AFRAID TO SAMPLE?!?! ADD YOUR THOUGHTS TO MY RESEARCH!

And on another tip I think hip Hop without samples is like swimming without water.

ever heard of the roots?

You have to read a short story by Spider Robinson...."Melancoly Elephant". It's a very interesting take on copyright law and pertinant to your question.

I guess i'll put in my 2 cents...

I could really care less about copyright music if it does not get sold. And most my music does not get sold. If i'm not making any money off something, i don't believe anyone should be compensated. But most my beats I compose myself. So i do believe an artist should be compensated for their work. If someone took my music and made a song off of it, i'd want to be compensated for it. But lets say someone took part of my beat that i composed, chopped it into small pieces and used it for promotion. I think that's fine. Infact, people have asked me on occation to compose a piano loop for them and i do it willingly. The problem lies when people are making legitimate money of your idea. When someone uses a recognizable peice of your music, you deserve what you want for someone to publish it. BUT, if the sample has been chopped to the point where it is relitively unrecognizeable, and it is just being used as a sound, not expressing any of the qualities of the original work, i believe that it is mearly a sound. If it's a horn hit, the person sampled the horn because it was the right pitch, sound, tempo, whatever. Not because of the original work. I think in cases where most people wouldn't recongize a sample, the proceedings should go as followed. A jury should hear the original work, and then mulitiple songs. If the jury can not identify which song used which original work, to me, it's obvioius that the new work does not "steal," per say, of the the older work. Now obviously this would be an idealistic idea, the average juror would be incompent, but if the average listener, or even a discreate listern can't intentify the samples, I think that it should be OK to publish that song. That's my oppinion.

If you dont chop your samples like antonym is preaching to everyone then your unorigional and you are copying someone elses work.

I never cut sounds out of songs and if I did it would be chopped up like a mufuka to make it mine - or else I wouldnt feel that my music was totally mine.

using premade drum loops/breaks is a joke to.

how could u say u made your music if your copying out of other peoples work?

I use all single shot drums and make my own samples from my micron

Hypes wrote:I make my own samples from my micron

Yeah, i like to do a similar thing. i'll make a loop with several diferent sounds going on in it, like i was making a track, but then i'll use that loop as a fresh sample, and flip it around and chop it up, makes a refreshing change if you're stuck on a beat.

using premade drum loops/breaks is a joke to.

yo all those acid loops and shit...no no no...that's not even digging, that's like spoon feeding.

i do chop up the percussion from those though, sometimes. that's always good.

rock on
nym

This is my first post as I am new to the forum. I find this topic interesting. I have thought much about it myself, and I have to say that I don't really think that much of music nowdays is original. Chord progressions, scales, beats, they have all been done before, with some degree of variance. The music that is coming out today IS a sampling of sorts. You hear the same chord progressions, the parts of melodies used in thousands of songs over the years. There are only so many rhythmic patterns you can play. Sampling is an art forum that when done well, becomes a different beast. Taking sounds and feelings off multible recorded mediums and creating something else entirely is as much an art as composing a symphony. Sampling is the way of the future, we have no where else to go in my opinion. I've grown up listening to many different styles of music and if I try to write a "new" song on guitar, piano, etc. all of the music I've heard over my lifetime is influencing the direction the song is headed, it's a "reinterpritation" of everything I've heard up until that point. Sorry this is so long I'll stop here.

stereomike wrote:Chord progressions, scales, beats, they have all been done before, with some degree of variance. The music that is coming out today IS a sampling of sorts. You hear the same chord progressions, the parts of melodies used in thousands of songs over the years. There are only so many rhythmic patterns you can play.

CO SIGN!!!!!!!

i second reading "meloncholy elephants"

F*ck it. A beat is a beat. The ONLY thing that SHOULD matter is that the beat gives me constant whiplash and makes my face frown up like I saw two muscle bound olympic weight lifters having violent uprotected sex. I could care less if you jacked a whole song like Ghostface does or you chopped ya $h*t up so good that Premier would kiss the earth that you walk on. A hot beat is a hot beat and that's that. My sentiments on this whole topic lean towards what Fluent is speaking of.

In my opinion, samples aren't necessary for a beat to be considered Hip-Hop. However, 98.976% of my beats are sampled based. That is my preference. I won't have it any other way. I won't front, I kinda hesitate using a sample sometimes for fear of blowing up one day and then getting sued for all I got. But now my attitude is f*ck it. Sue me b*tch. I'm broke as it is and you will only be getting me free promotion by spending the last of ya pension to drag me to court for the lint in my pocket.

I'll use a break beat if it goes with what I'm working with. F*ck it. I don't care if everyone used it. Every break doesn't have to be chopped or altered. Sometimes it is fine as it is. Check out fishscale. I bet if your favorite producers took it back to 85-92 and started using un-altered breaks some of y'all would start switching up ya speech. It's music, man. Lets shut our mouths and let the music speak....

This is not music related, but it might help in your research. http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

How I look at it is once these records were sold, isn't that the compensation that an artist was expecting to get from their work? Someone purchased that album, and they were compensated for it. When Andy Warhol made "art" from prints of Campbell's soup can's, it was heralded. I see a big double standard when it comes to music. I mean, I can publish a book of nothing but quotes from other books, and pay nothing as long as I site my sources. This paper that you are writing will probably do the same thing. Why should I pay for a snare drum from a 30 year old record? Who should be payed for that? The drummer, the drum manufacturer, the engineer, the producer, or the person that holds the copywrite? The fact is that a lot of these old artists's rights are in the hands of companies that had nothing to do with the songs. This issue is not that black and white. This is an issue that will effect hiphop, which is a love of mine, and I only see it getting worse for the sampling artist's involved. I hope that some kind of resolution came come about.

Have you done any research on Creative Common's? That would be another good thing to look into for your paper. That's awesome that you are going to Law School, maybe one of these day's you could even be apart of keeping fairness in sampling law's.

RonDu wrote:F*ck it. A beat is a beat. The ONLY thing that SHOULD matter is that the beat gives me constant whiplash and makes my face frown up like I saw two muscle bound olympic weight lifters having violent uprotected sex. I could care less if you jacked a whole song like Ghostface does or you chopped ya $h*t up so good that Premier would kiss the earth that you walk on. A hot beat is a hot beat and that's that. My sentiments on this whole topic lean towards what Fluent is speaking of.

In my opinion, samples aren't necessary for a beat to be considered Hip-Hop. However, 98.976% of my beats are sampled based. That is my preference. I won't have it any other way. I won't front, I kinda hesitate using a sample sometimes for fear of blowing up one day and then getting sued for all I got. But now my attitude is f*ck it. Sue me b*tch. I'm broke as it is and you will only be getting me free promotion by spending the last of ya pension to drag me to court for the lint in my pocket.

I'll use a break beat if it goes with what I'm working with. F*ck it. I don't care if everyone used it. Every break doesn't have to be chopped or altered. Sometimes it is fine as it is. Check out fishscale. I bet if your favorite producers took it back to 85-92 and started using un-altered breaks some of y'all would start switching up ya speech. It's music, man. Lets shut our mouths and let the music speak....

thats what im talkin about

that song that ghostface just threw the record on and rapped over..raw as hell

Don't even get me started on this topic.


I graduated from Duke Law last May... I passed the Bar in November... and am working for a firm in Manhattan...


I also took almost every IP class that Duke offered, and did pretty well in all of them...


As far as I'm concerned... copyright law has its problems... but forcing people that sample other people's music to account for it is not one of them.


If you use someone else's music... you should have to compensate them for it... its not even a true question to me...


I think a lot of producers and hip hop heads are so used to the art and culture of stealing other people's music that they feel 100% justified in doing it freely... sorry... it doesnt work that way... the fact is, if you sample someone's music and change it around enough that it is no longer CLEARLY their music (not your's), then you don't have to clear/attribute it... if you dont change it, then you have to get permission to use it and probably pay some form of license fee..



And thats EXACTLY how it should be... (actually, thats not fair... there are improvements that could be made... i.e., mandatory licenses for particular works.. shortening of the copyright period.. etc... but thats beyond this thread...)...



anyway.. thats my quick two cents




ronJ

tommyd wrote:This is not music related, but it might help in your research. http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/trademarks.html

How I look at it is once these records were sold, isn't that the compensation that an artist was expecting to get from their work? Someone purchased that album, and they were compensated for it. When Andy Warhol made "art" from prints of Campbell's soup can's, it was heralded. I see a big double standard when it comes to music. I mean, I can publish a book of nothing but quotes from other books, and pay nothing as long as I site my sources. This paper that you are writing will probably do the same thing. Why should I pay for a snare drum from a 30 year old record? Who should be payed for that? The drummer, the drum manufacturer, the engineer, the producer, or the person that holds the copywrite? The fact is that a lot of these old artists's rights are in the hands of companies that had nothing to do with the songs. This issue is not that black and white. This is an issue that will effect hiphop, which is a love of mine, and I only see it getting worse for the sampling artist's involved. I hope that some kind of resolution came come about.

Have you done any research on Creative Common's? That would be another good thing to look into for your paper. That's awesome that you are going to Law School, maybe one of these day's you could even be apart of keeping fairness in sampling law's.

Not that it matters, but the copyright would ALWAYS lie with who created the music and put it on a physical medium... unless that person gave it away willingly to someone else.


Those record companies own the copyrights because the artists WILLINGLY gave them away. Can't cry about it afterwards.


Oh, and you can't just print a book of other people's words and attribute them... copyright infringement affects music, prose, poetry, art, sculpture, painting... essentially any possible way that creativity can be filitered through a physical medium.. there is no double standard for music whatsoever...




ronJ

BTW - mctravel.. if you're interested in my thoughts (not that you necessarily would or should be, but I doubt many people in this thread have the legal chops that I do), feel free to im (ronjajax) or email ([email protected]).


Oh, and if that's weed in your avatar... it would be my personal advice to chill out on making it widely known that you use illicit drugs... not that the Bar Examiners are checking message boards or anything, but you never know... if you're going to break the law and intend to get sworn in at any point in your future, do it with the blinds closed...


If thats not weed, then carry on. LOL.




ronJ

I think it's fair to credit the artist you sample if you actually sample his music..anyway even if you sample a whole bar or two it may be that you did'nt sampled no one's music ..ok you got it from a record but if it's a classic move or riff that's been used by many artists over time why should a particular artist be credited for this.Any style of music and particularly black music is heavily "influenced" that's why there are styles of music..just listen for blues music the same tunes were reinterpreted so many time and no one is even sure who composed them for the first time..it's likely that you should credit Elvis Presley if you reinterpret some classic blues because the **** was credited for the tunes he reinterpreted as if they were his creation. That's the whole story of music like it seems James brown "invented" funk music back from a trip to Africa where he heard Fela Kuti..THERE'S NO NEED TO SAMPLE TO BE A THIEF IN MUSIC and an artist/company that ask for half the royalties of a tune because there's one recognisable sound in a mix are thieves too