Sample whatever you want!

[soulkraka]

but its a hypothesis grounded in reality.

YOu're treating your perception as though it is an unchanging reality. It isnt.

Which of these artists are being sued?

For the last time, I am not talking about what is or is not happening right now. However you are assuming that the current state of things will continue into perpetuity. It almost certainly will not.

are you high man??

Do you make music/live your life based on what you think the laws/mores/folkways will be in 2050?

I AM talking about NOW, as well as throwing in a bit of historical perspective to support my point. I am not assuming that the current situation will continue into perpetuity as you say. I agree, it almost certainly will not.

here we are ...in the now....

[Spe3D]

So you are saying guys to sample each other – and each flaw carried over to the next – to the point stuff degrades to total shit – we all become accustomed to the shit quality (IPOD) (MP3) for now example of shit audio quality and how we become accustom to it (coz its easy – simple – cheap n small) – originality degrading on every copy – the common future term for audio will be ‘fuzzy bitz’

The DJ’s are an example of inbreeding, I don’t think this is healthy for the longevity of music -

[soulkraka]

This brings up the obvious question here- Why do you want to sample other peoples music anyway? I mean sure it was fun when I was 19 to grab abunch of funk loops and stack them on top of each other. But that isnt really making music. I for one am glad to see artists get their asses sued off for sampling. why should vanilla Ice get millions of bucks for using queens music? Its like taking a book and scratching out the authors name, writing my name on top of it, and selling it as my own.

Thats a very one dimensional view of sampling dontcha think?

A typical sampling session for usually goes like this:

sample drum hits from various soul/funk records, a kick from here, a snare from there etc.

Make a beat. The same way a guy using stylus or BFD would...sequencing samples.

heavily manipulate some samples in Ableton. For example, taking the reverb decay from a guitar strum and making a pad sound from it...that kinda thing.

Writing my own melody/perc/bassline etc over the top.

should I feel that Im less of a musician because I like to explore and manipulate found sounds?

To me what I, and many other musicians, do is more akin to taking bits and pieces from various paintings and rearranging them into a new whole.

The flaw in yer logic is this- you mentioned how DJ quik got his ass sued off. He didnt grab a kick here or a snare there. He stole the the whole friggen song.(or at least a good bit of it) Its not the samples that I have a problem with, its the theft of other peoples work. when you BUY BFD you are PAYING for the samples. If you buy an album you are not paying for the use of its content. You are buying it to compensate the artist for *his* work.

I know sampling can be very creative and its a tool like any other. I pointed out Vanilla Ice in my example because that is just downright lazyness and people wanting to get paid for shit they didnt do. If you can sample something and have it not be stealing a theme, melody or anything recognizable thats fine.( I guess, but not the best practice IMO)

My main point is I dislike when people rely on samples for the bulk of their music. I am much more interested to hear how someone can take their own ideas and express them than how well someone can arrange and sample loops.

I understand what your saying SAP....but you asked why I would want to sample other peoples music. So I just was trying to give you an idea of the way I go about it. I wasnt comparing myself, or the way I go about sampling, to DJQuik.

I guess I find myself somewhere in between your mindset and the puff daddy/dr dre style of jacking whole themes and choruses.

[whyterabbyt]

are you high man??

Nope, but you're obviously highly over-emotional about the subject. Aint that ironic.

Do you make music/live your life based on what you think the laws/mores/folkways will be in 2050?

No, but I certainly keep aware of what's likely to happen in 2006.

I AM talking about NOW, as well as throwing in a bit of historical perspective to support my point. I am not assuming that the current situation will continue into perpetuity as you say. I agree, it almost certainly will not.

Good. Because these things are changing RIGHT NOW. Whether you choose to accept that or not.

here we are ...in the now....

Yup. And your stance is based on yesterday.

[Stupid American Pig]

I hear ya man. I sometimes sample things to get the ball rolling on an idea. if a drumloop has a rhythm I want I will use it until I can program or get a beat played for me by my drummer. If a song has a sound I want I will grab it until I can emulate it to my satisfaction. I know nothing is new in music, and that borrowing from ideas is the nature of the art. I just think taking someone elses work and changing it up is not really "writing" music. It is more like remixing(tho that is a talent unto itself).

[soulkraka]

@whyte

really? am I coming across overly emotional?
Must be your interpretation there pal.

OTOH, you are grabbing at straws (RIAA), nitpicking semantics (sample, sample from), and backing down from my challenges.

so I will ask you one last time...what underground artists are getting sued now/have gotten sued recently for copywrong infraction?

Ever heard of DJ Shadow? Thought so...just about everyone and their mom has. ALL of his songs are ALL SAMPLES. He just manipulates rare funk samples. He used an MPC60 to make Endtroducing and two MPC3000s to make The Private Press. If hes not getting sued then I dont think we need to worry.

This is the gist of my point here whyterabbit. If you are making music for yourself/kvr etc then you neednt worry about any samples you use. Same rule of thumb applies if your signed to an indie and releasing vinyl.

also, in case you didnt notice, near the top of my post are the letters IMHO. You know what this stands for, right whyte?

Ive never claimed to be an authority on the subject of copyright BUT I do know many people that are signed to indies (including some of the bigger ones...Guidance records for example) who release material on a regular basis that includes uncleared samples. Not one of them has had any problem.

and of course I DO realize that the world is in constant motion...but thanks for pointing that out for me just in case yep, things change quick

[soulkraka]

I hear ya man. I sometimes sample things to get the ball rolling on an idea. if a drumloop has a rhythm I want I will use it until I can program or get a beat played for me by my drummer.

interesting...doesnt it ever get tricky when you remove the sampled loop and replace it with the recorded drums?
I would think the difference in timbre would be significant. Ever use any spectrum matching EQ's or anything to dial in the sound?

[Stupid American Pig]

naw, Im not that anal about drums. I just get a sound that I like, and most of the tweaking is done with the loop muted so I can fit it into the mix. It seems to work ok for me. I dont care if the timbre is exact, I just go for the rhythm I need.

[soulkraka]

One of the biggest form of copyright theft is the SuperDJ using others work and calling it their own compilation.

I agree.

But hey, look at someone like Todd Terry. When he released a compilation on ministry of sound almost all the tracks were his! He's not exactly a "superdj" now but he was one for over 10 years and is an absolute legend in the house music community. He can rock the house by spinning only his own material.

[whyterabbyt]

really? am I coming across overly emotional?

Yup.

Must be your interpretation there pal.

Im not your pal. Interesting though that you were willing to claim other people in the thread were responding primarily from an emotional basis, though. Or that I was 'high'.

That kind of judgement or statement, as well as the implications of 'pal' almost certainly indicates an over-emotional current in your responses.

OTOH, you are grabbing at straws (RIAA)

Ah right. Bringing up a highly similar situation featuring exactly the same copyright holders is 'grabbing at straws'. How convenient for you.

nitpicking semantics (sample, sample from)

It was a suggestion that you'd misinterpreted what someone else was talking about. Not surprising you'd use it to make yet another ad hominem.

and backing down from my challenges.

What 'challenges'?

so I will ask you one last time...what underground artists are getting sued now/have gotten sued recently for copywrong infraction?

Is that supposed to be a challenge? My you do have a poor grasp of logic, dont you?

Y'see not being the legal representative for every single underground artist on the planet, Im not actually likely to be privy to that information, Im not in any position to say one way or the other. That, however, isnt any kind of proof that it isnt happening.

Not so recently, by the way, start thinking with the words 'Negativland'.

However, this is all a dumb red herring on your part. You are claiming that it is safe to do, because this legal action is not happening, which you cannot know, and your claim to proof is whether or not I can quote something I cannot know.

Unfortunately that has nothing to do with my point. My point is that it cannot be guaranteed that it is dafe to do. It is still not guaranteed to be safe to do. Nothing you have said proves in any way that it is guaranteed safe to do.

Your obvious investment in the fact that you think it is safe to do, does not change the validity of my point. There is still no guarantee, and you are misprepresenting the situation by claiming that there are.

I might as well ask you to prove that its not happening, btw. That's about as solid a basis for a claim as your 'challenge'.

This is the gist of my point here whyterabbit.

Wow.

If you are making music for yourself/kvr etc then you neednt worry about any samples you use. Same rule of thumb applies if your signed to an indie and releasing vinyl.

Yeah I know thats your argument. You keep repeating it. It still doesnt make it any more valid.

also, in case you didnt notice, near the top of my post are the letters IMHO. You know what this stands for, right whyte?

Yes I do 'kraka'. It means you get in a strop when someone posts their own opinions.

Ive never claimed to be an authority on the subject of copyright BUT I do know many people that are signed to indies (including some of the bigger ones...Guidance records for example) who release material on a regular basis that includes uncleared samples. Not one of them has had any problem.

Of course. Anecdotal friend-of-a-friend legal advice. Always more worthwhile than anything else.

And once again, proving nothing.

Just in case the logic was beyond you 'it hasnt happened to anyone I heard of' is not the same thing as 'it cant happen to anyone'.

and of course I DO realize that the world is in constant motion...but thanks for pointing that out for me just in case

Yeah, but you'd rather peg things as likely top happen in 50 years than one or two when you're determined to be right.

yep, things change quick

Indeed. Some people dont learn from that, though.

[whyterabbyt]

@krak

Ever heard of DJ Shadow?

Heard of - yes. Heard - no.

Thought so...just about everyone and their mom has.

My mother certainly hasnt.

ALL of his songs are ALL SAMPLES. He just manipulates rare funk samples. He used an MPC60 to make Endtroducing and two MPC3000s to make The Private Press. If hes not getting sued then I dont think we need to worry.

'if'. Biggest two-letter word in the English language.

Heard of Dangermouse. Got a cease-and-desist from EMI for the Grey Album?

[james0tucson]

"Heard of Dangermouse. Got a cease-and-desist from EMI for the Grey Album?"

There's a world of difference between a C&D letter and a court order.

One, anyone can write, and the recipient can wipe his ass with it.

The other, is a legally binding order, that can only be written by a judge, and that, with some "due process" in the way.

Anyone who complies with a mere "cease and desist" letter without at least having a hearing on it, has surrendered rights he should have fought to keep. That is, unless he is actually guilty of the infraction that was charged. Then it might be more responsible to cease and desist, even without the letter.

[soulkraka]

Heard of Dangermouse. Got a cease-and-desist from EMI for the Grey Album?

do you know what else he got?

honored as one of GQ Magazine’s ‘Men of the Year’
named “Eccentric Genius of the Year” by SPIN
hailed as "The Hottest Hip-Hop Producer in the World" by NME
honored with Entertainment Weekly’s Album of the Year
added to QMagazine’s "Industry's 100 Most Influential People" list.

and if he had listened to you he'd still be broke, working at a record store, and playing the grey album for his friends.

Now he's in The Gorillaz.

[vurt]

my take,and i have a little experience here...

a couple of years back i did a track,usual dark ambient pad kind of thing with animal noises twisted to f**k,all well and good so far...
i added a 2 minute piece of david attenborough from the blue planet talking about whales,usual fx and chopping to make it fit in, well cut to 3 days after i put it on my site when i receive an email from the bbc's legal deot asking me to remove it and i had 14 days to do so or they would start legal proceedings
on my site for anyone who visits in the only cash related thing i have is donation link to the nspcc so its not even as if i accept artist donations from listeners,i dont make a penny from music on my website and to all intense and purposes the bbc have no idea about any other bits i have been paid for yet still they were willing to act...
must be all the millions i obviously am going to make that got them interested.

funny thing is in the mail they also stated that as it was a personal non profit making project that had i asked they probably would have cleared it

pays to be courteous i guess,even when your just starting out

[whyterabbyt]

"Heard of Dangermouse. Got a cease-and-desist from EMI for the Grey Album?"

There's a world of difference between a C&D letter and a court order.

One, anyone can write, and the recipient can wipe his ass with it.

The other, is a legally binding order, that can only be written by a judge, and that, with some "due process" in the way.

Anyone who complies with a mere "cease and desist" letter without at least having a hearing on it, has surrendered rights he should have fought to keep. That is, unless he is actually guilty of the infraction that was charged. Then it might be more responsible to cease and desist, even without the letter.

I'm aware that a C&D isnt a legal demand, but its hardly 'nothing happens to underground artists', is it though?

It was a counter-example to the 'nothing ever happened to X' claim. Thats all. I could have as easily quoted the JAMMS who were legally forced to destroy the entire run of '1987'.