[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Do you see anything wrong with the art of Sampling? Is it any different, better or worse than covering?

I just watched this documentary, Copyright Criminals, on the history of sampling and DJing in hip hop and rap music.. I think a fundemental point was lost.. that when a hip hop artist, producer or DJ samples another artist's tune, he is not necessarily stealing, but is in fact advertising for!

For example, hip hop and DJing in a hip hop style evolved directly from the Jamaican reggae dance hall DJs and especially the SingJays who pioneered this art form. In the late sixties up unto the mid seventies, all kinds of Jamaican artists and DJs were spinning 'standards' and singing and toasting over the 'rhythms' What made this style so fucking successful was that a singer or singjay who you do not know, will be singing to you ALL TIME favorite rhythm or tune from your favorite artists, and so you automatically are interested. You dance without even necessarily even listening to the singer, but just the riddim that is runnin. When you hear one of a dozen artists like I-Roy, Dillinger, Militan Berry, the Wailing Souls etc etc singing to your favorite John Holt or Sly and Robbie riddim, you damn well know and acknowledge the original, often more so than the artist singing over it! It is BECAUSE it is a John Holt or Sly and Robbie riddim that you like it so much!

These DJs brought their 'sound systems' to the east coast as long as their toasting which directly inspired hip hop to do the same things reggae artists were doing with reggae standards records to their R&B standards (an exceptional irony considered these R&B records were the direct influence for the reggae artists)..

I do believe that part of the excitement of hearing good DJs in the early hip hop scene was to hear your favorite and also obscure records. Sampling in recorded albums (as opposed to live DJing in dancehalls) just evolved out of this process, and to hear a hip hop tune with a sample you like on the radio would probably have the same effect as the DJ spinning your favs on the dancefloor.

This is the point of cover tunes right? If someone covers a song real good, they will perhaps seek the original, and this is why artists allow covers right? Further, it is a privilege if you ask me, to let other artists enjoy your music, and it is the penultimate compliment as a musician for people to so enjoy your original creations that they play themself as if it were sheet music..

so what is all the fucking beef or sampling? what do y'all think?

[terminal pharmacy]

well it is in the permission of use really, seek permission and there will be no issue, don't seek permission and have legal battles later...

[SuchFriendsAreDangerous]

Originally Posted by terminal pharmacy

well it is in the permission of use really, seek permission and there will be no issue, don't seek permission and have legal battles later...

DJs in the club do not need permission do they? I understand the idea, but some artists are ridiculous about the permission either holding out on ego trips or for excessive payments.. the artists are forgetting that a sample is advertising is my point.

Blues is just like reggae.. all the blues tunes are 'standards' like the reggae riddims, but the blues artists don't sue each other over control of the chord progressions or scales, they are just 'standards' but they did not start out that way did they? Initially they were somebody's original creation just like Sly and Robbie and China Smith's Gunman riddim is has become a universal standard for reggae artists..

perhaps artists should not be so uptight with their tunes, because sharing it can give creation to new art, and wouldn't you want to be the main influence or origin of the birth of new art forms?

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by SuchFriendsAreDangerous

DJs in the club do not need permission do they? I understand the idea, but some artists are ridiculous about the permission either holding out on ego trips or for excessive payments.. the artists are forgetting that a sample is advertising is my point.

clubs generally pay a licensing fee to amcos, apra or whoever the organisation is. so no they do not need it in the clubs because the clubs cover it by this licensing. however if they want to record it for the purpose of them making an album and selling it then yes they do need to seek permission because they are using someone elses material to make a profit. whether they make a profit or not is irrelevant.

i wouldnt quite say sampling is advertising either, i like some things and i am aware of the samples they have used but im not going to go out and buy an album by the sampled artist.

[GeneticKiss]

White and/or rich people think everything created by them belongs solely to them, that's the difference.

I can think of better songs the Verve have done than "Bittersweet Symphony", but it tears my heart out every time I hear it, knowing that they aren't getting jack shit for it and Rolling Stones are getting richer than they deserve to be from a song that's only loosely connected to them.

Also, Manfred Mann's stingyness with a instrumental almost no one's heard cost Massive Attack their right to play one of their best songs ("Black Milk") live, and replace it with an alternate version ("Black Melt") which I don't think is as good.

Personally, if someone sampled my song without my permission and used it in a good song, I wouldn't care. However, if it sucked...

[Rob Instigator]

I love the minute, carefully crafted, sampling of the Dust Bros. and the Bomb Squad, where tiny snippets were used, and atered and dozens and dozens of samples were used in creating just one song's "music."

I HATE the way it has gotten now, with artists having to pay $100,000 to use a 3 second loop of one of their songs, and because of this, the hip hop acts will use only one sample, easily recognized, and repeat it endlessly, essentially just rapping over a distilled version of an old disco song, or a police tune, or nena's 99 luftballons. whatever. It sucks. I ahte it.

create something NEW you lazy fucks.

and suchfriends, covering a song costs money too. you cannot cover a tune,a nd release it on an album or for sale, without paying royalties to the tune's songwriter or whoever owns the copyright for that tune.

legally, you are not supposed to cover a song live if you are charging admission, without paying the licensing fee. of course that never gets enforced,

[Rob Instigator]

and HELL NO it is NOT advertising, suchfriends. most people, if they have never heard the original of a track that is sampled on a hip hop or an R&bullshit track, will not think about the sample, nor where it comes from.
ghell , most people who hear a song on a commercial for the first time assume it was written for the commercial!!!!

that sampling as advertising idea is flawed my friend.

only those that already know the sample care, and they likelywill not go buy the sampled song or go to the sampled artists concerts based on a sample.

[noisereductions]

it's all just sound, son.

[Glice]

I'm agreeing with Rob. Except for the lazy part, which I don't really care about.

The other difference is that the big thing in dancehall is the one riddim. Often, the riddim is better known than the versions. I can only think of one riddim better known by a version than by the riddim itself (Playground) and even then I suspect that's not the case within Jamaica or the dancehall faithful.

In hip-hop, whatever beat is being rapped over is less important than what's being done by the rappers. The difference is that a riddim gets full credits, but who knew what the Amen break was until about 10 years ago? Obviously, producers and the hardcore did, but I doubt that even today the majority of people who be able to tell you how the Amen break goes. Credit where credit's due and all that.

[floatingslowly]

I think the dancehall thing is almost seasonal. a producer makes a track and then 10 impoverished MC's take turns with it.

it has more to do with lack of funds than it does unoriginality.

[noisereductions]

Originally Posted by glice

In hip-hop, whatever beat is being rapped over is less important than what's being done by the rappers.

right.

Originally Posted by glice

but who knew what the Amen break was until about 10 years ago? Obviously, producers and the hardcore did, but I doubt that even today the majority of people who be able to tell you how the Amen break goes.

right.

[terminal pharmacy]

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

White and/or rich people think everything created by them belongs solely to them, that's the difference.

Yeah so what, I work hard to write the music I write and if people use it without my permission I want to get paid for it because my music pays half my yearly wage. So yes I own the intellectual property.

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

I can think of better songs the Verve have done than "Bittersweet Symphony", but it tears my heart out every time I hear it, knowing that they aren't getting jack shit for it and Rolling Stones are getting richer than they deserve to be from a song that's only loosely connected to them.

They new exactly what they were doing, their problem.

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

Personally, if someone sampled my song without my permission and used it in a good song, I wouldn't care. However, if it sucked...

So if it was a good song you wouldn't want anything but if it was a bad song you would. Why have the double standard???

[GeneticKiss]

I'n not saying I wouldn't want anything. I'm saying I wouldn't be an asshole about it and sue them for millions of dollars. Maybe I'd want a small cut, but I'm not gonna send some struggling artist(s) trying to break into the business to the poorhouse.

Oh, and the Verve didn't technically sample the Rolling Stones. They sampled an obscure symphonic cover of one of their songs (I forget which one) off a record the Stones didn't give a damn about previously.

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by noisereductions

it's all just sound, son.

it is not all sound.

It is MUSIC.

[Glice]

I was going to point out earlier - mercenary cuntestry on the part of businesspeople is not exclusively the domain of white people, or rich white people, or men. cf Jay-Z.

[Rob Instigator]

any revenue stream in a storm...
that's their mentality.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by GeneticKiss

I'n not saying I wouldn't want anything. I'm saying I wouldn't be an asshole about it and sue them for millions of dollars. Maybe I'd want a small cut, but I'm not gonna send some struggling artist(s) trying to break into the business to the poorhouse.

Oh, and the Verve didn't technically sample the Rolling Stones. They sampled an obscure symphonic cover of one of their songs (I forget which one) off a record the Stones didn't give a damn about previously.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Time_(song)

They had the clearance for the sample but not as much as they actually used.

[terminal pharmacy]

The record was by the Andrew Oldham Orchestra and Andrew Oldham was the Stones first manager.