Sample whatever you want!

[soulkraka]

it's about networking, get out and meet some local singer!

Flipper.

good idea!!

[munchkin]

In the genre of DnB, it's a dog-eat-dog world when it comes to sampling. Many producer (most?) sample anything they can, so you have to cover shit up in your music!

The only samples that I would leave recognizable are those that I got off of sample CD's that I know are cleared.

Many sample CDs contain copyrighted material that has not been cleared so if your worried about that sort of thing then I'd research a bit.

The only sample packs I buy are from Zero G, which are sworn 100% legit.

the thing is though that in case of breaks like the amen, i wouldnt use the Zero G one, but if someone said shit abuot me using the amen, then I would just claim to use the cleared zero G one..

are they? good. I used to work for one of the bigger sample CD companies ( I wont name names ) and they had some really obvious samples on their CDs that were definately not cleared.

I used to squirm a bit when some client called that was producing some higher profile material, like TV ads etc, and they'd want the "superdooper breaks" CD that I knew had all kinds of uncleared stuff on it. "ummmm...have you heard our nature sounds CD? Its really good...errrr"

I have a few Zero-G/Time & Space sample CD's from back in the day that are like an A-Z of dance acts. Now either they got very clever at emulating Loleatta Holloway or...

[original flipper]

HI

My point precisely - you may meet a budgeoing superstar!

Just get all your paperwork in order!

Flipper.

[om]

Why not just be creative and create all of your own sounds. Then you wouldnt be making yourself look great by stealing other peoples sound and you could sleep at night knowing that the lawyers would never get you.

Sorry, I normally just lurk on this forum, but someone had to say it.

[Colonel Flashback]

keep lurking while we try rid the world of hip hop, house, d'n'b etc for you...

[rounser]

Why not just be creative and create all of your own sounds.

Sampling is creative and requires talent to do well. That's why Daft Punks, Prodigys, Mylos, Royksopps, Avalanches and Bomb the Basses are few and far between.

Sorry, I normally just lurk on this forum, but someone had to say it.

Stetsasonic wrote a track about this layman's kind of attitude to sampling, called "Talking All That Jazz" (I'm not referring to the Dmitri from Paris version - the one with the angry rapping is the one I'm referring to). Entire genres of music would not exist if what you're suggesting was followed, there are no two ways around it.

When the law is being oppressive, unrealistic and unenforceable, and mainly for the benefit of big money, people ignore it. You only have to buy some dance music vinyl to hear the evidence, which is everywhere.

[hollowsun]

When the law is being oppressive, unrealistic and unenforceable.....

Hmmmmmm.... I wonder.....

If you were the talented drummer who laid your grooves down on some classic soul/funk track back in the 60s/70s and you were now maybe short of work to support your family in your latter years, how would you feel to hear YOUR work being commercially exploited by someone with a sampler who just lifted a few bars of YOUR work off some old record and re-packaged it as their own creation?

You might be flattered but I suspect you wouldn't be best pleased that you are not getting a single penny from this exploitation of your talent and the years you spent perfecting your abilities to come up with and/or play that groove (not to mention the engineers who mic'd up that drum kit to make it sound the way it did and/or anyone else in the process of making the record).

The bottom line is that when 'samplists' lift a few bars of someone else's work to use in a track, they are effectively stealing someone else's talent and masquerading it as their own.

The law isn't oppressive - it is simply there to ensure that the originator of the sample being used is paid accordingly.


Steve

[rounser]

If you were the talented drummer who laid your grooves down on some classic soul/funk track back in the 60s/70s and you were now maybe short of work to support your family in your latter years, how would you feel to hear YOUR work being commercially exploited by someone with a sampler who just lifted a few bars of YOUR work off some old record and re-packaged it as their own creation?

It's shades of grey, though, and the law comes down like it's black and white - and heavy - basically because it neither understands nor wants to understand the details of sampling nor new technology, and loves extending precedents set decades earlier, then generalising them over similar, but-not-exactly-the-same territory.

Copying an entire song and passing it off as your own is not the same as sampling a single guitar note and making an entirely new composition out of it, but the law would treat it as such.

Your example would make more sense if it were the talented drummer doing the suing rather than his record company (and maybe passing on nothing to said drummer) and if a differentiation was made between sampling entire bars, or sampling a single drum sound...or sampling entire bars and effecting them beyond recognition...or putting them in a totally new context such that they're beyond recognition. But sampling gets no respect - there's no art in it, you're just a dirty thief.

The same RIAA suing these thieves then goes and makes millions off of them selling hip hop.

Said drummer (or drummer's record label) would never have seen a further cent if his work wasn't sampled. If it weren't for the concept of creative control over how his work could be used (which is arguably tenuous, because from a certain point of view he put it in the public domain by selling it in the first place) he should be thanking the samplist for the new income.

You do have a point, but the laws as they stand are oppressive because they serve silliness like demanding 100% of the profits of a track for a single sound. You paint it like it's the little guy suffering, but the laws seem to be more in the interest of some suit scrounging more dough. e.g. Disney extending copyright perpetually so their hold on Mickey Mouse doesn't run out.

Compromises can (and should) be made, such as in the example of parody. The US Supreme Court understands parody, and wouldn't want a world without it, so they make exceptions to copyright law for it. They don't understand sampling, and can quite easily imagine a world without it, and so there are no exceptions for it.

[herodotus]

When the law is being oppressive, unrealistic and unenforceable.....

Hmmmmmm.... I wonder.....

If you were the talented drummer who laid your grooves down on some classic soul/funk track back in the 60s/70s and you were now maybe short of work to support your family in your latter years, how would you feel to hear YOUR work being commercially exploited by someone with a sampler who just lifted a few bars of YOUR work off some old record and re-packaged it as their own creation?

I have often thought that we should start a G.C. Coleman relief fund.

[butter]

When the law is being oppressive, unrealistic and unenforceable.....

Hmmmmmm.... I wonder.....

If you were the talented drummer who laid your grooves down on some classic soul/funk track back in the 60s/70s and you were now maybe short of work to support your family in your latter years, how would you feel to hear YOUR work being commercially exploited by someone with a sampler who just lifted a few bars of YOUR work off some old record and re-packaged it as their own creation?

You might be flattered but I suspect you wouldn't be best pleased that you are not getting a single penny from this exploitation of your talent and the years you spent perfecting your abilities to come up with and/or play that groove (not to mention the engineers who mic'd up that drum kit to make it sound the way it did and/or anyone else in the process of making the record).

The bottom line is that when 'samplists' lift a few bars of someone else's work to use in a track, they are effectively stealing someone else's talent and masquerading it as their own.

The law isn't oppressive - it is simply there to ensure that the originator of the sample being used is paid accordingly.


Steve

Damn man. That pretty much sums up all of my opinions on sampling. Personally, I get a lot more satisfaction out of actually playing parts than lifting them from something else.

Oh, Steve, I found an S2000 at a pawnshop for about $160.00. Do you think that would be worthy investment? I've never owned a decent (and in this case, basic) hardware sampler. Might be fun to play with. Waddayathink?

[munchkin]

When the law is being oppressive, unrealistic and unenforceable.....

Hmmmmmm.... I wonder.....

If you were the talented drummer who laid your grooves down on some classic soul/funk track back in the 60s/70s and you were now maybe short of work to support your family in your latter years, how would you feel to hear YOUR work being commercially exploited by someone with a sampler who just lifted a few bars of YOUR work off some old record and re-packaged it as their own creation?

You might be flattered but I suspect you wouldn't be best pleased that you are not getting a single penny from this exploitation of your talent and the years you spent perfecting your abilities to come up with and/or play that groove (not to mention the engineers who mic'd up that drum kit to make it sound the way it did and/or anyone else in the process of making the record).

The bottom line is that when 'samplists' lift a few bars of someone else's work to use in a track, they are effectively stealing someone else's talent and masquerading it as their own.

The law isn't oppressive - it is simply there to ensure that the originator of the sample being used is paid accordingly.


Steve

Damn man. That pretty much sums up all of my opinions on sampling. Personally, I get a lot more satisfaction out of actually playing parts than lifting them from something else.

Oh, Steve, I found an S2000 at a pawnshop for about $160.00. Do you think that would be worthy investment? I've never owned a decent (and in this case, basic) hardware sampler. Might be fun to play with. Waddayathink?

The problem with this point of view is that it misrepresents the history of popular music. It's a well known fact that many musicians were hired in pre sampling. They were paid to do a job. The issue of royalties was never on the agenda for any of them and they knew it. Call this unfair if you will but this was standard practice in the record industry pre sampling.

Session musicians have always been used in popular music. What's the difference between hiring musicians and paying for a sample of their music? Each can be used to creative effect. It just depends on whether the musician has the ability to use them in an innovative way.

Guitarists have ripped licks off each other. Chord progressions have been ripped off by keyboard players. This notion that musicians who play keyboards, stringed or blown instruments are somehow pure while samplist are not is completely bogus. It reminds me of the elitism that Bob Dylan met with when he went electric.

[rounser]

This notion that musicians who play keyboards, stringed or blown instruments are somehow pure while samplist are not is completely bogus.

To apply anti-sampling logic, it's not their sound anyway. The instrument maker deserves the royalties - they made the instrument which made the sound.

No, no...wait, let's pay the timber mills, the mines and the chemical materials plants which manufactured the materials which made the instrument. And the electricity company too, unless it was acoustic. And the builder and architect who built the room which provided the ambient reverb in the recording. Clearly they're being shortchanged.

[The Chase]

th your barbies, Chase.

You're so c**ting petty sometimes

Yeah, so what. You're an puerile arsehole almost all of the time.

He pointed out that one case can not be used to generalize, and you responded by pretty much saying the same thing. That's all i pointed out.

I see you havent really managed to keep track of what's going on. That doesnt surprise me at all. Firstly, he spent a lot of time effectively denying that his was a 'generalisation' in the first place, or that there might be exceptions to what he was saying. Later on when there are exceptions he discounts them anyway, so he can still say 'oh no-one was sued. In fact I spent most of my time pointing out that what he said was only a generalisation. But that would be a bit too subtle for you.

Now go on; state exactly what generalisations I was making. By the way "You cannot assume that X will not happen" isnt a generalisation. Nor is 'here is an example which proves that what you are saying is merely a generalisation'.

In the meantime, I would prefer people who might not know any better were aware that there might be issues with doing a particular thing, than sweep it under the carpet with some sweeping statements that ignores the harsh realities of the way these things are changing right now.

The fkucing thread was started by someone who said 'hey no need to keep discussing copyright law, because its all this simple'. Except its not, and they seem to have something invested in not being completely realistic about it to the point where they were still insisting there were no exceptions. And then it went from 'hey you wont get sued' to 'well what I said doesnt include other kinds of legal action so Im still right', and 'hey, it didnt happen to my mate, so thats proof it'll never happen to you'. Not quite as simple as originally made out. And by then you should pretty muchhave got the idea, that hey no, its not that simple after all, and maybe the discussions of copyright are worthwhile, since 'noone will get sued' seems to translate into 'noone I know has been sued, but you might get a cease-and-desist'.

Dont know why some people just want to close there eyes and pretend 'it'll never happen to me'. Much less why they'd tell other people 'it'll never happen to you'. I suspect the refusal to accept someone positing that there's an increasng amount of 'risk' is actually that they think they're being told 'dont do this thing', rather than 'if you're going to do this thing be aware that there is still some possibility you'll wind up with problems because of it'. But hey, once you've put yourself in the position of being an authority on what you can and can't do, some people want to defend that to the death.

I just dont see any point in telling people that they're guaranteed safe. Because that's not necessarily true.

But you go on believeing it, and telling people. But in that hypothetical situation where someone you knows gets done for following your 'its all okay' advice, I bet you you're the first fkucing Pontius Pilate on the block.

P.T. was EXACTLY right about your quoting system.

Oh Im wounded. Go play in the traffic.

Holy c**ts you are arrogant.

The only reason you throw personal attacks is because of how ridiculously insecure you become when threatened intellectually.

You're the worst to me for some reason, and I think it is because of my age as your insults hint so. I'm going to go out on a limb here. I bet you were treated like shit when you were my age, and I bet it was because you were as much an arrogant prick as you are now, but you probably percieved everyone not liking you because they were jealous of your superb intellect and wisdom. This caused you to be an obsessive and paranoid person, making people like you even less and causes you to snap at people at online forums.

[Spe3D]

I would not let it worry you Chase – just think of WR as having an affliction – one of which is not being able to ‘get to the point’ without first demonstrating – as you rightly point out (in part) – his insecurity

I can see his point of view at times on various subjects and why he does what he does – (basically he could write his view on one thing in one sentence and save himself and others a bit of grief – and actually stop misunderstandings (about him (not what he writes half the time))

I think, while at times WR has an idea of what is going on – he does live very much in his own world It’s entertaining when he gets hold of a real numbnut though

We all have our own ways of doing things - just WR needs several pages - thats all

Best regards,

Peter

[soulkraka]

keep lurking while we try rid the world of hip hop, house, d'n'b etc for you...