Sampling- OK? yes/no

[STRATEGY_510]

clearly my fourth option of "No- sampling is wrong" didnt show up.

Rap is an art, you can't own no loops...


STRATEGY

[eisnein]

clearly my fourth option of "No- sampling is wrong" didnt show up.

whats wrong about it? you're confusing unethical with wrong. not the same thing.

that was just the fourth option that didnt show up in the poll, not my opinion.

[eisnein]

"But oh noes, how am I supposed to make a living as a composer if we do away with royalties and such?"

right. well, not everyone is a performing touring musician so parts of music will definitely change ie. the influence on records by studio musicians and producers to create the albums that are sampled repeatedly.

2- yes the industry has become a big mess with large misappropriations of funds. so why as a musician to musician would you want to take a musicians royalties away? since the bean counters fear their demise its the only peanuts that we can get from them and copyright WAS designed to product the artists. (google Charles Dickens and international Copyright if you want).

since "Bean counters" know that noone is paying for Cd's anymore- they get less money, therefore pay artists nothing who in term have to higher engineers, producers, players, deal with media, drives, tapes, new strings etc.........so cut out royalties and you are cutting out one of the last lines of funding for musicians. even if it wasnt about "the money" you cant barter music for food when music is given away free.

so why is it a matter of "lose sampling" or keep a shitty industry going? why isn't it- oh i could be hurting a fellow musician AND further perpetuating said industry by allowing the labels to capitalize off of something twice??

[pepezabala]

I believe sampling should be legalized.

I have two main reasons to be against copyright in it's existing way, one more practical and the other one more conceptual.

The first one is that the existing copyright agreements have been designed for a type of music business in which you have composers, publishers and musicians. The laws have been made in a way that the publishers (who do the least creative work) make most profit possible. At least in germany and spain (and I belive in most other countries), the associations that distribute copyright licenses are private bureaucratic organizations that eat a big part of the money that is made by selling music before distributing it among the authors and musicians.

The second reason is that I believe that popular music consists mainly in re-arranging bits and pieces that come from the past. Even the Beatles did take stuff they had heard and learnt elsewhere, and use elements of it to compose new popsongs. Slicing disco-samples and using them for your new track is not so far away from taking a r&B-riff and use it for the verse of your band's new song.

Imagine there would be a copyright on an 808 bass drum.

Imagine there would be a copyright on the lyrics "I love you".

Imagine there would be a copyright on the chord changes of a twelve bar blues.

So why put a copyright on the bassline of "Superfreak"?

[eisnein]

or imagine that musicians owned their publishing and were the main benefactors of profit from their music. Imagine that it is the recording that is being copyrighted as a separate thing than the writing (which is the case- hence Dr. Dre's rerecording of his "samples").

if its the

publishers (who do the least creative work)

who are making the most profit- how does sampling actually help the musicians get any of that back? by saving them the expense of recording parts that are then sampled? by not hiring musicians and engineers thusly paying their peers?

IMHO it seems that the attitude is well, the all mighty Beatles even borrowed or stole THEIR music so we shouldn't bother to try and be original anymore. Since there is no originality we should be able to use whatever preexisting material we want.

This logic is totally lost on me which is why I started this thread, in the hope that someone could make it clearer to me why we are thus entitled to take and use whatever we want, changing it only as much as we want.

let's sub out music in favor of boats-

I build a boat in my driveway that "you" see. You really like that boat. you can either-

a.) walk up to my house and steal my existing boat and call it your own.
b.) steal my boat and paint it a different color and add a flag and call it your own.
c.) make your own boat based on what you see in my driveway, maybe "fail" or come up with a new better idea.

now i wasnt the first boat maker the same way Nirvana wasnt the first to do what they did, the same way the Beatles weren't necessarily the first to do what they did but they tried to make that "boat" their own.

Ethically when its not music but its something else it doesnt seem so correct and if we all value music so highly why don't we care for it with the same concern we apply to other things?

i should add the d.) option which is
d.) buy the boat second hand and make it a plane.

what is a benefit of no copyright what so ever?

and back to my first question in this thread-

what happens when the Bush administration uses your copyright-less music for a commercial about killing puppies and kittens AND profits off of it?

[hambone1]

We'll always see original talent shining through.

It just gets harder to see it through the samplers/remixers/regurgitators.

[ChiDJ]

We'll always see original talent shining through.

It just gets harder to see it through the samplers/remixers/regurgitators.

Kinda like someone who "quotes" some other artist in their sig. cause they can't come up with an original thought of their own.


















Hugs....

[pepezabala]

IMHO it seems that the attitude is well, the all mighty Beatles even borrowed or stole THEIR music so we shouldn't bother to try and be original anymore. Since there is no originality we should be able to use whatever preexisting material we want.

Well, it's not like there is no originality anymore, it's more like that since always music was culture/tradtion shared among members of a society. For about 50 years people, mainly lawyers and corporations, but also authors and musicians, were able to make money by means of publishing rights. Due technological inventions a market of massproduction and selling of records had appeared and is right now disappearing again because of digital copy + internet. All of this is not related to originality. Creativity and originality exist independently of all of that.

let's sub out music in favor of boats-

I build a boat in my driveway that "you" see. You really like that boat. you can either-

a.) walk up to my house and steal my existing boat and call it your own.
b.) steal my boat and paint it a different color and add a flag and call it your own.
c.) make your own boat based on what you see in my driveway, maybe "fail" or come up with a new better idea.

now i wasnt the first boat maker the same way Nirvana wasnt the first to do what they did, the same way the Beatles weren't necessarily the first to do what they did but they tried to make that "boat" their own.

And so did Public enemy, and so did DJ Girltalk. That's what I wanted to say, to steal a riff or a certain way to play an electric guitar is not so far away - IMHO - from sampling. Obviously some people are not very creative when they only take a hookline of a discotune and put a housebeat and a filter on it. But I believe that the usual Bluesrockband might be even less creative/original, but legally able to collect copyright and publishing fees, while DJ Girltalk gets sued by Warner (or so). This is not like this because the corporations hate dance-music, it's because copyright infringement is an invention of corporations that try to make money by selling records.

what happens when the Bush administration uses your copyright-less music for a commercial about killing puppies and kittens AND profits off of it?

Funny enough, this has happened various times during the last year. Poor puppies. I have used Voodoo to stop the Bush administration.

[signal]

..

[eisnein]

IMHO it seems that the attitude is well, the all mighty Beatles even borrowed or stole THEIR music so we shouldn't bother to try and be original anymore. Since there is no originality we should be able to use whatever preexisting material we want.

Well, it's not like there is no originality anymore, it's more like that since always music was culture/tradtion shared among members of a society...

thats wasn't my thoughts on the matter. that is why i wrote that it seems that that is the general attitude or mentality of today…which you further convince me is what the general attitude is (again not my personal thoughts) when you write-

But I believe that the usual Bluesrockband might be even less creative/original, but legally able to collect copyright and publishing fees, while DJ Girltalk gets sued by Warner (or so).

that is NOT why Girl Talk (who doesnt hail himself as a DJ who makes mixtapes so much as an Artist who creates albums which is a WHOLE nother discussion thread!)

GirlTalk is using pre existing recordings- ie. the prebuilt boat that i have in my driveway and painting it red instead of blue (option b.). Public Enemy or Dust Brothers work on Paul's Boutique at least took the boat and turned it into a flying car...plus as with all art they (debatable-y) did it first. (option d.)

WHEREAS the blues band (and i dont approve of that unoriginality necessarily either) are actually RECORDING something and creating music from scratch as boring and unoriginal as it may be.

it's because copyright infringement is an invention of corporations that try to make money by selling records.

that is not actually the birth of the copyright in the US- "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." was the original intent. If people feel this creates unfair "creative monopolies" then maybe we should push for reform instead of abolishment? Creative Commons style? Just because we have had 50 years of abuse of these laws doesnt mean the laws themselves are useless or unfair. they are just misused.

It has also been explained away and excused as due to the way the Web and specifically Web 2.0 work, users do not realize they are infringing on copyrights therefore its redundant. If that attitude is applied to all all new technologies let alone life in general its basically a sociopath's way of life. I didn't realize anything was wrong with killing someone with this newly invented laser gun so laws against murder are redundant. granted that is the most extreme of all cases but isn't it the same idea? its ok for new technology to erase old laws?

what happens when the Bush administration uses your copyright-less music for a commercial about killing puppies and kittens AND profits off of it?

Funny enough, this has happened various times during the last year. Poor puppies. I have used Voodoo to stop the Bush administration.

examples please?

[pepezabala]

GirlTalk is using pre existing recordings- ie. the prebuilt boat that i have in my driveway and painting it red instead of blue (option b.). Public Enemy or Dust Brothers work on Paul's Boutique at least took the boat and turned it into a flying car...plus as with all art they (debatable-y) did it first. (option d.)

WHEREAS the blues band (and i dont approve of that unoriginality necessarily either) are actually RECORDING something and creating music from scratch as boring and unoriginal as it may be.

Well, that's open to discuss. I would say that the average Blues or Boogie-band is way less creative or original than someone using samples and building something new with it. And the average Bluesband does nothing nothing from scratch, they use the same chord progression, the same scales, the same melodies that people have used since ages (or, well since the beginning of the last century at least). And are able to get a copyright for it, but it's impossible to publish something similar to the first Public Enemy records because of copyright. That's why I say that there is something wrong about the existing laws and that's why I say that I would like to have sampling legal.

I just believe that it's quite the same if I sample a cumbia-rythm or if I program it. Or if I slice the midi-file of a jazz-standard in order to use the groovy bassline or if I program it from scratch. Sounds exactly the same, one is legal, the other is illegal.

Wether this is original or creative is a totally different question. But don't tell me that you invented all your music from scratch. When you are composing you are assembling patterns of stuff that you have heard before. There might be people that do conceptual stuff that is totally new, but when we talk about popular music you have to admit that all possible progressions, rythms and melodies have been used in one or the other way already in the past. Maybe in a different style/genre, probably in a different way than you re-assemble it, but it's all been there already. Since ages.

[Tone Deft]

GirlTalk is using pre existing recordings- ie. the prebuilt boat that i have in my driveway and painting it red instead of blue (option b.). Public Enemy or Dust Brothers work on Paul's Boutique at least took the boat and turned it into a flying car...plus as with all art they (debatable-y) did it first. (option d.)

WHEREAS the blues band (and i dont approve of that unoriginality necessarily either) are actually RECORDING something and creating music from scratch as boring and unoriginal as it may be.

Well, that's open to discuss. I would say that the average Blues or Boogie-band is way less creative or original than someone using samples and building something new with it. And the average Bluesband does nothing nothing from scratch, they use the same chord progression, the same scales, the same melodies that people have used since ages (or, well since the beginning of the last century at least). And are able to get a copyright for it, but it's impossible to publish something similar to the first Public Enemy records because of copyright. That's why I say that there is something wrong about the existing laws and that's why I say that I would like to have sampling legal.

I just believe that it's quite the same if I sample a cumbia-rythm or if I program it. Or if I slice the midi-file of a jazz-standard in order to use the groovy bassline or if I program it from scratch. Sounds exactly the same, one is legal, the other is illegal.

Wether this is original or creative is a totally different question. But don't tell me that you invented all your music from scratch. When you are composing you are assembling patterns of stuff that you have heard before. There might be people that do conceptual stuff that is totally new, but when we talk about popular music you have to admit that all possible progressions, rythms and melodies have been used in one or the other way already in the past. Maybe in a different style/genre, probably in a different way than you re-assemble it, but it's all been there already. Since ages.

hey pepe - do you play a real instrument or do you consider launching clips a musical talent?

[doc holiday]

Read It

[Tone Deft]

[eisnein]

I just believe that it's quite the same if I sample a cumbia-rythm or if I program it. Or if I slice the midi-file of a jazz-standard in order to use the groovy bassline or if I program it from scratch. Sounds exactly the same, one is legal, the other is illegal.

so if it sounds exactly the same why sample it?

Wether this is original or creative is a totally different question. But don't tell me that you invented all your music from scratch. When you are composing you are assembling patterns of stuff that you have heard before. There might be people that do conceptual stuff that is totally new, but when we talk about popular music you have to admit that all possible progressions, rythms and melodies have been used in one or the other way already in the past. Maybe in a different style/genre, probably in a different way than you re-assemble it, but it's all been there already. Since ages.

no doubt, thats why i said i don't approve of the blandness of copycat songwriting either but when i said "from scratch" i meant recording only. there is something about the process of the recording these ideas that creates a certain aesthetic (which leads us to desire sampling it as well)- the capturing of a moment, players fingers, the location etc. So the ideas may have been there throughout the ages BUT the recording that is being sampled has NOT. A sampled album can most definitely be legal and depending on the breakdown and use of the samples it can be published with credit due to proper parties. (look at most hiphop cd's). If the melody from the original is the melody in the sampled version then Isaac Hayes gets a writing credit.

This is why maybe a reform of existing laws?