As a practical matter, how would a copyright holder know it was time to sue someone for an unrecognizable sample? How could they prove it?

From an aesthetic standpoint, I would never suggest that Andy Warhol did less derivative work than your average hip-hop artist. But, then, I am a bit of a philistine when it comes to appreciating the subtle genius of modern, ready-made, art.

So, a person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick even one note from that player? No, not without permission, and paying. People are cheap and without conscience, but there have always been such jerks. It's just that now there are other jerks trying to condone it.

Quote Sir George Martian:

---

So, a person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick even one note from that player? No, not without permission, and paying. People are cheap and without conscience, but there have always been such jerks. It's just that now there are other jerks trying to condone it.

---

That post encapsulates the whole argument.

Changing the law will not happen, nor should it, if doing so would condemn Yoko, widowed by mindless gun crime, to sit back and watch her late husband's work be abused to lend spurious credibility to some worthless piece of sh1t who calls himself a gagsta and thinks guns are glamorous.

Nobody in the mainstream music business advocates any such change in the law. Only the talentless losers who want something for nothing.

And chicks for free, I expect.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...


Edited by Steve Hill (12/08/07 07:22 AM)

Hollowsun: Kanye West is always ripping people off for his own gain. Here's another example of 'his' 'music'! What a load of bollox! I absolutely despise this sort of thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGCSuZWC9yM

On the other hand, I find this to be quite creative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTwxvrSTrvY

and this is just great :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipZ4OTnB0Tk


Dan


EDIT: How do you post videos from youtube so you can actually see them in this post?

Edited by Dan LB (12/08/07 07:53 AM)

I have no problem whatsoever with sampling, or "samplists" What I do have a problem with is when people just don't ask for permission, it is up to the owner of the original work to decide if they want their work used in a new context, after all, it may conflict with their own moral, ethical and political beliefs.
And also, if you don't get permission you are effectively stealing their royalties. They created the original idea, so show some respect and ask for permission. My experience is that most people are more than willing to cooperate, all you have to do is ask.

Tony.

Quote leslawrenson:

---

[why]...Andy Warhol should be considered an artist for blatantly glueing photocopies of a famous brand soup tin to a piece of card and sticking it in a frame? Or by simply replicating the iconic image of an actress....

---

Graphical artists paint things. They paint apples and bananas and landscapes and churches and faces and animals and furniture.

In fact before the impressionists and surrealists, artists tried very hard to represent their subjects exactly as they appeared, as in a photograph...

...And photography is yet another artform that takes a real subject and presents it in an artistic and creative way.

What Warhol did not do was take the wrappers off 32 tins of Campbells soup and stick them on a canvas and frame them, he painted (albeit after using a bit of silk screening [skething is yo like]) the soup cans, as one would perhaps paint a bowl of fruit.

I'm sure if he had painted a tin of Campbell's soup and represented it as the body of a surreal poisoner sh!tting down the neck of a saint then Campbell's may not have been so happy to get the advert.

But essentially all he did was paint a still life and present it in a way that punctuated the scale he saw in the moves towards the mass consumerism of his time.

Cheers for that Dan

DJ Shadow is something else.

To post the vids, where it says embedded, copy and paste all of it.



Building Steam With a Grain of Salt is superb too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipZ4OTnB0Tk
Casetteboy is hilarious.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Quote ow:

---

...
Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does have to be an easy and above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise copyright is no longer protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact censoring them.

...

---

Copyright was never intended to protect the rights of the collective. Quite the contrary, it was designed to protect the rights of the individual creator against the abuses of the collective, giving him absolute authority and control over the disposition and uses of the product of his efforts and the exclusive right to derive economic benefit from them for a certain period of time. The rights of the individual who created the music being sampled trumps any wishes of all other musicians taken as a group with regard to his work.

The video only convinces me further that sample based music is a credible art form. Harry Allen from Public Enemy sums it up

"Sampling is like the colour red. It's like asking, is the colour red creative? Well it is when it's used creatively."

And I've heard it used creatively many times.

There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.

Sampling in hip-hop essentially reflects the practice of extending the instrumental part or breaks from records by DJs spinning two identical copies at once and crossfading between the two copies. The first uses of sampling in hip-hop was to create a continuous drum break against which MCs could rap. Point being what some call "theft" was actually born out of necessity. Sampling provided creative opportunities and fulfilled cultural and communal expectations where no other means were available.

I think sample based hip-hop is actually one of the very best examples of a genuinely spontaneous, democratic and creative human art form. That the technology involved creates arguably identical copies of originals involves the legal system is a product of our modern times not the concept or motivation itself.

In that vein, it is also important to consider the inevitable political aspect of sampling. It is the white Harvard educated lawyers of corporate America that want to jump all over the likes of Public Enemy for lifting a James Brown break. The same white corporate America that kept James Brown down in the first place.

At the end of the day what did the likes of Elvis or the Stones really do? They legitimised and sanitised an essentially Afro-Caribbean musical form for white audiences; namely blues and rock'n'roll.

Yes, any artist should be suitably renumerated for any significant use of their recorded material. But equally any artist should be allowed to pull from the entire narrative of their art form in the pursuit of it's development. Furthermore in understanding a process such as sampling you cannot remove it from it's political and social context. And the context in which sampling finds itself in hip-hop is way more important than, and way more interesting than, a rather niave and abstract notion that sampling is theft, theft is bad, therefore sampling is bad.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Edited by jellyjim (12/08/07 10:42 AM)

Quote Steve House:

---

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Quote ow:

---

...
Sampling doesn't necessarily have to be free, but there does have to be an easy and above all, affordable way of registering those samples. Otherwise copyright is no longer protecting the rights of the majority of musicians, but is in fact censoring them.

...

---

Copyright was never intended to protect the rights of the collective. Quite the contrary, it was designed to protect the rights of the individual creator against the abuses of the collective, giving him absolute authority and control over the disposition and uses of the product of his efforts and the exclusive right to derive economic benefit from them for a certain period of time. The rights of the individual who created the music being sampled trumps any wishes of all other musicians taken as a group with regard to his work.

---

But as I've repeatedly pointed out - but somehow people seem to keep missing in my posts - there are plenty of exceptions in other areas of copyright which don't give absolute control. In my opinion, the rights of the individual should not trump the rights of the group, when that musician's work achieves exposure in the public domain.

There are hundreds of different versions of the song Stagger Lee, with varying degrees of plagairism, yet each unique in their own way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stagger_Lee. If copyright in composition and lyrics had been enforced to the same degree as copyright in recording is today, there would have only been one song. Likewise, 12 bar blues would have never existed as a genre. The cost to music and musicians generally would have been far too great, so in this instance copyright does not give absolute control to the original composer.

Would you seriously consider campaigning for the rights of composers to have their chord sequences protected? The video posted earlier was hilarious, but obviously each of those songs sounds completely different when heard in the original context. Try listening to The Big Ship by Brian Eno and Tomorrow by James - yes, the chord sequence is still recognisable, but they still sound like totally different pieces of music.

Regarding everyone's sudden grave concern for Yoko Ono - what would happen if some talentless rock band were to rip off the chord sequence from John Lennon and call it something like "I laughed when Lennon got shot"? The defense of enforcing copyright on the basis of moral rights is a non-sequitur. There are idiots out there doing things which are far more offensive to far greater numbers of people. Most people with any sense realise that they can turn the television or radio off if something offends them.

Regarding the point made about the cost of creating that original copyrighted work - I've stated time and time again that I am not necessarily arguing that sampling should be free. However, the reality is that clearing a sample or any form of copyright is an arduous process. If you had to clear the copyright for every copied chord sequence or bit melody you were influenced by (ripped off), you would be rightly pissed off.

I suspect that all this over-protectiveness over sampling has far more to do with a bias in musical tastes and a lack of understanding of sample based music, than high moral standards and a concern protecting the original creator's work. Otherwise, why are the majority not campaigning as vigorously for the protection of chord sequences?

Great post Jim! Well said.

Cheers Table for Two. So just to check I'm getting you right........

I didn't watch the clip but I feel that while sampling (in my mind) shows a lack of creativity or "do it your selfedness" and I can't reallly stand to listen to it as long as the proper people are credited and paid for the sample then I don't have a problem with it. That said you'll never get ME to spend MY hard earned money on such collages.

Mark557, oh well, since I stopped caring I listen to anything ! the best thing I ever done. Proper people ? serious music ? who cares ? Just throw it all in and see what comes out. Music is a dead art form, has been for years, so just sit back and mess around, what have you got to loose, nothing what-so-ever ! And I'm not joking pop-pickers. Its when you think it's all over and you let go that things start to happen again, believe me. Their are NO RULES ! not one, not a single paltry sossidge of a rule, work from the bottom up, not from the top down,and take no prisoners.

Tony.

Quote jellyjim:

---

There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.

Sampling provided creative opportunities and fulfilled cultural and communal expectations where no other means were available.

... Public Enemy ...

---

MOFO respect to Public Enemy, Ganstarr, NWA, Tribe Called Quest, later Wu Tang Clan
for keeping the culture alive, bringing it to a new generation of listeners in a new form
and having a message, trying to make a difference.

They are sadly an exception.

Very sad to say many of the current generation of hip-hoppers have hopped on the hip bandwagon.

Yes it's a pretty childish bit of humour, but it makes some people laugh...

It would have taken a lot of time and effort to create that montage and there is no way you could have created the same effect by rerecording the samples - it just wouldn't have been funny.

Point is, none of the Cassette Boy samples were cleared or paid for. There are hundreds of samples in that small clip alone. Since their music is only available on the internet and at small independent music stores, they're unlikely to get any hassle. The reason I've heard of it: it can be and has been, played on BBC radio thanks to that blanket PRS/MCPS license. However, if a system like the one I suggested were implemented, then the artists could be rightfully paid *and* Cassette Boy could release their work on a wider commercial basis. In other words, more musicians, including Cassette Boy and their victims, would receive payment for their work than under the system which currently exists.

Regardless of the law, I don't see Cassette Boy giving up their 'art' any time soon.

@Mark557

Why roll eyes at "collage"? All creativity is collage. It's only in the 20th century and later that we had the means to duplicate (sampling, photography, printing press) rather than merely imitate that the process has become conspicuous. It's that old cliche, if Beethoven were alive today he'd be using the full gamut of tools at his disposal, samplers and sampling included. A friend of mine is a painter in the traditional sense. He paints people in cities, he uses oil on canvass. He loves people like Edward Hopper and Jack Vetrianno. He is in part in his own work trying to emulate or refer to or invoke those masters as well as contribute is own meaning and context. Is that not collage? Is he not in a sense "sampling" the ideas, aspirations and techniques of those before him?

@Arpangel

There's a lot of truth in what you say Tony. I think there's a lot of prejudice towards hip-hop (and I DONT mean RACIAL prejudice I mean musical) I worry that many people simply close their ears to it. There's actually a few debates going on in this thread. The issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important. The importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture through the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal climate. Tho again I stress, lift a significant amount of another artists song and they should enjoy any sucesses you might have with it.

@table for two

sadly all genres dilute, commercialise and so on. Hip-hop certainly isn't a grassroots thing anymore. Nonetheless the "bad" hip-hop doesn't devalue the "good" hip-hop. Not that I think you were saying that but some might.

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Bottom line is if you use something that makes you money you should pay for it and credit the sources. Hell you should credit the sources even if it's not for money.

Have alook at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_License

What I like about Soundclick is that it gives you the option to specify this on your tracks.

and food for thought.

Google "Boulevard of Broken Songs" an excellent mashup. How can something so wrong be so right

Sampling is theft??
Amon Tobin
DJ Shadow
Dust Brothers

--------------------
One good thing about music is when it hits, you feel no pain...

Re: The issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important. The importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture through the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal climate.

Yes, the technicalities of copyright are boring, but I disagree they are the least important factor. It is precisely because there is no fair use sampling provision or easy system for paying royalties for sample use that sampling is defined as theft in the first place. Otherwise, I agree.

Good to see another Trap Door fan - did you ask permission to use that avatar?!

The PRS/MCPS have been living in the dark ages for years about sampling, and the computer revolution as whole, I think they should radically re-think the way that they run their organisation, and sort this out once and for all. The only time I had any dealings with those people they gave me no reason at all to think that they were on the side of the musician. Just a bunch of grey haired old jazzers who should try living in the present, not the past.

Tony.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Re: The issue of copyright infringement is the least interesting and the least important. The importance of creative processes contributing to the sum total of human culture through the eons is vastly more important than transients such as the prevailing legal climate.

Yes, the technicalities of copyright are boring, but I disagree they are the least important factor. It is precisely because there is no fair use sampling provision or easy system for paying royalties for sample use that sampling is defined as theft in the first place. Otherwise, I agree.

Good to see another Trap Door fan - did you ask permission to use that avatar?!

---

yeah good point, interesting (the first bit not the trap door bit )

--------------------
Original artwork and unique devices inspired by vintage technology http://www.thisisobsolete.com

Re: PRS/MCPS:

I think it's more they're on the side of certain types of music, musicians and certain ways of doing business at the expense of others. Which is a shame, because they are exactly the institutions which have the power to create a way out of this mess that allows everyone to get a piece of the pie.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Re: PRS/MCPS:

I think it's more they're on the side of certain types of music, musicians and certain ways of doing business at the expense of others. Which is a shame, because they are exactly the institutions which have the power to create a way out of this mess that allows everyone to get a piece of the pie.

---

Leaving to one side PPL who are equally involved and in some cases (beats) far more involved....

There is already a "way out of this mess"... it's called licensing.

The system operated by PPL and MCPS to allow as much re-use of recordings as anybody could possibly want is called clearance.

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Did you miss the part about the difficulty of clearing each and every sample in a track containing hundreds of samples under the current system of clearance and licensing? Did you miss the part about the prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that major-label signed artists have the power of the label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or a subsidiarary who owns them? Did you actually bother to read my own experience of trying to clear copyright (albeit for permission to use a book quotation as a band name) which was met with stoney silence?

There is no reason why a simpler system of clearance should not be introduced - spefically one which does not demand a legal team behind you to implement. Likewise, there is no good reason why sampling royalties should not be charged proportionally to the amount of money a sampled track actually makes. The system as it stands at the moment is nothing more a protection racket for big media, keeping meaningful creative freedom out of the hands of the masses by imposing excessive economic and legal constraints.

Point taken about the PPL though - all these acronyms have kind of turned into one big blur since finishing university a few years back... PPRCPSML or whatever...

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Did you miss the part about the difficulty of clearing each and every sample in a track containing hundreds of samples under the current system of clearance and licensing?

---

No.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Did you miss the part about the prohibitive cost of those licenses or that fact that signed artists have the power of a label behind them to clear all of those samples, because often it is in fact that label or a subsidiarary who owns them?

---

No.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Did you actually bother to read my own experience of trying to clear copyright (albeit for permission to use a book quotation as a band name) which was met with stoney silence?

---

You don't need to clear it. It's perfectly OK to quote from books... even for a band name.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

There is no reason why a simpler system of clearance should not be introduced - spefically one which does not demand a legal team behind you to implement.

---

Have you looked at the clearance system on MCPS/PRS? No legal team required.

Quote Happyandbored:

---

Likewise, there is no good reason why sampling royalties should not be charged proportionally to the amount of money a sampled track actually makes.

---

Why? That would prevent people licensing their stuff as they like. I might want to offer free licenses... why should I have to charge a specified rate? That's the kind of government sponsored rip-off they favour in the USA (compulsory licensing).

Quote Happyandbored:

---

The system as it stands at the moment is nothing more a protection racket for big media, keeping meaningful creative freedom out of the hands of the masses by imposing excessive economic and legal constraints.

---

There are problems with copyright and licensing, but you seem fixated by one or two imaginery "injustices" you've read about. Copyright is much more diverse and interesting than that.

I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?

--------------------
www.bemuso.com

Would anyone find any 'art' in the Cassette Boy stuff if none of the samples was recognizable ? I think not...

The trouble with sample-based music is that the art/enjoyment/whatever we're supposed to get out of it depends entirely on the fact that the listener is supposed to hear/see the joke/point/whatever etc due to their a priori knowledge of the samples involved. It therefore depends entirely on the already accrued status of the music that has been sampled, and therefore the creative energy of the original artist.

I've heard an awful lot of very 'clever' music created this way, but none of it has the sheer emotional punch and straightforward musical quality of truly original music made my people who can play music without having to use material sourced from elsewhere. Even when they're copying other styles or using well-known chord sequences, the way they do it, if they're any good, makes it 'their own' and opens up new territories for others to follow.

I'm sure many people will feel that samplist music is basically doing the same thing, and that there is equivalent originality and musical depth involved in collaging a bunch of recordings, and therefore it should be made easier to do it without difficult licensing procedures. I have to say I'm not one of them... if you really want to make Good Original Music, make your own, from scratch.

It's a lot more fun, for starters !

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

That there are good arguments for and against really shows there is no definitive cut 'n' dried answer.

My moo beef is, too often sampling is done not for artistic reasons but for fashion's sake and to be 'trendy' or a trendsetter (let alone for commercial purposes!). One may think the use of a sample at a particular point in time is cool (I certainly have), perhaps because the sample is old and gives credentials to the sample manipulator's taste and knowledge of music. But give the song a couple of years and it just sounds plain unoriginal. Which is hardly a surprise. Perhaps this itself means sampling is very much a disposable art form, like a sand sculpture near the tide.

Daft Punk's secrets...

Quote Sir George Martian:

---

So, a person spends (over time) $7,000 on equipment, $10,000 on lessons, education, and training, 20,000 hours in 10 years of work - and some nose-picker should be able to nick even one note from that player? [...]

---

I agree in some respects (like I said, not cut 'n' dried!) but your argument would hold more weight if you didn't give the impression the financial outlay is what makes someone's work important. After all - and I'm surprised the discussion hasn't gone down this route already - we don't pay royalties to Adolphe Sax. Or Clavia.

Quote Bertyjnr:

---

Perhaps this itself means sampling is very much a disposable art form, like a sand sculpture near the tide.

---

I couldn't agree more...

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

"I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?" Rob C


With respect, Rob, that displays an incredible ignorance of some of the highly creative work undertaken by samplists.

A few of us in this thread have draw a (very clear) distinction between, on the one hand, those samplists who take the meat/core of a track, loop it, and place a (IMO usually very dubious) rap over the top of it, and, on the other hand, those samplists who use samples as textures, or as an adjunct to their own original and higly creative works. This thread has already thrown up some interesting examples of both types of samplist.

I think you are being a little bit argumentative to accuse the poster of being talentless, simply because he might choose, as part of his own creative process to sample someone else's work.

And JellyJim, I loved your argument that focussed on the white exploitation of black afro-american culture. First, it stole their music. Then, it licenced it. Now, it makes them pay to re-use it.

But the great thing about genuine creativity is that it absolutel will find a way of making itself felt. We can, all of us, point to those who abuse any system. Those are whom the law has set out to catch. But, unfortunately, the law is a blunt tool, and in bludgeoning those who deserve to be bludgeoned, it also kills the true innovators.

Thank God for white people the world over that there was no copyright on the blues of black american slaves. Otherwise, Elvis would not have been able to so easily rape their music, and from him, the likes of the Stones and the Beatles would not have been able to hand down to use the very material that the nay-sayers are so jealously trying to protect.

God bless white corporate America! (and the UK, too!)

Their? Them? THEY?

So black people are more entitled to sample than white people because of the contributions individual black musicians have made to music? No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions. Like most of life, music is based on the evolution of that which has taken place before it.

I find your post as patronising as the idea a white politician who was in nappies during apartheid should apologise for an abhorrent system his ancestors were responsible for.

Fantastic - from sampling to racism!

Quote Bertyjnr:

---

Their? Them? THEY?

So black people are more entitled to sample than white people because of the contributions individual black musicians have made to music? No one race owns music more than any other; it is down to individual contributions. Like most of life, music is based on the evolution of that which has taken place before it.

I find your post as patronising as the idea a white politician who was in nappies during apartheid should apologise for an abhorrent system his ancestors were responsible for.

Fantastic - from sampling to racism!

---

Indeed- the blues would have been a very different music if the original purveyors of the form hadn't been exposed to 'white, western' church music...

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Re: You don't need to clear it. It's perfectly OK to quote from books... even for a band name.

If that was really true then why are Marillion not called Silmarillion? Why are The Doors not called The Doors of Perception? There are fair use laws for using quotations in academic work yes, but from my reading, these do not extend to using these names effectively as a trade mark in a commercial venture. I'm not quite sure if my musical venture is going to extend much further than a Myspace page at present though, so for the moment I've decided to 'steal' it. The writer is dead with no dependants and the publisher didn't get back to me, so not sure my crime is that big a deal. I'm not too bothered about it, I just wanted to cover my ass, but I would have been happy to pay a *small* fee for the privelege.

Re: the MCPS' clearance service.

They only help you find the copyright holders contact details, it is then up to you to negotiate. Let's say for the sake of argument, it takes a couple of days to clear a sample - even if the license fees are fair, that's going to take a ridiculous amount of time for a piece of collage music which may contain well over a hundred samples. A musician working on their own without a label to support them is not going to be able to do this. This seems wrong in an age where lowering costs of technology are finally allowing musicians to work independently of record label control.

That would prevent people licensing their stuff as they like. I might want to offer free licenses... why should I have to charge a specified rate? That's the kind of government sponsored rip-off they favour in the USA (compulsory licensing).
Because doing so will result in more musicians getting paid for their work, and therefore able to continue with their art in a world where average working hours per week are going up not down. The system at present sets up so many boundaries that many musicians who genuinely want to pay their dues for the samples used cannot, because the prevalent attitude in music has changed from one of sharing and collaboration to one of 'screw you buddy!' and property rights above all else. If you don't want your work in the public domain, don't release it commercially. I think it is wrong for The Beatles to foist their music into the public arena to such an extreme that it is unavoidable, even if you never watch TV or listen to the radio, and then expect everyone to respect that, to look but not touch. I believe part of the crisis in music today is down to the fact that artists are not just competing with a million Myspace users, but also with yesterday's heroes. It is easier for a record company to promote and rerelease a tried and tested classic than develop a new artist. Likewise, I believe it is more important to preserve the social role of music than protect Yoko Ono's feelings.

Regarding free licenses - You already can (Creative Commons) and there's no reason why such a system could not factor that in. I'm not on about forcing people to *not* enforce their rights. I do however, take issue with people that feel they can release something into the public domain and expect the public to treat it like it's an object in a museum. If a piece of music is truly great it will earn that respect from the majority anyway and any imitations will be dismissed.

Re: imaginary injustices.
No, all the examples I've used in my postings are entirely real. I just happen to think that we should be looking to reduce boundaries to music making of all types, that is all. With a few exceptions, I'm no great fan of hip-hop, but I recognise that the point at which it really started to suck was when lawyers started getting involved.

Re: I can't understand why you are so desperate to copy other people's stuff. Haven't you got any imagination?

I actually stated quite clearly in an earlier post that I don't sample other peoples' work. You are making assumptions about my own music making based on my views. However, does this view extend to it's logical conclusion of expecting all musicians to use entirely new, never heard before, chord progressions?

er Les, when did this become a black/white thing? White people sample too and black people make original compositions. How far back will we have to go to settle this particular new branch of the discussion?

Like I said, as long as permission is received, money paid and people credited, sample all you want. It is a matter of my personal tastes that you won't find any of it in my collection. It simply doesn't appeal to me. I AM pretty old though...

Quote Happyandbored:

---

They only help you find the copyright holders contact details, it is then up to you to negotiate. Let's say for the sake of argument, it takes a couple of days to clear a sample - even if the license fees are fair, that's going to take a ridiculous amount of time for a piece of collage music which may contain well over a hundred samples. A musician working on their own without a label to support them is not going to be able to do this. This seems wrong in an age where lowering costs of technology are finally allowing musicians to work independently of record label control.

---

So... new technology makes it easier to

1. use samples of other people's music

2. work independently of record companies

well that's helpful already- and I really don't see why it therefore makes it 'wrong' that's it's still difficult to get clearance to use 100 samples in one tune.

If you want to use 100 samples, that's your choice, and you should have to take on the hard job of getting them cleared. Just because technology makes other aspects about the process easier, it doesn't therefore make it the copright holder's duty to make the rest of it easier for you as well.

BTW- the Beatles didn't foist their music on anyone- people loved it, and they bought it, in huge quantities. This doesn't in any way affect the copyright status of the music, and nor should it.

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Quote John Willett:

---

Sampling is theft - full stop.

---

If someone takes my camera, that is theft. I no longer have the ability to use it. I will also lose any income that is generated directly through using it.

If someone clones my camera, and uses it for whatever reason, that is not theft. I still posses my copy, my life is not directly affected by someone else also having it.

They may take any photos off the camera and pass them off as their own. Bummer. [ ****** ] happens. But still, it will not stop me from continued use of those photos which are still mine. I can still generate income from those photos myself.

Yes, it is annoying when you experience someone benefiting from work that was entirely done by you. It happens all the time in many different ways.

But to call it theft I think is incorrect.

Quote jimdrake:

---

Quote John Willett:

---

Sampling is theft - full stop.

---

If someone takes my camera, that is theft. I no longer have the ability to use it. I will also lose any income that is generated directly through using it.

If someone clones my camera, and uses it for whatever reason, that is not theft. I still posses my copy, my life is not directly affected by someone else also having it.

They may take any photos off the camera and pass them off as their own. Bummer. [ ****** ] happens. But still, it will not stop me from continued use of those photos which are still mine. I can still generate income from those photos myself.

Yes, it is annoying when you experience someone benefiting from work that was entirely done by you. It happens all the time in many different ways.

But to call it theft I think is incorrect.

---

Hmmm... try heading on down to the bakers and asking for a free loaf of bread or even a free bucket of dough, to make your own. I think they might tell you to f off !

The only reason people nick music (either from p2p for listening use, or sampling for 'creative' use) is because the technology allows them to. This has therefore led to the perception that there is 'nothing wrong' in doing it, and that it's a victimless crime. I reckon the jury is still out, on both counts, but there's no doubt that there's something just a bit iffy about the argument that because technology allows you to do something, doing it is therefore 'right', every time.

BTW- can I have one of your cloned cameras, please ?

--------------------
http://anotherfineday.bandcamp.com/ http://anotherfineday.co.uk http://apollomusic.co.uk

Just noticed the ad at the top of the page. If SoS think it's okay, who are we to argue?

Quote jellyjim:

---

There is another important issue here that shouldn't be overlooked. Hip-hop is a musical form largely born of the Afro-Caribbean diaspora of the continental United States. Said diaspora has historically endured significant social and economic deprivation compared to white communities. In the absence of educational, financial and artistic opportunities a "make do" spirit prevails.

---

Years ago, when blacks were far more disadvantaged than today, they managed to create and dominate the genres of Blues, Jazz, and R&B, using real instruments and analogue tape. Suddenly, they can't play and can't afford instruments? **snort**

People rip off music, movies, and software, because they can. If they could, they would rip off their electricity, rent, heat, taxes, etc. etc., and spend their spare time justifying it. [Bank Robbery: A New Way of Sharing Money.]

Creating a piece of music can take a lot of creativity, work, time, stress, and money. Sampling it takes seconds. It's cheap and easy and free. Of course it's attractive to want to do it.

Quote tomafd:

---

The trouble with sample-based music is that the art/enjoyment/whatever we're supposed to get out of it depends entirely on the fact that the listener is supposed to hear/see the joke/point/whatever etc due to their a priori knowledge of the samples involved. It therefore depends entirely on the already accrued status of the music that has been sampled, and therefore the creative energy of the original artist.

I've heard an awful lot of very 'clever' music created this way, but none of it has the sheer emotional punch and straightforward musical quality of truly original music made my people who can play music without having to use material sourced from elsewhere. Even when they're copying other styles or using well-known chord sequences, the way they do it, if they're any good, makes it 'their own' and opens up new territories for others to follow.

---

I don't know, maybe you're just not the type of person for who this sort of music is going to gel with, but seriously try some Third Eye Foundation - packs a pretty damn intense emotional punch and is original in the ways you suggest, yet is sample-based. 'Little Lost Soul' is probably the best place to start.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Little-Lost-Soul-Third-Foundation/dp/B00003XA9S/re f=sr_1_1/026-3319665-0462806?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1186931148&sr=8-1

My appreciation for this album has nothing to do with recognising where any of the samples come from - and in fact I don't recognise any of them, I don't really care either. However, it would not have worked, the record would not have had the same feel, if the artist had faked the samples. Faking it is always going to sound different and end up being stamped by the tonal qualities introduced by the artist's own equipment and engineering habits. Part of the actual sound and style prevalent in much sample-based music is this idea of multi-referenced sounds.

There is no possible compromise here, anymore than there would have been if Andy Warhol had painted an original tin of soup with a made up brand -name. It would have communicated an entirely different message. More importantly, it would have felt like a cop out to the actual artist.