annoying.

Could there possibly have been a title like "Sea-Lion Woman"? LOL.

It must be a great ego trip for a DJ to "collaborate" with a deceased legend, without their consent. Nina Simone would haughtily decline.

Moby's thievery and lack of interest in the actual lives of the singers whose soul he stole from is revealing- to him they're just po' soulful black folk that he exploited to the fullest extent.

Moby's wan, wishy-washy , untuneful, unsoulful follow-ups prove what a fluke Play was.

He was so wildly overpraised for that CD that no one noticed that his non-relying-on-dead-black -singers tanked as singles despite Gwen Stefani valiantly trying to pump them to life.

"unshakable tambourine"?!

A prime example of this genre that actually acknowledges and does some justice to religious source material is African Head Charge's 1990 "Songs of Praise".

In reference to Mike's earlier letter: I don't agree with your characterization of the review as "logocentric" due to the comment about failure to privilege the source material. Would you have said the same about a review of a Miles Davis remix which faulted the DJ for not sufficiently representing Miles' horn? This, to me, is more a question of taste: Rob thought that the power of the original vocal was diluted by its obscurity in the mix. That's an aesthetic call, and that's his right to make as a reviewer. Your mileage may vary.

Just thought you would like to know that there is a song called Sea Lion Woman and it is the inspiration for Nina Simones see-line woman. It was recorded in 1939 on the Library of Congress field recordings cd and was sung by Katherine and Christine Shipp. You can listen to it at the beginning of 'The General's Daughter'. So maybe it isn't such a strange typo after all!!