Well that's the end of rap music!

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
Aren't you the unemployed web-design monkey?

That's got nothing to do with anything. Van Goegh, Gaugan, and others were penniless in their lifetime, and are considered among the greatest artists in human history. Not that I'm in their league.

Creativity manifests itself in many ways. Problem-solving is one of them.

Okay, artistic creativity then.

[Tuberski]

I have no problem with legal sampling, I may not like the music but as long as it is done legally, my taste in music doesn't really matter.

I think sampling isn't very artistic, but otherwise let them copy from each other.

ACK!

[Adagio]

/me reads the thread title and the first line in the first post

That was about time that they started charging...


But I'd prefer them to started putting out 'fines' if more than 50% of the words in songs are swear words... that would take out the worst type of rappers, and give room for the better rappers...

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Adagio
* Adagio reads the thread title and the first line in the first post

That was about time that they started charging...


But I'd prefer them to started putting out 'fines' if more than 50% of the words in songs are swear words... that would take out the worst type of rappers, and give room for the better rappers...

"Humbug"

ACK!

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Okay, artistic creativity then.

And what would you know about my artistic creativity?

[Az]

You're a commie, you're not capable of rational thought.

Very mature. Don't you feel much better? A grown-up person acting like a 5-year old.

They frequently are.

See Tupac's "Changes" or VanillaIce's "Ice Ice Baby".

They are copies of the most distinguishing parts of the song. Blatantly so.

Is "Ice Ice baby" anything like the Queen song in substance? Is Tupac's "changes"?

Good for him. It's still sampling, and it's proof that it's not a big deal to obtain permission

and here comes the main thing:
DOES IT MATTER IN ANY WAY WRT THE QUALITY OF THE SONG?
does Sting's blessing improve the song? no no no. It's the same song.

[NeOmega]

Interesting.

I found P-diddy to be an extreme abuse of "sampling" music.

Perhaps it should be more like a song can not be sold for use beyond private listening, if it has samples from other artists.

What concerns me the most is things like Raves, where all the mixing is done from other artists materials. Are they going to start taxing a DJ for every record he brings to the club?

Also, free music. Are start up groups, or my favorite, video game remixes, going to have to shut down or start paying a royalty to Uzegi Komishiro every time a remix from the soundtrack to Streets of Rage 2 is played?

I don't like this ruling. Especially if the riff isn't easily recognizable.

[Buck Birdseed]

As I see it, there are two separate strands of the discussion.

(1) Is sampling legal? Should it be? I personally don't give a flying **** about this one as I've become increasingly disillusioned/nihilistic/anarchistic in the past few years and don't particularly care about laws and crap.

(2) Is music with samples in it good? This one I do care about.

Please adress any discussion towards me only if it concerns the second one, please.

[Az]

I, too, am mostly concerned about this, Ne_Omega.

[Q Classic]

to be fair, not all rap sucks. it's mostly the gangsta rap variant which focuses entirely on OMFG I'M SO RICH AND LOOK AT MY BLING BLING AND MY *****ES AND MY HOEZ AND YOU IZ TEH SUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!! that is the worst of it.

on the other hand, while the law really i don't have a problem with, i do see how it could be abused. NeOmega points out one of the big ones--what about Raves and Club Remixes?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
Very mature. Don't you feel much better? A grown-up person acting like a 5-year old.

It's frickin' true -- people with communist ideals don't understand humanity. They're idealists that need to have a dose of realism. I don't know how you cannot consider music theft invalid, unless you're of the camp which thinks that musicians are not human and don't need to eat, too.

Is "Ice Ice baby" anything like the Queen song in substance? Is Tupac's "changes"?

Yes...

and here comes the main thing:
DOES IT MATTER IN ANY WAY WRT THE QUALITY OF THE SONG?
does Sting's blessing improve the song? no no no. It's the same song.

Errm...that's not the point. Incase you forgot, the thread is about the legal implications behind the right get paid when someone steals your work to profit from it.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
It's frickin' true -- people with communist ideals don't understand humanity. They're idealists that need to have a dose of realism.

Actually, we understand it a hell of a lot better than you. And I guarantee I know a hell of a lot more about real life than your pampered butt.

I don't know how you cannot consider music theft invalid, unless you're of the camp which thinks that musicians are not human and don't need to eat, too.

Since most musicians don't own their own music anyway, they aren't being ripped off by fans. They were already ripped off by the music companies. Fans are ripping off the music companies, not the artists.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
(2) Is music with samples in it good? This one I do care about.

I think you have to hold sampled art to a different standard than original art (even in the case of music, where much of what is considered 'original' is incredibly derivative.) If an original song is good, than that is an accomplishment. If a song uses sampled material, the end result must be significantly better than the original in order to be viewed as a successful artistic endeavor. Until then, it's just piggybacking.

Note that this means that a song built using samples can still be good to listen to, but not good as an artistic endeavor.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Actually, we understand it a hell of a lot better than you.

As clearly evidenced by all of the successful, large nations under communism.

Since most musicians don't own their own music anyway, they aren't being ripped off by fans. They were already ripped off by the music companies. Fans are ripping off the music companies, not the artists.

This argument is a bunch of bull because it boils it down to "well it's not theft because the record companies own it".

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by dv8ed
If a song uses sampled material, the end result must be significantly better than the original in order to be viewed as a successful artistic endeavor.

Not really, it just has to be used in an inovative way.