Wait artists don't get paid when someone uses their sample?
then that Boy Jason Derulo is jacking my Girl Imogen heap. Seriously is there a reason to listen to that song besides her?

beastie boys 2nd album used samples that werent reconizable ( not to me) pauls boutique . do you call that creative?

motownlover said:

Honestly.....I could care less about the "creative" tag. It is stealing someone else's work, creative or otherwise.

"We live in a remix culture now and the laws have to change to be able to help that culture do what it has to do."

I say...BS!

What culture?
One that devalues talent/intellectualism/honesty/integrity/property/etc?

Musicians/Artists make music. They don't take music.
Even when they cover another artist's music, they play/sing it themselves.

If you're so uncreative, or don't want to sacrifice and invest the time in learning an instrument or how to write a song, at least have the common decency to pay the ones you're taking from.



"Basically when i'm sampling, I have all these artists, they're in my band."

Again I say...BS!

First of all they never agreed to be in your "band" and second you're not paying them for their skills.




"I think of what started happening in trip-hop. You know with artists like Tricky and Portishead and Bjork. And what they started doing to their samples. They'd play a guitar riff, press it up, record it, press it up on vinyl and sample it off of the vinyl."

I say...THANK YOU!

Play it, put in the work.



Did any of these folks ever consider actually hiring Clyde Stubblefield (or other musicians) to play on their records? What a concept.



tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

THANK YOU!

Bleh. You guys don't get it.

Cinnie said:

They never will.....

minneapolisFunq said:

I'm willing to be enlightened. Go for it.


Let me add by saying that I don't have a problem with DJs and live mixing.
It's the use of OPP (Other People's Property) on supposedly new tracks that are released for profit to the public without the proper clearances that I can't get with.

And before you try and hit me with the "It's exposing the sampled artist's music to a new generation." argument, are these tracks now including a disclaimer stating "This track includes samples from the following songs by these artists."


Music for adventurous listeners


tA

Tribal Records

I don't think the documentary goes deep enough into the issue. Seems like a great way to expose friends as "hip hop scholars" so people who check out their work. Sa'id has extensive criticism overe here.

Still, there is a difference between those who use 1) sound stabs 2)phrases 3)interlopations. They don't really distinguish that.

Also, there are producers who sample with the full intent to highlight artists, pay homage to them, sonically, and financially.

theAudience said:

They do

I think after the Biz Markie lawsuit, everybody have to include a disclaimer at the end of the credits to show the source of their samples.

Harlepolis said:

J-Dilla R.I.P.

RZA <---- y'all have a problem with that too. bye!

theAudience said:

Co-sign.

its hard to enlighten those who are already heavily biased against sampling and hip-hop in general.

as someone stated in the documentary, sampling came about due to the lack of musical resources. a lot of people have a good ear for music they just cant play an instrument.

i think the naysayers get too caught up in the idea that the sampler is going out of his way to steal another persons work.

of course its not totally original but if it sounds good who cares? this debate reminds me of when record sales get brought up while discussing musicians.

im not going to elaborate any further.

theAudience said:

Its funny that you say that because I thought about that at one point during the documentary. I agree that some of the excuses that some of them came up with were bull. To us, its going to sound like a load of crap because we come from a different background than that generation. We made music the old fashioned way - with instruments.
But let me lay this down:
Nobody cared about sampling or the general culture of hip-hop when it was black and latino kids doing it for the love of the artform. This only became an issue when MONEY started flowing when the generation's peers started to express their own love of hip-hop by buying their artists' works. When the paper started flowing, then all the hands come out (as they should) but also, it was then when the question of whether or not it was "ethical" to sample came into fruition. So, what I'm saying here is that if hip-hop had never become the big, corporate-exploited, money-making machine that it is today, the vast majority would not give a damn if music was sampled or not. It would just be another "thing" in the vastly changing art form that is music. So the real issue seems to be more about money than anything else; it would have been all good if hip-hop had stayed in "its place", so-to-speak.

minneapolisFunq said:

Enlighten? Interesting choice of words.

Graycap23 said:

pay attention

theAudience said:

Some definitely do. I have seen W. Collins, G. Clinton, B. Worell getting credit for songwriting on lots of stuff.

I agree that uncredited sampling can be theft, but if they credit it, AND it's used in a creative way, then what's wrong with it?

Take a couple Prince examples, using MLK's I Have a Dream Speech in Family Name. Mother Popcorn in Gett Off. Those songs are not ripoffs of the originals, they use samples as references. He sampled Little Miss Lover for Tick Tick Bang (I believe), but the song sounds nothing like the original.

Some songs use samples in new contexts. An old one that comes to mind was De La Soul using a bit of the whistling from Sitting on the Dock of the Bay, and it was barely recognizable. It's a fragment of melody that could not be infringement had they decided to sing it themselves rather than sample it because of how short it is.

Samples are just tools, and it's how you use them that matters (to me!) assuming the originals get the credit they deserve, of course.
[Edited 1/22/10 11:47am]

minneapolisFunq said:

Cost 2 much.

Mixing is an art for a DJ, not a musician. Yes, I'd rather hear a DJ mix and blend one song after another in a continuous flow rather than just hear a DJ play one record after another with no blending whatsoever. I also enjoy hearing DJs make their own little megamix of snips of multiple songs. But that's as far as it should go. It is the job of musicians to make records, not DJs. The only way a DJ should be on a record is if he has released one of his megamixes for sale or something, but other than that, why in the hell would someone want to hear a continuous loop of one song as the background for a new song altogether? That's just rediculous because it's not a new groove and it's not even a mix either since there is no creative mixing of other songs along with it. It just ends up being dull.

Harlepolis said:

Well that's good to know. A step in the right direction.

Thank you.


tA

Tribal Records

theAudience said:

this was all covered in the videos that were originally posted.

you should have at least checked them out before posting.

Let me start by saying that I am ALL for musician's rights. I feel that their work must provide them some monetary compensation.

That being said, I feel that some people make money from these sampling laws that shouldn't be. Clyde Stubblefield said that he doesn't see any money from sampling HIS drum part. Unfortunately, legally, he doesn't own it. That sample is the property of James Brown's estate. So the singer who did not come up with this idea is reaping the benefits.

Remember when Michael Jackson owned the rights to the Beatles' music? Had it been sampled, it would be Michael Jackson getting paid for another person's hard work.

If I want to use a sample of a drum part, why shouldn't I be allowed to come to an agreement with the artist who CREATED the piece rather than the one who owns its publishing rights. There are people out there who make money for not doing anything other than signing some paperwork. Just my opinion.

jfunkese said:

Do you have any idea how many "rights" Paul McCartney owns? MJ got the idea of buying publishing from Paul himself. The laws aren't as simple as you're trying to make them out to be. They SHOULD be, but they aren't.

BlaqueKnight said:

Old Dogs For Life.




I agree with your take on the money thing.
If the genre didn't break big, most artists wouldn't know that their work was being used anyway.

Contrary to popular belief, I have nothing against the genre in general.
It simply doesn't appeal to me on a musical level.



Music for adventurous listeners


tA

Tribal Records

I love the samples that are used in ways it HASN'T been used. If it's something I heard a long time ago, THAT'S laziness. And that part of sampling is what's killing hip-hop. That's why J Dilla, Pete Rock and 'em appeal to me because they took some obscure song (or even a famous sample) and turn it around where you never heard it. When it becomes too much of a use (and is NOT credited), then that's when it becomes a problem.

As far as what should be allowed by law...as long as the artist that has been sampled give permission, is credited and paid, I don't see a problem.

Apart from that, it has to do with the individuals own tastes and preference.

I think sampling CAN be tasteful, creative, and original.
However, when one gets a sample, and does very little to it other than play some drums over it, with a 2-note bassline over it, I don't see it as a good thing.

Here is an example of DJ Battlecat producing a track, and shows how he includes the sample.
As we can see, he can play the keys, use the drum machine, lay down a good bassline, AND include a sample...

http://www.youtube.com/wa...cvhpbcK4lo

Timmy84 said:

Exactly.

Ones that incorporate samples legally & creatively vs those who use them illegally and lazily.



Music for adventurous listeners


tA

Tribal Records

BlaqueKnight said:

I was unaware of that fact and did some research, so thank you for that. I was trying to make the point that these copyright laws are not protecting the work of the creative minds but rather those that are quick with the pen and lawyers. It sucks.

To be quite honest, the original melody or phrase in a sample is not usually why it is chosen. It is more about percussion, timbre, context within culture, and sound painting.

My point is more obvious if you are aware of more densely layered productions when laws were not as restricting. Some songs were downright atonal and that was deliberate.

Problem with the laws since 1993 (Biz Markie lawsuit), each and every source wants to demand 100% of the songwriting credits and publishing, which can leave one with a pretty narrow palette for painting something denser.

The people that say "well don't sample then" have completely overlooked the hallmarks of the genre.
Or they reflect on the old days of rap (pre-1993) when obviously there were less commercial restrictions.