Well that's the end of rap music!

[Buck Birdseed]

All good art is stolen or illegal anyway. Accepting the norms of society is the road to blandness.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by Asher

Sampling, by definition, is not creative...

Idiot.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Idiot.

See how creative I'm being, by quoting your work?

This is the finest creative device of the century, for sure.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed


Er... Technically it started with Kool Herc in the mid-seventies, or if you want to be arcane about it Count Machuki in the mid-sixties. (Recorded: U-roy, 1969/70 (Jamaica), probably Grandmaster Flash,1980/81 (US).)

Sampling, versioning, whatever you want to call it, is one of the premier creative devices of this century because it breaks off the ridiculous victorian "single creative genius" mythos and allows people to improve on music without ridiculous "ownership" restriants.

The only song I've ever heard that was "improved" by a rap artist, is That's Just the Way It Is by Bruce Hornmsby and the Range.

ACK!

[Asher]

IDIOT!

And here is versioning at work.

I've removed reference to the original author and capitalized it, adding an exclamation mark! Now it is intense and even more creative!

Will this rampant creativity of stealing other people's work ever end?!

[Tuberski]

IDIOT!

I've sampled it even better than Asher.

ACK!

[Nubclear]

Well that's the end of rap music!

[Az]

Idiotic decision.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
Idiotic decision.

Why is it idiotic to find it illegal for them to steal other people's music without their permission?

It is not consistent to consider music theft if you download a song, then at the same time find it legal for someone to take someone else's music and profit from it. In fact, the latter is far worse.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Azazel
Idiotic decision.

I concur.


This is bad.

[Whaleboy]

Now, ideally I am against this. Little, simple riffs, are kinda like phrases in language. I don't think its reasonable to copyright a particular turn of phrase, as opposed to a ream of text, a document, whose combinations of words/notes are certifiably unique... i.e. whereby for someone else to use them it would have to be a breach of copyright... there was no reasonable chance they could have thought of it on their own and it would not be something you'd use everyday.

For example, copyrighting the chord sequence Am, G, Fmaj7 is ridiculous. Copyrighting "Stairway to Heaven" on the other hand (whose final part uses the aforementioned chord sequence) is legitimate.

On the other hand, I support every and all measure used to rid the world of the abomination that is rap.

[Nubclear]

On the other hand, I support every and all measure used to rid the world of the abomination that is rap.

[Buck Birdseed]

*sigh*

I shouldn't even begin to discuss something with Asher who's repeatedly showed no understanding of what art is about whatsoever.

But alright, I'll give it a go.

Asher, you need to disavow yourself of the notion of the individual as the sole purveyor of creativity. In fact, loads of truly great music and art has grown forth in communities, with people making marginal improvements on each other's work, spurring each other on to do better things, competing and co-operating.

Sampling allows you to experiment with the music of others, to expose portions of it, to see what it's like juxtaposed with other music, with new melodies and rhythms, to analyse it by taking it apart. The great hook baked into a slab of pompous crap is taken out, given fresh air, set apart with a new melody that fits it perfectly but that the first artist could never have come up with; together two generations have created a piece of music vastly superior to what either could do on their own.

The Jamaican producer has created a riddim, true, but only if it's good enough will it get versioned by the leading Deejays, thus neatly cutting out all the crap. Each Deejay will produce a very different version of the song, his personal competition entry in the fierce dancehall market; only the best remain at the end. The music is vastly better than if one person had done it all the way through.

The cut-up artist takes a familiar piece of music and changes its meaning completely simply by switching a few phrases around. The audience gets to think about the meaning of the music in an entirely different way from before, about what art is and what creativity is, about how music and genres and language works. As it inspires thought it is better than the original piece cut-up.

A dance producer uses the sampler as an instrument, creating sounds quite unlike whatever originally went in. He has the entire world at his fingertips, every existing instrument, every potential instrument, and can from the most minute of building blocks create startling soundscapes that vastly outshine any of the tiny segments that went in.

And so on.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Asher

Why is it idiotic to find it illegal for them to steal other people's music without their permission?

They aren't stealing it, they're editing cuting it, modifying it, and splicing it to the point where it does not resemble the original.

If I where a huge computer geek, I would probably make a comment about microsoft 'stealing' windows from apple.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed


I--D I O T ?.

I love being creative