http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL8A032344632E973B&feature=player_embedded&v=yAmmtCJxJJY right around 8:30 daaaaamn.
those that use samples
- Thread starter Medl4
- Start date
I just don't understand why anyone who is deemed "on" in the business would sample anybody elses ish! It blows my mind why these cats wouldn't either create something close to the same or just get the rights to use it. Back when that happened, economic times were different and it wasn't as much the principle of it as it is today. These days it's all about the money and honestly, you don't see as many copyright lawsuits.
I sample...but I'm not reselling someone elses work. With things being the way they are, I don't pity anyone that gets busted for doing some dumb ish when it's so easy to make anything your own. To me, it doesn't matter how much money you make on a project before you need to start worrying about sample clearance...I mean how do you forecast if the song you made (with an uncleared sample) is going to reach $50 grand+ in sales? IMO, that's a lack of confidence in your own work and it's selling yourself short.
But 'to each's own...' great post!
I sample...but I'm not reselling someone elses work. With things being the way they are, I don't pity anyone that gets busted for doing some dumb ish when it's so easy to make anything your own. To me, it doesn't matter how much money you make on a project before you need to start worrying about sample clearance...I mean how do you forecast if the song you made (with an uncleared sample) is going to reach $50 grand+ in sales? IMO, that's a lack of confidence in your own work and it's selling yourself short.
But 'to each's own...' great post!
making profit using somebody else's work is immoral, samples may not be recognizable, but they still add to the product. however, the chilling effect of sampling lawsuits destroyed the sound of mainstream hiphop. maybe creative commons licensing models will bring more reasonability to the table, and sampling will become part of the game again.
Precog
I Phantom
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 10
i agree with the point he makes about music itself is essentially built from what came before. any muscian in the world would be lying if they said they didnt take the msucial ideas of people that influenced them and made something new with them. we all do this, we use our influences, the music we love, to inspire us and create something ourselves. whole genres of music have been built of the back of this. but then when it comes to someone doing the same with our music, we dont like it.
i admit there is a difference between taking a music idea, whether it be a chord structure or whatever, and then playing it yourself and changing it....compared to me then directly sampling their work after. but i can make that material sound more different to its original source than when they used the ideas to make their song, yet im not allowed to do that. i know its not a clear cut issue, and understand the arguements of both sides, i dunno i just have always seen music as being something which exists because of the reusing of previous ideas, but just because i choose to do it in a different form, im not allowed.
dunno if any of that makes sense!! im just time wasting tbh cos i dont wanna do my university work!! ha
i admit there is a difference between taking a music idea, whether it be a chord structure or whatever, and then playing it yourself and changing it....compared to me then directly sampling their work after. but i can make that material sound more different to its original source than when they used the ideas to make their song, yet im not allowed to do that. i know its not a clear cut issue, and understand the arguements of both sides, i dunno i just have always seen music as being something which exists because of the reusing of previous ideas, but just because i choose to do it in a different form, im not allowed.
dunno if any of that makes sense!! im just time wasting tbh cos i dont wanna do my university work!! ha
Why don't you cats just search what was in the charts 50 years ago??? Recording Copyright expires after 50 years (in the UK) ... musical copyright/permission will still possibly be an issue, unless it's a certain years after the death of the last person involved.
Also, be careful sampling something from something that has been sampled... you'll have double the work to clear the sample, try and find the original.
US/UK copyright laws are somewhat different I think. And I only currently know about the UK laws. But I imagine they wont be too far different.
I think sampling a drum break, with some poetic/deep shit over it is tight. It is a shame, I'm on two sides about it, 1 it's a shame it's not as easy/legal to go about it. But at the same time, someone OWNS the RIGHTS to that master recording, every time that master recording is copied/edited(and a few other things) they should be getting paid. Or at least you need their permission, because only they OWN the RIGHTS to do so.
And just for the record(no pun), copyright was set up so that musicians could still get paid. If there was no rights/law put in place, no one would be getting paid for music.
Also, be careful sampling something from something that has been sampled... you'll have double the work to clear the sample, try and find the original.
US/UK copyright laws are somewhat different I think. And I only currently know about the UK laws. But I imagine they wont be too far different.
I think sampling a drum break, with some poetic/deep shit over it is tight. It is a shame, I'm on two sides about it, 1 it's a shame it's not as easy/legal to go about it. But at the same time, someone OWNS the RIGHTS to that master recording, every time that master recording is copied/edited(and a few other things) they should be getting paid. Or at least you need their permission, because only they OWN the RIGHTS to do so.
And just for the record(no pun), copyright was set up so that musicians could still get paid. If there was no rights/law put in place, no one would be getting paid for music.
I can see Im a bit alone on my view of sampling, I guess a good amount of you on here are either on the fence about it or generally just dont agree with it. Im into making sampled music, audio collages if you will, I think its an art form that is completely unique. Taking bits & pieces of some old (mostly) forgotten song from years & years ago & recognizing distinct potential in the melodies it used, than remixing that to fit your own vision and what your left with is a completely new creation often not easily recognizable after modification.
To disagree with the creative use of samples would be like saying that any chef that uses any ingredient he didn't completely make from scratch isn't really cooking.
Feel however you want, but the hip hop that I like is sample oriented if not based. Im not into the heavy synth beats and midi melodies people play because to me 95% of the time it just sounds generic. Samples are a gift from the elders and should be treated with respect and not demonized as theft. If anything its honering the music that came before you. In my humble opinion.
PS> if your as decalion said "on" in the buisness, there is no reason you shouldnt be clearing the recognizable samples so that the original band/artist gets some money if it takes off. But if you take a split second of a track and tweak it, its yours. Finders keepers.
To disagree with the creative use of samples would be like saying that any chef that uses any ingredient he didn't completely make from scratch isn't really cooking.
Feel however you want, but the hip hop that I like is sample oriented if not based. Im not into the heavy synth beats and midi melodies people play because to me 95% of the time it just sounds generic. Samples are a gift from the elders and should be treated with respect and not demonized as theft. If anything its honering the music that came before you. In my humble opinion.
PS> if your as decalion said "on" in the buisness, there is no reason you shouldnt be clearing the recognizable samples so that the original band/artist gets some money if it takes off. But if you take a split second of a track and tweak it, its yours. Finders keepers.
To get snobby about anything, especially how people make music (if you're coming from a real standpoint) is just pointless, low, and lame.
To say synth driven music is generic, the same could easily be said about sample driven music. It depends on the person making it.
There are plenty of cats who just buzz out something on reason with no real clue/musical idea what they're doing. There's also people who will just un-musically chop samples n think theyre being real. Un-musical use of samples, will most often sound better than unmusical use of DAW's/synths, because the musicality is already in the samples.
However saying one is better/not and being snobby over it is a bit whack.
I like creating music as originally as I can. It's just me. I've done sampled stuff before, and love it.
However, there are LAWS involved, and yeah although it sucks for creation of 'sample driven' music, it is kinda slightly spastic moaning about it too much, because the point is, without copyright laws, YOU. WOULD. NOT. GET. PAID. FOR. MUSIC. PERIOD.
It comes from the days where what was to stop someone recording a musician, playing their music, and that musician has now lost their job/livelihood/way they provide for their family. So copyright was set up, so original artists get paid for their work.
Copyright law was invented so that musicians can get paid, without it, there's hardly any reason you will/would get paid. It's as simple as that, yet it does cause issues regarding sampling, and yeah perhaps things shouldn't be so 'strict', however, whenever laws/courts/lawyers/money is involved, shit is going to get very fiddly/fussy and shit.
If you can't accept the truth and history about copyright and just wanna moan about sampling, it's pretty lame. If you understood it all better, you may have a different outlook on it.
(note: reserves the right to be snobby about people who generically make music with no thought/creativity)
To say synth driven music is generic, the same could easily be said about sample driven music. It depends on the person making it.
There are plenty of cats who just buzz out something on reason with no real clue/musical idea what they're doing. There's also people who will just un-musically chop samples n think theyre being real. Un-musical use of samples, will most often sound better than unmusical use of DAW's/synths, because the musicality is already in the samples.
However saying one is better/not and being snobby over it is a bit whack.
I like creating music as originally as I can. It's just me. I've done sampled stuff before, and love it.
However, there are LAWS involved, and yeah although it sucks for creation of 'sample driven' music, it is kinda slightly spastic moaning about it too much, because the point is, without copyright laws, YOU. WOULD. NOT. GET. PAID. FOR. MUSIC. PERIOD.
It comes from the days where what was to stop someone recording a musician, playing their music, and that musician has now lost their job/livelihood/way they provide for their family. So copyright was set up, so original artists get paid for their work.
Copyright law was invented so that musicians can get paid, without it, there's hardly any reason you will/would get paid. It's as simple as that, yet it does cause issues regarding sampling, and yeah perhaps things shouldn't be so 'strict', however, whenever laws/courts/lawyers/money is involved, shit is going to get very fiddly/fussy and shit.
If you can't accept the truth and history about copyright and just wanna moan about sampling, it's pretty lame. If you understood it all better, you may have a different outlook on it.
(note: reserves the right to be snobby about people who generically make music with no thought/creativity)
And as I said... copyright expires after 50 years(uk law), if you're really looking for inspiration from the greats etc, then look back 50 years and sample that shit. That's what's really taking it back to the greats/past/original, nah?
imo, 50yrs is a touch too far...anything can be flipped BUT the good stuff starts in the mid 70's to late 70's which isn't far enough. There were some great names in the 60's - Al Green, James Brown, Marvin Gaye but they have been sampled to death...so then you have to look in the 'rare groups' of the 60's and it's just hard to find gems in that 'category' and that 'era'. Not to mention, the quality of the recordings back then.
Im not saying that it's impossible. Also, you have to consider that in most cases...you have to deal with 2 copyright holders per song 1 from the owner and 1 from whoever mastered the track.
Im not saying that it's impossible. Also, you have to consider that in most cases...you have to deal with 2 copyright holders per song 1 from the owner and 1 from whoever mastered the track.
Im gonna check out now.
@irok keys, If your in this for the money, me & you are in two different worlds. I'll let your little subliminal diss about people sampling in Reason slide because Im starting to believe your an internet troll. If you dont agree with me, thats fine, but dont sit here & tell me what is what homey, so far I haven't heard anything by you that I would find even remotely interesting.
slik da relic
RS Jedi
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 1
when u have it in ur mind to sample sounds to make up new melodies, and not use the sample in its original form, this doesnt affect u anymore.. i dont even worry bout this anymore... its more work, but can also be even more rewarding... ive been hittin the public domain sites for yrs, grabbin music from there, and makin beats.. in the long run, the person that gets hurt is the original creators from the past... no one will ever hear their music again... oh well.
da relic
da relic
You need to grow up. You need to learn to read. You need to do some research into the history of music. Most importantly you need to lay off the weed, it's makin' you paranoid n take everything as some personal attack. Stop trolling.
Guys, it's just a matter of personal preference. There's nothing wrong with either type of production. When you think about it, there are a lot of famous producers that were successful at both composing and sample based production. =)