F*ck sample clearence

quietizkept wrote:Sounds are clay. It's up to the Artist to make a sculpture. Sampling eventually snatched mainstream popularity, but unfortunately, it was made famous to the mainstream by lesser artists, who took advantage of how easy it was just to put generic rap drums on an already hot loop and clock bread. That **** is DRYSNITCHIN'. These guys brought heat down on the rest of us, to be sure, the wrong kind of attention.

All music come from somewhere. All we musicians do is run it through a complex filter. Every passage has been done to death. All we musicians have is our unique filter. EVERY sampling critic I meet face-to-face can't play as many instruments as me, unless I hang around the music building at Morehead State University. AC/DC is clown **** on guitar. Creedence is fairly simple to play. But so what? Both these bands' music have a massive following that spans decades. My main instrument is a sampler, but I also play live instruments. The only reason I push to get better on instruments is to make better hiphop beats. A good 98% of my tracks don't even have any samples save drum machine one-shots, but it's my God given RIGHT to make my music however the hell my heart wants me too. I think sampling artists, or any other Artist should use the honor system. We know who we owe.

Great post!

mr_debauch wrote:i doubt dre payed a half a billion though

I remember way back that Quik produced it while Dre had to cough up the dough, because it was his label that released it or something.

In my opinion stealing is when you take something that belongs to someone or is a "product" that's been put up for sale without either paying for it or asking the person to borough it....

The problem I think starts where music is made into a product.....

I believe the purpose of people is to move people in one way or another, either emotionally or physically.... that can be achieved by experiencing a live performance or listening to a track on whatever medium your listening to.... OR being part of it by creating it, and therefore expressing yourself by being creative (some are better than others in expressing themselves... )

So by this logic, the music's purpose has been already fulfilled when you listen to it... (in theory)


The problem occurs when money comes in...because the music receives a new purpose, to be profitable as a product....
So with this comes a whole bunch of problems but also advantages....

A problem is that with retail you have to deal with laws, money, intellectual property, taxes etc etc...
Also the creativity is compromised because of the "products" marketability a lot of times.... for money

An advantage is that because music was being pressed and distributed all over the world as a product, and without it you probably wouldn't hear a lot of good music....

Of course when you take a "product" and don't pay for it you're stealing... even more so when you make money of it yourself...

From an artists' point of view you should be happy that someone got inspired by listening to your music and got moved by it. But when you feel that someone is stealing your product and not paying for it, plus making money of it ....then that;s a whole different story..
That's why most of the time the artists most of the time wouldn't object I think, and the people suing are most of the time the publishing companies, and record labels...(suits)


Creatively anything goes I think....so get moved by music and move other people with your music..... BUT when you think about making your music a profitable "product" then be aware of the rules and laws that you have to deal with... and that's the problem...because by law you are stealing, as an artist you are creating....

Just make music, deal with the laws through a lawyer specialized in this.... like someone said before, for you to even get sued you need to be in the public eye....


Compare it to graff, it is illegal to spray paint someone's property ..... your still going to do it though... some will appreciate some won't

Thanks, 4k. Another great post right up there ^

this could save you guys a load of hassle if anyones worrying about sampling copyrighted stuff....

http://www.pdinfo.com/list.php

this site gives you an A-Z of every song that is 'public domain' meaning you can sample as much as you like outta each track and not have to worry about being sued or any copyright BS.

hope that helps.

Honestly, the way I see it, if you're not making beats from scratch, then you might as well try to at least do your beats the best you can, and also make them not sound like the original sample. I think I read somewhere that you are allowed to sample others works, as long as it does not sound like the original sample. It makes sense to me, as that's pretty much stealing in a sense. If you're an artist, then you're gonna appreciate your own tools, and not others sounds. Plain and simple, you have to respect the artist or whomever that you're going to sample. I think some of the peeps on this thread are taking this way too deep. Music is an art, so is painting and whatnot. Stealing and using others original samples without permission (sample clearing) isn't much of an art.

I always look at it like if you're going to make a beat with an unoriginal sample, you're better off making a beat from scratch, or from an actual instrument. Let's just say you want to use a guitar sample from another song, then why not try to sample it yourself on a microphone? Is it too hard, or are you just too lazy? You have to ask yourself if you're capable of doing it. All the best producers nowadays are gauranteed to be making their own sounds, so why not take that as a lesson. If you REALLY are original, than you make original works, not works based off of other peoples works, right?

**** clearances is right provided u do something creative with the sample. I think its the guys that loop 8 bars of something and add drums and maybe bass of some wildely known popular song that really makes those of us who chop and rearrange and incorperate samples into our music rather than make the sample our music look bad.

KevWestBeats wrote:**** clearances is right provided u do something creative with the sample. I think its the guys that loop 8 bars of something and add drums and maybe bass of some wildely known popular song that really makes those of us who chop and rearrange and incorperate samples into our music rather than make the sample our music look bad.

cosign

There is a publishing limit. it's like 2500-3000 sales before you get sued or have to pay the originator for that sample to clear it.

The "Don't have SHT" part??? TMI

I am ASCAP and I don't clear sample, unless they sell. I have sold some beyond that and nearly broke the bank for the percentages, but I still promo the SHT out of what I have.

If you don't move, you don't eat.

This is how I eat. 100%, so I do what I gotta do.

I make that I am paypal verified, so I can be ready when I get the call for a deal or good money.

Budweiser_072000 wrote:http://www.pdinfo.com/list.php
this site gives you an A-Z of every song that is 'public domain'

FREE public domain music sites:
http://www.publicdomain2ten.com/
http://publicdomain4u.com/
dick justice - cocaine -- http://www.archive.org/download/Cocaine/Cocaine.mp3
http://www.t0.or.at/musick.htm -- public netbase zero news

Network 23 Zounds (provided by Spiral Tribe)
All sounds are 16 bit stereo 44.100 khz .wav files
http://www.t0.or.at/digidj/net23z.htm

Let me add that the artist is rarely who actually does the "sueing". Depending on your recording contract, the label may own the rights to your music. That is what fueled the independent movement. Artists like Prince do not own the rights to their own music (his Warner Brothers catalog). He couldn't even re-make "1999" at the millennium because he doesn't own the rights, WB does. Now artists resist that kind of deal. When you sign with a major label, they will give you a sample list of stuff that you can sample because they already own the rights, not the artists. So if you got signed and wanted to sample any of that stuff, WB could give you permission, not Prince himself.

No one is selling mad units anymore. It will cost a major artist more $$$$ to have a lawyer draw up paperwork to sue us, and for what?? Even if they win a case, what are they going to get? $30.00..minus paypal dues! haha!

i have wavered on the subject of sampling
originally i thought it it wasn't chopped up, it was an unoriginal usage of the sample
but in Warm Blooded Lizard i got more into larger samples but with an extremely different context
an example (safe one, using a public domain sample) is in Lesser Known Good, the intro song is an Andean folk song with no copyright...i sampled a larger chunk, chopped out an extra note here and there, but otherwise left it largely intact.

however, when you play it on my album its context is completely, completely different than the original (incredibly beautiful) song.

it's like the alphabet. samples are vowels and can be pronounced differently in different contexts.

Sampling is still sampling, your not elite because you chop.

by that logic, it takes equal skill to A, loop a drum break as it does to B, chop drums from multiple breaks and build a new kit/pattern. i respectfully disagree. there is simply more work involved in case B. does it make one "elite" whatever that means? no, but it requires more skill (and performance dexterity when recording the new pattern)