Immoral to buy/sell track and put your own name on it?

[Sheppymannen]

Earlier today I stumbled upon 'Bartahsounds' on Soundcloud. He/she/they are promoting themselves thru following others on soundcloud. Bartahsounds are selling full tracks and projects.

https://soundcloud.com/bartahsounds

I know several famous DJs/producers who buy tracks and put their own name on it! For example Quintino & Sandro Silva - Epic which was originally produced by Maarten Vorwerk, who has produced tracks such as 'Tsunami' and 'Wakanda' among others..
I wanted to get your opinion on this. Do you think it is immoral to buy/sell tracks and put your own name on it? And if so, why are so many DJs doing it? The way I see it it could be a good launch in the beginning of your career to start with a ghost produced track and then begi to release your own material once you are in the industry.
It feels like the quest for fame and money has gone out of hand completely though...


Cheers!
Jon

[bmrzycki]

It's only immoral if the original creator isn't aware it's happening and didn't agree to it in the terms of the licensing deal.

If there's no licensing deal between Bartahsounds and the content creator then it's illegal and likely a breach of copyright.

[Totolitoto]

It's not immoral but I feel a bit sad for those guys (the ones that buy the ready made tracks, I mean)
Making my own crappy tracks is by far more rewarding than buying others masterpieces (except on a financial poitn of view)

[Sheppymannen]

Yes i fully agree, but in this case Bartahsounds is selling their creativity. All the songs they have posted on Soundcloud are their own productions and they are for sale for others to buy... What's your opinion about that?

Cheers!

[whyterabbyt]

Yes i fully agree, but in this case Bartahsounds is selling their creativity. All the songs they have posted on Soundcloud are their own productions and they are for sale for others to buy... What's your opinion about that?

Cheers!

Selling their creativity? Good god man, someone needs to do something.

[Sendy]

And thus the "results obsessed" dance music fraterity* has reached it's logical zenith! Why bother putzing around with notes and loops and samples and all that geeky shit when you can just look for a track you like and put your name to it?

"Hmmm... yes.... this one seems like something I would have made... if I didn't hate music so much that I refuse to touch it! I'll take it!"

Sure, if everything's agreed on via contracts then legally everything's fine, but beyond that this is just very sad.


* - I'm referring to the subset of the dance music folk that are results obsessed, not implying they all are, though it's a problem I tend to associate much more with dance music than any other kind.

[macmurphy]

not immoral but it is weak and sad.

[robogone]

Immorality and the music industry have pretty much always gone hand in hand.

What was the question again?

[SODDI]

If you sell or license your work to such a "producer" for resale, then that's what you get. But you'd better sell it for enough to cover lots of lawyers' fees.

[robogone]

I actually know someone who sells the publishing rights for his songs to record companies (mostly Sony), who hold demo recordings of those songs for their established artists to select from. I think both sides are very happy with that arrangement, and no one really questions the morality of it.

[Tricky-Loops]

Now imagine there is this new star "Tricky Loops", and in the end it will be revealed that he hasn't done any of his tracks himself but bought 'em all from David Guetta (who has bought it somewhere else)...

Seriously, I wouldn't do this, just for the sake of getting fame and money. What I could imagine is making remixes but buying whole songs and putting my name on it - never in my life!

[Gamma-UT]

If you look at the way some parts of the music business work, it's hardly a surprise. Rappers routinely buy (or exclusively license) beats that are more less song stems - but the artform revolves around the delivery of the words rather than the backing music.

Dance DJs for various reasons wind up being encouraged to release their own tracks. Getting one ghost-produced is an easy way to get something that doesn't suck and the guys doing the ghost work get a payday.

It goes on plenty outside music. There are a number of published authors who don't write or get their output rewritten extensively. A certain highly litigious thriller writer who never, ever went bankrupt has a reputation for being unable to string two coherent sentences together.

[Tricky-Loops]

If you look at the way some parts of the music business work, it's hardly a surprise. Rappers routinely buy (or exclusively license) beats that are more less song stems - but the artform revolves around the delivery of the words rather than the backing music.

Stars like Madonna or George Michael are doing a similar thing. They hire a composer and a producer to make songs for them, and then they're delivering only the lyrics and the vocals. Both don't fiddle around with a DAW, some softsynths and a guitar, they still have enough money to pay the best producers out there.

There are only a few artists who compose their songs themselves - for example McCartney...

[Zombie Queen]

Since nobody pays to listen anymore then selling tracks to play as buyer's own seems logical step. But seriously, I have listened to these, simple generic stuff, I guess you can look at it as exclusive loop pack. You know, imagine someone who loves Lego, but doesn't have patience to joint the blocks together... and pays someone else to assemble the kit.

[rp314]

Some of the great musicians from the past have apparently taken advantage of the efforts of others at one point or another.

However, if your career is basically made up of doing that, I don't think your life's plan is to be part of that group.