RiP! A Remix Manifesto -- Controversy of Sampling in Music

[Cop No. 633]

I saw this interesting documentary that my friend pointed out to me that deals with copyright issues in samples. The film focuses on the DJ Girl Talk who makes awesome mash ups of many different pieces of songs to create his own songs.

You can watch it here: http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/1992-rip-a-remix-manifesto/1

Thought it might be a good video for people to find. It makes great points which asks, why is it wrong for Girl Talk to take pieces of music but it's okay for Led Zeppelin or Rolling Stones to borrow a good deal from past blues musicians? I don't think any of them are wrong but it points out the hypocrisy in the argument for the purists who always cite bands that tend to borrow liberally from the past.

I'm all for sampling. I think this might make for an interesting topic and I'd highly recommend to watch the documentary.

[outsyder]

Thanks a lot man. Been wanting to see this.

[The Postmaster General]

I found this pretty cool website yesterday called, "Who sampled who?"

Anyway, I was surprised how many old ass songs actually sample older songs themselves. For instance:

Muddy Waters's Mannish Boy samples Bo Diddley's I'm a Man
The Beach Boys's Surfin' USA samples Chuck Berry's Sweet Little Sixteen (1958) (You can compare the songs, and see where the samples occur here - http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/205/The%20Beach%20Boys-Surfin'%20USA_Chuck%20Berry-Sweet%20Little%20Sixteen/)

The Strangeloves's I Want Candy samples Bo Diddley's Bo Diddley (1955)
Bob Marley's Rolling Stone samples Bob Dylan's Like a Rolling Stone (1965)
The Doors's Spanish Caravan samples Isaac Albéniz's Asturias (1890)
Tommy McCook & the Supersonics's Reggae Merengue samples Nestor Montes's Cógeme La Caña (1954)

This are all sampling that was done pre-1970, some by pretty respected artists (Bob Marley, The Doors, Muddy Waters...) ---- But a million bucks says you can go on YouTube and find songs that sample any of those three, and there will be people saying how those 3 artists were ripped off, and how the sampling artist as no talent.

Here is something funny.

On these boards sometime back, people were complaining about Kanye West sampling Daft Punk for the song "Stronger", saying how he ripped them off - how his song is just their song. I didn't know at the time, but Daft Punk used even more of a sample from an earlier song to make "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger" That is to say, Kanye West sampled less of Daft Punk than Daft Punk sampled the 1980's funkster Edwin Birdsong.

Watch...

Here is the Kanye version that samples Daft Punk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jzSh_MLNcY

Here is the Daft Punk version (so many people here say was ripped off) that samples Birdsong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgBgnoEY4iM

And here is the original Edwin Birdsong track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sklZ-f6Wstw


Listening to all 3 of those, it's pretty clear that Daft Punk did a greater deal of sampling to make their song. Kanye only samples the robot voice, whereas Daft Punk samples the whole song, with the robot voice being the only notable difference. Yet, since people don't know, they just point fingers are Kanye. This is why I think a lot of this all comes down to ignorance about music,not just with music history, but also music theory, and I went deep into that in another thread. I won't say ignorance though, because while it is, it is more of just close-mindedness. Regardless of how much sampling you've shown has been done, nay sayers will keep finding ways to justify a difference, no matter how absurd it is. I betchu a million bucks that someone would defend Daft's sampling over Kanye by saying "Well, they sampled it first" or "Well, they sampled an older song no one knew."

It's just funny. That's all.

Something else about the whole sampling thing that I think is funny, in regards to people who are 'gainst it ---- You can take a Alan Parson's Project song and sample it for a rap song, and people will be like, "Oh that's shit. Ripping off other people's music."

But you take "Hotel California" and have it covered by a ska band and the same people will go, "Oh shit man, that's awesome!"

So, it's like, sampling a section of a song to make a new song -- that's a rip off, some people say, but those same people will say that actually taking someone elses song and performing the entire song yourself --- that's original! I mean... Huh?

[Cop No. 633]

Yeah, I think the arguments against sampling is a funny one because there are large gray areas that people never want to talk about. Sampling isn't even something that happens in music, but in film too. I'd say Quentin Tarantino is a director who samples a lot of other work much like a DJ does and yet he's regarded as a genius and innovator. He can take a scene from another film and put it in his own movie and not have to pay the original artist anything because in film, we have the lovely word homage which to me is no different than sampling.

If people consider it wrong to sample, then it can't only be related to sampling musical phrases from songs. Taking a song's chord structure and making your own thing out of it would fit in as well, and that's a great deal of pop songs.

Look at this one... Mike Doughty's "Busting Up A Starbucks." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niHeM1jEKG0

Listen to the way he sings it, the cello's playing, even the heavy bass notes on his song. Sound familiar? It should.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=me8aQA0VlI8

If artists like Girl Talk has to pay for sampling, so should artists like Mike Doughty. That's all I'm saying. Where is the line drawn on sampling?

[LordSimen]

The fact that you guys are confusing sampling with covering is baffling to me.

[Cop No. 633]

The argument here is about royalties and copyright, not about covering songs. When an artist covers a song in concert, it's generally considered fine. You don't have to pay the artist whose song your covering anything. But if you put it on an album, you do have to pay and pay and pay. That's the nature of royalties.

What we're talking about is about artists of the past who have lifted musical phrases or lyrics or melodies directly from past works and called it their own and never had to pay a dime to the previous artist.

For example, the film shows Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love. Then it shows Muddy Waters' You Need Love. Same lyrics, same style of playing. And yet, Led takes full credit and doesn't have to pay Muddy Waters for essentially doing what DJ's do today, which is take existing musical phrases and turning them into their own songs.

Here's the example from the film: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_G3df7jee0

It even shows the Rolling Stones doing the exact same thing. And then they sued the Verve after them for "stealing" their song. The issue isn't that they're doing it. I think it's fine. But the issue is that people are trying to tax future artists for doing the exact same thing they did. It's hypocrisy at its finest. How can anybody take credit for something they didn't create? You never saw the past generation have to pay a dime to the blues musicians or folk artists they lifted some of their songs from. It goes back to the example I showed of Mike Doughty... his song is pretty much completely based on P.J. Harvey's structurally, it really is no different than somebody taking a guitar phrase from Radiohead and then manipulating it to sound like another song altogether. The only difference is the instrument being used. One chose to strum a guitar to take the melody, another used a sampling program. That's the only difference.

[LordSimen]

For example, the film shows Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love. Then it shows Muddy Waters' You Need Love. Same lyrics, same style of playing. And yet, Led takes full credit and doesn't have to pay Muddy Waters for essentially doing what DJ's do today, which is take existing musical phrases and turning them into their own songs.

That isn't the same thing at all. There isn't anything wrong with playing the same riff. It becomes wrong when you take someone else's recording of that riff, slap someone else's recording of another riff, and then slap them together and claim it to be your own, when it ain't. Record your own playing of that riff, then it's yours.

[Cop No. 633]

That isn't the same thing at all. There isn't anything wrong with playing the same riff. It becomes wrong when you take someone else's recording of that riff, slap someone else's recording of another riff, and then slap them together and claim it to be your own, when it ain't. Recording your own playing of that riff, then it's yours.

Even when the lyrics are the same? I don't get it. As long as it's you're strumming the guitar even if the phrase and lyrics are from another song, it's yours. But if you're not the one strumming the guitar, it's stealing. I've heard songs sample tiny phrases from pieces of music and turned them into something completely different than the original song.

Check out: http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/2998/Jeru%20the%20Damaja-Jungle%20Music_Isaac%20Hayes-You%27ve%20Lost%20That%20Lovin%27%20Feelin%27/

The song DJ Premier sampled from sounds nothing like the one he created more so than Led Zeppelin's Whole Lotta Love is a different song from You Need Love.

Or how about another from DJ Premier that he did for Jeru the Damaja:

http://www.whosampled.com/sample/view/2196/Jeru%20the%20Damaja-Me%20or%20the%20Papes_Ahmad%20Jamal-I%20Love%20Music/

Do you get what I'm saying? I don't understand how one is considered stealing and unoriginal but the other is completely fine simply because they strummed the guitar. If that is simply the issue, then Premier could have asked a piano player to simply play the exact phrase on the piano, and then it would be totally fine in your book.

[LordSimen]

Even when the lyrics are the same?

Yeah, as long as it's your recording, it's your recording. Not sure what there is to get about that, it's straight forward.

[Cop No. 633]

So would say somebody like DJ Premier would have to pay royalties for Jungle Music to Isaac Hayes and a band like Led Zeppelin wouldn't have to pay Muddy Waters?

[LordSimen]

So would say somebody like DJ Premier would have to pay royalties for Jungle Music to Isaac Hayes and a band like Led Zeppelin wouldn't have to pay Muddy Waters?

If Jungle Music sampled a piece of Isaac Hayes' recording, then yes, they would. They didn't record it themselves, they didn't play it themselves- They took someone else's work, slapped it onto their own song. Since they're going to be selling it to others, they should pay an appropriate amount of royalties just like everyone else who takes someone else's recordings. Led Zeppelin recorded it themselves. It's theirs.

[Cop No. 633]

I guess taking two or three notes is considered stealing compared to lifting a riff and actual lyrics. Thanks for answering.

[LordSimen]

I guess taking two or three notes is considered stealing compared to lifting a riff and actual lyrics. Thanks for answering.

No, it's stealing to steal someone else's recorded music and claiming it as your own. It's not stealing to record your own take on someone else's songs. The key thing here is RECORDING, not the damn notes themselves.

[Cop No. 633]

No, it's stealing to steal someone else's recorded music and claiming it as your own. It's not stealing to record your own take on someone else's songs. The key thing here is RECORDING, not the damn notes themselves.

I still think it's archaic to keep using the "recording" as the only way to say it's stealing. I'd say it more original to do what Premier did than what Zep did. But one is considered stealing and unoriginal while the other is placed on a pedestal. Eventually, this way of thinking will slowly disappear though and people will recognize that they stand side by side.

[LordSimen]

I still think it's archaic to keep using the "recording" as the only way to say it's stealing. I'd say it more original to do what Premier did than what Zep did. But one is considered stealing and unoriginal while the other is placed on a pedestal. Eventually, this way of thinking will slowly disappear though and people will recognize that they stand side by side.

Originality has nothing to do with this argument. It's about stealing and stealing only, and to take someone else's recording and calling it your own- That's stealing. It's not stealing to play someone else's riff and call it your own, because no own's riffs- They just own their recording.

[Le_Big_Mac]

I knew LS would find some way to destroy this thread after that M.I.A. argument.

[Cop No. 633]

I'd say this thread is far from being destroyed. Simen just gave his opinion on the matter. I gave mine. Nobody's fighting. We're just offering different points of view. I hope others will chime in. The documentary is pretty great and I recommend everyone check it out and offer their thoughts on it as well as the issues it brings up.

[LordSimen]

I'd say this thread is far from being destroyed. Simen just gave his opinion on the matter. I gave mine. Nobody's fighting. We're just offering different points of view. I hope others will chime in. The documentary is pretty great and I recommend everyone check it out and offer their thoughts on it as well as the issues it brings up.

Agreed, sir. I have no intention of destroying this thread, I just disagree with the documentary on this matter.

[BadCoverVersion]

I think the argument against direct sampling usually boils down to the fact that people have very little respect for the musicians predominantly responsible for taking an existing piece, transforming it and claiming it as their own.

Certain genres provoke certain reactions...file Electronic, House and Dance under "genres most likely to elicit ignorant generalisations and overreactions".

Contrary to popular belief sampling and creating a sophisticated piece of music generally takes much more effort than borrowing a riff or lyrics.

Bands like The Rolling Stones et al are simply beyond criticism…Demigods like Jagger and Richards would never knowingly plagiarise from another artist, and if they did it would an entirely different kettle of fish and absolutely justifiable. You should know this already.

[The Postmaster General]

The fact that you guys are confusing sampling with covering is baffling to me.


No one confused sampling with covering. I think we are all versed enough here to know the difference.

What you, LordSimen, are confused about is the point that I, and others, think that covering a song is more akin to ripping something off than sampling a song. It isn't like you don't have to pay royalties for covering a song, so there's a pretty solid ground for comparing these two forms of creating music.

It's all art, and I analogize it to paintings. There have been countless variations on American Gothic.

http://beiderbecke.typepad.com/tba/images/2007/08/13/americangothic.jpg

To me, this is akin to sampling --- You are taking elements from a previous work and incorporating it into something new.

A better example, might be a lot of pop art, where original images are reused on different mediums or in different contexts.

Or I think an even more apt example, I can't remember the technique, but it's a font style of clipping letters from magazines to make words. Lots of album covers, etc. have used these techniques.

To me, what Simen is saying is that it is better to just repaint American Gothic yourself. It doesn't matter if you've painted a forgery, because you used your own brush and canvas to do it, just be sure to sign your own name so everyone knows you didn't rip anyone off.

[LordSimen]

What you, LordSimen, are confused about is the point that I, and others, think that covering a song is more akin to ripping something off than sampling a song. It isn't like you don't have to pay royalties for covering a song, so there's a pretty solid ground for comparing these two forms of creating music.


But it isn't ripping anyone off. No one cover's a song and claims the song itself to be their own, they claim the recording of their version of it and only that. A sample artist will take the recordings owned by one person, slap it together with the recording owned by ANOTHER person, then claim it to be his own. There is really no comparison as far as I see it. Covering is completely different than sampling.



http://beiderbecke.typepad.com/tba/images/2007/08/13/americangothic.jpg

To me, this is akin to sampling --- You are taking elements from a previous work and incorporating it into something new.


That's not akin to sampling at all. That's akin to covering. They painted their own version of American Gothic, much like someone who records their own version of some musician's song.

What is akin to Sampling, is if they cut up a copy of American Gothic, cut up a copy of the Mona Lisa and a few other paintings, then glued them on a canvas and made a collage out of it. That's what sampling is, a collage of other people's images. If those images you make a collage out of are copywritten or owned by someone else, then when you go out to sell or make money off of that collage you must pay royalties to the person who owns them.

To me, what Simen is saying is that it is better to just repaint American Gothic yourself. It doesn't matter if you've painted a forgery, because you used your own brush and canvas to do it, just be sure to sign your own name so everyone knows you didn't rip anyone off.

I ain't sayin' one's better than the other right now. What I personally feel about the originality of someone's work has nothing to do with this issue. What I am saying is if you're going to use other people's recordings, then pay the damn royalties you owe for it. If you don't want to pay royalties, record your own damn music.

[BadCoverVersion]

What is akin to Sampling, is if they cut up a copy of American Gothic, cut up a copy of the Mona Lisa and a few other paintings, then glued them on a canvas and made a collage out of it. That's what sampling is, a collage of other people's images. If those images you make a collage out of are copywritten or owned by someone else, then when you go out to sell or make money off of that collage you must pay royalties to the person who owns them.

This analogy doesn't ring true because you're insinuating that an artist who samples simply borrows from an array of classic songs/riffs and slaps them all together.

I can't think of a single piece of music that is constructed in such a way.

And I don't think anybody actually compared cover versions to sampling.

[LordSimen]

This analogy doesn't ring true because you're insinuating that an artist who samples simply borrows from an array of classic songs/riffs and slaps them all together.


If you still paint a base upon the canvas before slapping your collage on top of it, that doesn't change the fact that the images on the collage are copywrited images and someone owns them somewhere- And if you're plannin' to make money off of their images... You best be ready to pay them their royalties.

Don't want to pay royalties? Two options. Record your own music... Or sample from public domain things.

[The Postmaster General]

But it isn't ripping anyone off. No one cover's a song and claims the song itself to be their own, they claim the recording of their version of it and only that. A sample artist will take the recordings owned by one person, slap it together with the recording owned by ANOTHER person, then claim it to be his own. There is really no comparison as far as I see it. Covering is completely different than sampling.

You don't know what you're talking about here.

Girl Talk, the artist in question, their entire CD linear notes break down each song by sample. Always has. Pretty much every sampling artist does this. The only ones that don't are the likes of Vanilla Ice, or the sorts that usually get a bunch of controversy. The exception sometimes being when movie or TV samples are used.

Tell me this... A person listens to a Schooly D song that is based on a sample of Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" and has no idea that it's a sample. The same person listens to a bar band that covers "Kashmir" and has no idea that it's a Led Zeppelin song. What's the difference?

And yes, we all know covering is completely different than sampling. The same way playing the mandolin is completely different than playing the violin, and the same way rapping is completely different than spoken word. There was never a question about that. I don't know why you keep acting like we're the confused ones.

That's not akin to sampling at all. That's akin to covering. They painted their own version of American Gothic, much like someone who records their own version of some musician's song.

No, I don't seem to remember there being any cows in American Gothic, nor do I remember there being a McDonald's cup. Kind of the same way I didn't remember Queen's Under Pressure having rapping on top of it.

What is akin to Sampling, is if they cut up a copy of American Gothic, cut up a copy of the Mona Lisa and a few other paintings, then glued them on a canvas and made a collage out of it. That's what sampling is, a collage of other people's images. If those images you make a collage out of are copywritten or owned by someone else, then when you go out to sell or make money off of that collage you must pay royalties to the person who owns them.

It's funny that you are trying to refute what I'm saying by saying the exact same stuff I said, but leaving it out of the quotes:

A better example, might be a lot of pop art, where original images are reused on different mediums or in different contexts.

Or I think an even more apt example, I can't remember the technique, but it's a font style of clipping letters from magazines to make words. Lots of album covers, etc. have used these techniques.

I ain't sayin' one's better than the other right now. What I personally feel about the originality of someone's work has nothing to do with this issue. What I am saying is if you're going to use other people's recordings, then pay the damn royalties you owe for it. If you don't want to pay royalties, record your own damn music.

Well, fair enough. That's what you're saying here. But I know you Simen. ;)

[LordSimen]

Girl Talk, the artist in question, their entire CD linear notes break down each song by sample. Always has. Pretty much every sampling artist does this. The only ones that don't are the likes of Vanilla Ice, or the sorts that usually get a bunch of controversy. The exception sometimes being when movie or TV samples are used.

And yet something like that documentary clearly states that the songs are Girl Talk's, even going as far as saying if you think they're the actual songs they are, you're wrong. Which is fundamentally false. Girl Talk is using recordings of those other songs. He should, just as everyone should, pay royalties if he plans on making moneys off the song he made using other people's recordings.



Tell me this... A person listens to a Schooly D song that is based on a sample of Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" and has no idea that it's a sample. The same person listens to a bar band that covers "Kashmir" and has no idea that it's a Led Zeppelin song. What's the difference?


The difference is... A person playing Kashmir is playing Kashmir. Their hands, on their instrument with their voice. A sample artist isn't playing Kashmir themselves. They're using Led Zeppelin's recording of Kashmir, which is owned by whatever estate, company or person who owns the recording of that song- Which means the sample artist should and hopefully always will have to pay royalties for the use of that song if he plans to sell it for his own profit. That's the difference. One's taking the property of someone else, the other is not.


And yes, we all know covering is completely different than sampling. The same way playing the mandolin is completely different than playing the violin, and the same way rapping is completely different than spoken word. There was never a question about that. I don't know why you keep acting like we're the confused ones.

Uhh... This completely contradicts your last paragraph where you basically stated you don't see a difference between covering and using someone else's recording, also known as sampling.

It's funny that you are trying to refute what I'm saying by saying the exact same stuff I said, but leaving it out of the quotes.

Yes, but I explained why they must and should always have to pay royalties for it. :D ;)

Well, fair enough. That's what you're saying here. But I know you Simen.

I enjoy quite a few artists who sample from other audio material. The difference here is they don't complain when they have to pay someone else for their material, or they're intelligent enough to use public domain material so there's no conflict what so ever.

[The Postmaster General]

And yet something like that documentary clearly states that the songs are Girl Talk's, even going as far as saying if you think they're the actual songs they are, you're wrong. Which is fundamentally false. Girl Talk is using recordings of those other songs. He should, just as everyone should, pay royalties if he plans on making moneys off the song he made using other people's recordings.

I'm not discussing on that grounds - just on the notion that covering a song is somehow more noble than sampling one.

For the record, I think neither is better, and it's the end product that matters. Schooly D's sample of Kashmir is far superior to anything Dread Zeppelin has done, but Blondie's cover of "The Tide is High" is superior to Kardinal Offishall's sample of it. (not the total best analogy, since Offishall samples Blondie and not the Paragons...)


The difference is... A person playing Kashmir is playing Kashmir. Their hands, on their instrument with their voice. A sample artist isn't playing Kashmir themselves. They're using Led Zeppelin's recording of Kashmir, which is owned by whatever estate, company or person who owns the recording of that song- Which means the sample artist should and hopefully always will have to pay royalties for the use of that song if he plans to sell it for his own profit. That's the difference. One's taking the property of someone else, the other is not.

I know the technical difference between sampling and covering. The difference I'm asking you to tell me about is how it affects the audience and their appreciation of the music.

Uhh... This completely contradicts your last paragraph where you basically stated you don't see a difference between covering and using someone else's recording, also known as sampling.

I don't see a difference in terms of how it affects a final product, how one has less integrity, or mainly how one is less of a rip off than another. I've stated that pretty clearly, thus never had contradicted myself. What's being contradicted is your appreciation of sampling as an art form.

Yes, but I explained why they must and should always have to pay royalties for it. :D ;)

Art ain't free, eh?

I enjoy quite a few artists who sample from other audio material. The difference here is they don't complain when they have to pay someone else for their material, or they're intelligent enough to use public domain material so there's no conflict what so ever.

I don't think Girl Talk complains. He has a sense of humor about it. He's made a video where he threatens legal action on people who've made videos out of his songs. The debate isn't over whether an artist has a right to complain, but globally, whether it is just to demand royalties when essentially the song you are asking royalties for has been rendered unnoticeable.

The fact that there is "royalty free" music only goes to show this is just another big corporate dig to get money out of people. Why is it that Night of the Living Dead deserves no more money than whatever the shittiest horror movie from last year does?

What I'm getting here is that you clearly support copyright laws and think they are just fine in their current state, and that this is where we disagree on this topic.

[LordSimen]

I'm not discussing on that grounds - just on the notion that covering a song is somehow more noble than sampling one.

I honestly don't see how what's noble or not has anything to do with the issue of copywrite ownership. Personally I disagree with you on which is nobler, but that has no baring on whether or not the artist should pay royalties for someone else's recordings.


I know the technical difference between sampling and covering. The difference I'm asking you to tell me about is how it affects the audience and their appreciation of the music.

And in return I must ask you why I should care how it affects the audience and their appreciation of music, as this is not an issue of audience appreciation but of legal right to use copywrited material owned by someone else. Audience appreciation isn't even a factor in that issue.


I don't see a difference in terms of how it affects a final product, how one has less integrity, or mainly how one is less of a rip off than another. I've stated that pretty clearly, thus never had contradicted myself. What's being contradicted is your appreciation of sampling as an art form.


Sampling's an artform built entirely other people's art- And if that other person's art is owned and/or copywrited by someone else, then you should pay them if you are going to take their work and use it for your own material gain.


Art ain't free, eh?


Not if it's owned by someone else, no.


I don't think Girl Talk complains. He has a sense of humor about it. He's made a video where he threatens legal action on people who've made videos out of his songs. The debate isn't over whether an artist has a right to complain, but globally, whether it is just to demand royalties when essentially the song you are asking royalties for has been rendered unnoticeable.


It is a fair assessment that this debate isn't about whether or not an artist has the right to complain, you are correct. It is merely my personal opinion that Girl Talk and his ilk are nothing but whiny no talent bastards, but I agree that that is not something that should factor into this issue of copywrite ownership. So I apologize for bringing it in.

It is just to demand royalties if someone is going to use a recording of your material that you own for their own material gain. It's yours. Not theirs, they have no right to use it unless they get either your permission or if you see to it, give you your royalty checks you deserve.


The fact that there is "royalty free" music only goes to show this is just another big corporate dig to get money out of people. Why is it that Night of the Living Dead deserves no more money than whatever the shittiest horror movie from last year does?


No, the fact that there's royalty free music out there is merely a product of owners of the material either dying and not leaving it to anyone in their estate, or owners failing to renew their copywritten material or there was some legal fuck up along the way they nullified whatever was in place before hand or the owner of the material specifically doesn't care if anyone uses their materia. And they have a right to that if they so choose. But those who do wish to be compensated for their hard work that these sampling artists are taking and claiming to be their own- They deserve that compensation and have every right to it.

The fact that something royalty free exists doesn't nullify ownership. It merely means there's material out there that no one owns.

What I'm getting here is that you clearly support copyright laws and think they are just fine in their current state, and that this is where we disagree on this topic.

Most definitely. My art is mine, your art is yours. You want to use mine? Fine. Pay me. Then you can have it. Copywrite laws are important.

[The Postmaster General]

I honestly don't see how what's noble or not has anything to do with the issue of copywrite ownership. Personally I disagree with you on which is nobler, but that has no baring on whether or not the artist should pay royalties for someone else's recordings.

I don't think either is more noble, but let's back up. I've said that I'm not discussing this on the grounds of royalties and the sort. My participation in the discussion with you started with you saying that we were confusing sampling and covering, which was in response to my contribution to the thread.

And in return I must ask you why I should care how it affects the audience and their appreciation of music, as this is not an issue of audience appreciation but of legal right to use copywrited material owned by someone else. Audience appreciation isn't even a factor in that issue.

Simen, you're trying to change the subject. You are acting like there's been no discussion about sampling vs. copying, and suddenly you're acting confused and lost in saying that I've no order to discuss this.

I implore you to go back and read every post of mine, and every post of mine that you responded to and tell me I've said anything about copyright or legal issues. All I did was compare covering to sampling, and you said I was confused, and here we are...

Sampling's an artform built entirely other people's art- And if that other person's art is owned and/or copywrited by someone else, then you should pay them if you are going to take their work and use it for your own material gain.

Right, which is why we ask why lifting riffs and covering is okay. This has already been brought up, touched on, and you are trying to take it back full circle. Have fun.

Not if it's owned by someone else, no.

How would one go about to buying the rights to the blues scale?

It is a fair assessment that this debate isn't about whether or not an artist has the right to complain, you are correct. It is merely my personal opinion that Girl Talk and his ilk are nothing but whiny no talent bastards, but I agree that that is not something that should factor into this issue of copywrite ownership. So I apologize for bringing it in.

What are you even talking about? I never said it isn't a fair assessment. I just said that Girl Talk isn't complaining as much as being a smart ass, and I gave you another example of him being a smart ass to back up why I think that.

It is just to demand royalties if someone is going to use a recording of your material that you own for their own material gain. It's yours. Not theirs, they have no right to use it unless they get either your permission or if you see to it, give you your royalty checks you deserve.

Maybe in the legal sense of outdated copyright laws, but when The Stones sued The Verve for using a sample that they had used first, that's pretty lame.

No, the fact that there's royalty free music out there is merely a product of owners of the material either dying and not leaving it to anyone in their estate, or owners failing to renew their copywritten material or there was some legal fuck up along the way they nullified whatever was in place before hand or the owner of the material specifically doesn't care if anyone uses their materia. And they have a right to that if they so choose. But those who do wish to be compensated for their hard work that these sampling artists are taking and claiming to be their own- They deserve that compensation and have every right to it.

So, you think it's okay for sampling artists to rip off other artists, as long as they can find loopholes in the law?

The fact that something royalty free exists doesn't nullify ownership. It merely means there's material out there that no one owns.

Royalty free does mean that ownership is nullified. What are you trying to say here? Royalty free doesn't nullify ownership, it means that there's material no one owns. What?

Either that or you are missing my point that the law is obviously flawed to fuck if a movie like Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain and the guy who made it is even still alive. I can do whatever I want to that movie. If I want to make a movie of me taking a shit on the movie, that's perfectly legal, and you are apparently cool with that because I've met the version of LordSimen who believes that the law is the law and is always 100% correct.

Most definitely. My art is mine, your art is yours. You want to use mine? Fine. Pay me. Then you can have it. Copywrite laws are important.

You are heralding the fundament of the law as it was established over 300 years ago.

The law has been updated many times, and is due for another update to help establish cited source material under intellectual property. If a musician thinks a mashup artist is taking money from their pocket, because them putting their song under a rap song is somehow affecting their audience, to me that's no more relevant than someone saying that no one is allowed to play the blues scale because they played it first.

Sorry, but you've summarized very well that you have a bigger problem with someone ripping of Lady GaGa than you do with with someone ripping off George Romero, because by golly, you trust in the law.

[The Postmaster General]

LordSimen, something occurred to me as I was driving home. Be honored that I think of you in traffic, but be more honored that I've had the privilege of seeing most, if not all, of your short films on your YouTube channel.

So... just out of curiosity, who did you pay rights to when you used "Stairway to Heaven" in your short film "Bride of the Demon Dead"; score music by Walter Rizzati and Fabio Frizzi in your short "Demon Dead: 2"; "Demoni Theme", "Zombie Theme", "Dox Block Theme" and "Party Time" from Return of the Living Dead in your short "Demon Dead"; and the music from Hostel, The Hills Have Eyes, and the Aliens soundtrack in your short film "Atonement"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_xcSznNrsY

EDIT: Oh, oops!

NOTICE
This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by WMG. The audio has been disabled. More about copyright

Maybe you could get Girl Talk to score your next short. Despite Girl Talk having far more viewers on YouTube, none of his songs have been shut down. Why? Because they tread on grey areas of copyright laws, in that he manipulates the art (much like I analogized to pop art) to create new art. Whereas, just using a song, straight up, without adding anything to the audio, that's obviously a copyright issue.

The only sampling issues I can ever recall becoming legal issues are, like I said, in the instances where original authors weren't credited (Vanilla Ice wouldn't admit the Under Pressure sample and The Verve just didn't know... There's been others but few and far between.)

[LordSimen]

I don't think either is more noble, but let's back up. I've said that I'm not discussing this on the grounds of royalties and the sort. My participation in the discussion with you started with you saying that we were confusing sampling and covering, which was in response to my contribution to the thread.

And you clearly were confusing the two, considering you have made it quite clear in multiple paragraphs written by yourself that you see no difference between the two despite me explaining the difference multiple times.


Simen, you're trying to change the subject. You are acting like there's been no discussion about sampling vs. copying, and suddenly you're acting confused and lost in saying that I've no order to discuss this.


I'm not trying to change the subject- But you clearly are. This isn't a debate of appreciation of music- It's a debate over the legal right to own your art and I want my legal right to own my art. You clearly want everyone to be able to plagiarize and steal.


I implore you to go back and read every post of mine, and every post of mine that you responded to and tell me I've said anything about copyright or legal issues. All I did was compare covering to sampling, and you said I was confused, and here we are...

I did, and it's clear that on the subject of copyright you seem to think there's no difference between Covering and Sampling- And there is a difference, a big one.

Right, which is why we ask why lifting riffs and covering is okay. This has already been brought up, touched on, and you are trying to take it back full circle. Have fun.

Because riffs aren't copyrighted, the damn recordings are. Just like WORDS aren't copywritten, but my NOVEL is. Just like LIGHT isn't copy written, but WB's MOVIE is, just like COLOR isn't copy written, but Joe-Painter's painting is.

What are you even talking about? I never said it isn't a fair assessment. I just said that Girl Talk isn't complaining as much as being a smart ass, and I gave you another example of him being a smart ass to back up why I think that.

Yet I clearly remembering him whining in that documentary because he can't steal other people's owned material.

How would one go about to buying the rights to the blues scale?

What does the blues scale have to do with anything?

Maybe in the legal sense of outdated copyright laws, but when The Stones sued The Verve for using a sample that they had used first, that's pretty lame.

Sure, it's lame. But people attempt to abuse laws all the time, that doesn't mean we abolish them and allow everyone to steal my fuckin' shit or your fuckin' shit just because some asshole tried to twist the law.


Royalty free does mean that ownership is nullified. What are you trying to say here? Royalty free doesn't nullify ownership, it means that there's material no one owns. What?

Uhh, it's pretty simple buddy. Royalty free DOES NOT nullify ownership. It simply means there's material no one owns. I own a chair in my house, you own whatever chairs are in your house. But that chair someone left on the side of the road for three years that you drive by on your way to work every mornin'? No one owns that. The fact that no one owns it doesn't nullify the fact that you DO own your chair, and that I do own my chair. It just means that no own's that chair. It's a pretty simple concept.

Either that or you are missing my point that the law is obviously flawed to fuck if a movie like Night of the Living Dead is in the public domain and the guy who made it is even still alive. I can do whatever I want to that movie. If I want to make a movie of me taking a shit on the movie, that's perfectly legal, and you are apparently cool with that because I've met the version of LordSimen who believes that the law is the law and is always 100% correct.

And what's so wrong with you making a movie of you taking a shit on that movie? It's perfectly legal. It's public domain. You can do what you want with it. I'm pretty confused how that in any way means the law is fucked.

You are heralding the fundament of the law as it was established over 300 years ago.


And that fundamental still exists- That fundamental YOU want to destroy because some no talent hack doesn't want to pay for shit he's using that he doesn't own int he first place.


The law has been updated many times, and is due for another update to help establish cited source material under intellectual property. If a musician thinks a mashup artist is taking money from their pocket, because them putting their song under a rap song is somehow affecting their audience, to me that's no more relevant than someone saying that no one is allowed to play the blues scale because they played it first.


Using the blues scale and sueing someone for taking YOUR RECORDING that YOU OWN for not paying you the royalties YOU DESERVE because YOU OWN it is two completely different issues, sir. There is a difference, no one owns the blues scale.


Sorry, but you've summarized very well that you have a bigger problem with someone ripping of Lady GaGa than you do with with someone ripping off George Romero, because by golly, you trust in the law.

No one's ripping off George Romero if he doesn't even rightfully own the material in question- Which legally, he don't. So there's no issue.

LordSimen, something occurred to me as I was driving home. Be honored that I think of you in traffic, but be more honored that I've had the privilege of seeing most, if not all, of your short films on your YouTube channel.

So... just out of curiosity, who did you pay rights to when you used "Stairway to Heaven" in your short film "Bride of the Demon Dead"; score music by Walter Rizzati and Fabio Frizzi in your short "Demon Dead: 2"; "Demoni Theme", "Zombie Theme", "Dox Block Theme" and "Party Time" from Return of the Living Dead in your short "Demon Dead"; and the music from Hostel, The Hills Have Eyes, and the Aliens soundtrack in your short film "Atonement"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_xcSznNrsY

EDIT: Oh, oops!



Maybe you could get Girl Talk to score your next short. Despite Girl Talk having far more viewers on YouTube, none of his songs have been shut down. Why? Because they tread on grey areas of copyright laws, in that he manipulates the art (much like I analogized to pop art) to create new art. Whereas, just using a song, straight up, without adding anything to the audio, that's obviously a copyright issue.

The only sampling issues I can ever recall becoming legal issues are, like I said, in the instances where original authors weren't credited (Vanilla Ice wouldn't admit the Under Pressure sample and The Verve just didn't know... There's been others but few and far between.)

Yeah, oh well. You don't see me whining about it like that no talent hack that documentary was about was. I knew what I was doing, he obviously seems to think what he's doing was right- And it isn't and hopefully never will be. I sure as shit don't want to live in that world.

[The Postmaster General]

And you clearly were confusing the two, considering you have made it quite clear in multiple paragraphs written by yourself that you see no difference between the two despite me explaining the difference multiple times.

That's just flat out bullshit Simen. Do I actually need to quote myself here?

This is everything I've said in terms of sampling as I've COMPARED (I can use all caps too) it to covering:

"So, it's like, sampling a section of a song to make a new song -- that's a rip off, some people say, but those same people will say that actually taking someone elses song and performing the entire song yourself --- that's original! I mean... Huh?"

"No one confused sampling with covering. I think we are all versed enough here to know the difference.

What you, LordSimen, are confused about is the point that I, and others, think that covering a song is more akin to ripping something off than sampling a song. It isn't like you don't have to pay royalties for covering a song, so there's a pretty solid ground for comparing these two forms of creating music. "

I know the technical difference between sampling and covering. The difference I'm asking you to tell me about is how it affects the audience and their appreciation of the music.

I don't see a difference in terms of how it affects a final product, how one has less integrity, or mainly how one is less of a rip off than another. I've stated that pretty clearly, thus never had contradicted myself. What's being contradicted is your appreciation of sampling as an art form.


So tell me, Simen, where in all those quotes, those being the only ones I've commented about covering about --- Did you interpret that I think covering and sampling are the same technique/same thing? Please explain that to me, because I'm genuinely baffled that anyone with any reading comprehension could read any of that and think, "Wow! This guy thinks sampling and covering is the same thing."

The single fact that you are trying to argue with someone here on the grounds that they don't know the difference between a cover song and a sample, says a great deal about your understanding of music theory and production. I think even my 3 year old understands the difference because he's identified song covers as "a different version" and has pegged James Brown sample in a song as being "that's from that one song we heard at my birthday."

But for some reason, you think it's perfectly reasonable that I wouldn't know the difference. Of course, only suiting is it that you do it in an riotous effort to strengthen your stance. If you seriously want to talk down to me in that regard, you're going to have a tough little road. But sure, feel free to continue arguing with things that were never said and failing to give me the same benefit that I would give to even a preschooler.


I'm not trying to change the subject- But you clearly are. This isn't a debate of appreciation of music- It's a debate over the legal right to own your art and I want my legal right to own my art. You clearly want everyone to be able to plagiarize and steal.

Your first post in this thread was saying that people were confusing sampling with covering. That was what I've responded to. That's been the flow of exchanges between you and I since then, but about 2/3 in you started telling me that wasn't what you were talking about. Whatever. I can quote everything backing that up too, but I've got a lot of tokens collected in terms of showing you claiming I've said things I didn't, so I'm not worried about it.

Oh, and yes, it's as clear that I want everyone to be able to plagiarize and steal the same way it's clear that I'm confused about the differences between sampling and covering.

I did, and it's clear that on the subject of copyright you seem to think there's no difference between Covering and Sampling- And there is a difference, a big one.

No, as per what I quoted myself as saying, to me covering and sampling both result in the performance of music. Seriously, is English your first language? I'm not saying that to be a dick, because I know many english as a second language persons and I seem to run in to the same difficulties I'm finding in trying to figure out where you come up with these responses.

I've said nothing to imply I am confused of the difference, yet you keep responding to some argument that I'm not having with you.

But yes, let's talk about that "big" difference between covering songs and sampling songs as it pertains to legal issues. You want to talk about this, so please tell me what this "big" difference is!

I mean, you need to gain rights to cover a song. I've already said that in an earlier post, but you probably interpreted it as me saying The Sun is bright or something. I mean, surely you are aware that you need to pay royalties to cover a song. A lot of bar bands and cover bands skirt this law, and often times it's the venues that get sued. Many venues ask for song lists ahead of time to ensure you aren't playing copyrighted material.

I'm sure you know this, because maybe at some point you've been in a band or something. Maybe you studied production techniques or media marketing at school and this was touched upon.

But I mean, aside from all of this, is there some "big" difference that I'm missing here. Please school me on this, because in a legal sense covering a song and sampling a song both require the same acquisition of rights and the same need to pay royalty. What's the "big difference" you speak of? This is your chance to teach me something about music.

Yet I clearly remembering him whining in that documentary because he can't steal other people's owned material.

I was just saying that the guy is kind of tongue in cheek about a lot of things, and I don't take his "whining" as seriously as you do. The reason is because of the example I gave from his history. He's probably the most satiric and ironic person I've ever seen interviewed. Even his ad for PC seemed like he was ready to laugh.

What does the blues scale have to do with anything?

Google it.

Sure, it's lame. But people attempt to abuse laws all the time, that doesn't mean we abolish them and allow everyone to steal my fuckin' shit or your fuckin' shit just because some asshole tried to twist the law.

Right, a lot of filmmakers make movies without permits. We can't judge artists based on the laws, assuming those laws don't physically harm people. I haven't even seen evidence to show sampling even figuratively harms musicians. If there is some, I'm sure it's rare. It's not like Queen's fanbase dropped out because of Vanilla Ice, and he's the worst offended of sampling ever.

And what's so wrong with you making a movie of you taking a shit on that movie? It's perfectly legal. It's public domain. You can do what you want with it. I'm pretty confused how that in any way means the law is fucked.

Night of the Living Dead is a classic film that's highly influential and regarded yet it has no protection over the law, but the worst horror film of 2008 does. If I think that means the law is fucked and you don't, that's just a difference of opinion, and perhaps a metaphor about how we appreciate film.

And that fundamental still exists- That fundamental YOU want to destroy because some no talent hack doesn't want to pay for shit he's using that he doesn't own int he first place.

What makes you think my issue with copyright laws started with Girl Talk? Is that some other masterminded interpretation of my words that you made?

Because riffs aren't copyrighted, the damn recordings are. Just like WORDS aren't copywritten, but my NOVEL is. Just like LIGHT isn't copy written, but WB's MOVIE is, just like COLOR isn't copy written, but Joe-Painter's painting is.

Using the blues scale and sueing someone for taking YOUR RECORDING that YOU OWN for not paying you the royalties YOU DESERVE because YOU OWN it is two completely different issues, sir. There is a difference, no one owns the blues scale.

Currently Coldplay is being sued for using a riff similar to one used by Joe Satriani. There's been lots of lawsuits through music history with the "that sounds like my riff" came into play. Many of them were successful. Probably the most famous one is The Kinks suing The Doors over "Hello, I Love You" and winning.

So, despite all the caps, you are wrong.

No one's ripping off George Romero if he doesn't even rightfully own the material in question- Which legally, he don't. So there's no issue.

You are correct, there is no legal issue. So are you saying you don't care if George Romero's is ripped off and only those protected by copyright laws can't be ripped off!? Is this seriously your stance?

Yeah, oh well. You don't see me whining about it like that no talent hack that documentary was about was. I knew what I was doing, he obviously seems to think what he's doing was right- And it isn't and hopefully never will be. I sure as shit don't want to live in that world.

I don't care who whines about what. The fact is that you are sitting here preaching it being "ripping off" for artists to use other artists work without paying royalties, talking about artistic integrity... yet every single one of your short films has used music in which you were legally obligated to pay royalties for and you didn't.

Those are your terms not mine. Personally, I think art is art and if it's for the betterment, that's only better. I'm sure you knew what you were doing and it was probably, "Wow! This song enhances my work. This is perfect." and definitely wasn't "I'm a no talent hack who can't write my own music so I'll just rip off someone else's."

Obviously, you seem, at least when it's OTHER artists, you seem to think the latter, but hey it's all cool as long as you don't whine about it in a documentary that someone's making about you.

It's fucking mind numbing that you say of me, "You clearly want everyone to be able to plagiarize and steal." -- When we have actually examples of you stealing people's music to put in your movies. I can officially say that because of LordSimen's films my mind has been blown. Consider that a compliment! So let's just say LordSimen, no, no I don't want everyone to plagiarize and steal, but I'm cool with you doing it because we're buds.

[LordSimen]

That's just flat out bullshit Simen. Do I actually need to quote myself here?

This is everything I've said in terms of sampling as I've COMPARED (I can use all caps too) it to covering:

So tell me, Simen, where in all those quotes, those being the only ones I've commented about covering about --- Did you interpret that I think covering and sampling are the same technique/same thing? Please explain that to me, because I'm genuinely baffled that anyone with any reading comprehension could read any of that and think, "Wow! This guy thinks sampling and covering is the same thing."

The single fact that you are trying to argue with someone here on the grounds that they don't know the difference between a cover song and a sample, says a great deal about your understanding of music theory and production. I think even my 3 year old understands the difference because he's identified song covers as "a different version" and has pegged James Brown sample in a song as being "that's from that one song we heard at my birthday."

But for some reason, you think it's perfectly reasonable that I wouldn't know the difference. Of course, only suiting is it that you do it in an riotous effort to strengthen your stance. If you seriously want to talk down to me in that regard, you're going to have a tough little road. But sure, feel free to continue arguing with things that were never said and failing to give me the same benefit that I would give to even a preschooler.


You even included the a quote where you basically said there's no difference! It's right there!

Here, I'll even repost it for you...

"So, it's like, sampling a section of a song to make a new song -- that's a rip off, some people say, but those same people will say that actually taking someone elses song and performing the entire song yourself --- that's original! I mean... Huh?"

Right there! Don't you see it?

As for the rest of your post...

The argument here is about royalties and copyright, not about covering songs.

Quoted directed from CosmicPuppet earlier in this thread.

[Le_Big_Mac]

Sometimes I hate always being right.

Against my better judgment, I'm going to attempt to interject in this argument with my opinion. I haven't had the time to watch the documentary yet, but as far I see it, there's no reason for copyright laws on music. If a song that's sampled is good in its own right, it will live on even if Girl Talk or the Beastie Boys "desecrate" it. A song isn't the Declaration of Independence, after all; there's more than one perfectly legitimate copy of the recording if someone rips it apart or writes all over it (figuratively speaking).

Any opposition to free sampling probably stems from a simple distaste for the type of music. If LordSimen doesn't believe that Gregg Gillis mashing Elton John's "Tiny Dancer" with Biggie Smalls' "Juicy" is more innovative or pleasing to listen to than Motorhead covering "Enter Sandman" or Metallica turning an Ennio Morricone piece into thrash metal music, then I accept that. But it's nothing to wage a two-person war over, and that's what this one, I believe, basically boils down to.

[The Postmaster General]

You even included the a quote where you basically said there's no difference! It's right there!

Here, I'll even repost it for you...

So, it's like, sampling a section of a song to make a new song -- that's a rip off, some people say, but those same people will say that actually taking someone elses song and performing the entire song yourself --- that's original! I mean... Huh?

Right there! Don't you see it?

No, because I understand basic word usage and aren't struggling to try and make myself sound right.

but -used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned

Didn't you catch that Simen? If not, it should have helped that in that quote, I actually defined samplings as taking "a section of a song to make a new song" and then defined covering as "taking someone else's song and performing the entire thing..."


As for the rest of your post...
Quoted directed from CosmicPuppet earlier in this thread.

Oh, CosmicPuppet can't help you now.

Once again, you've proven that you have no concept of context, and I think you're crazy to have had required an essay explaining to you what these artists do. You see them as you want to see them... In the simplest terms, in the most convenient definitions. But what we found out here is that each one of them is a rip-off artist...
...and a respected musician...
...and the goods for a killer soundtrack...
...and a whiner...
Does that answer your question?

Sincerely yours,
The Music Appreciation Club

<cue Simple Minds "Don't You (Forget About Me)">

[LordSimen]

So, it's like, sampling a section of a song to make a new song -- that's a rip off, some people say, but those same people will say that actually taking someone elses song and performing the entire song yourself --- that's original! I mean... Huh?



Fair enough, you're not mixing them up. I concede. But my point about copywrite law stands. We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

[Cop No. 633]

Let's all bask in the sunshine!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dYpnd_9TFs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHZgl8MFGp0