Well that's the end of rap music!

[Asher]

Originally posted by General Ludd
By suing people who can make it sellable?

How could they sue someone if music theft is not theft?

[Az]

How do musicians make money if their work is not sold?

A) Their work is sold. p2ps never stopped this, The vast majority of people who p2p buy music as well.
B) Gigs, videos played on TV, etc.

This isn't an argument -- artists are making money because people still buy music. If you don't buy music (that is, if it's not illegal to steal it), they would make no money.

A) they would make money, as I explained earlier.
B) Even though it is practically legal to p2p it, since there is no enforcement, people still buy CDs. That's reality. songs are downloaded at all times, and the same people who can download the songs, also buy the CDs. Your belief, full of "realism", is that people would grab an infinite amount if they would be presented with something for free fails miserably in the real world.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
No, Che, the entire point of my argument is sampling wholesale is a form of theft. That's what this is about, and that's what you just conceded.

Argument 1: Sampling isn't creative, untrue

Argument 2: This has always been theft, untrue

Argument 3: This is stealing from artists, untrue

Argument 4: It's theft, conceded long before you ever made the point.

Congratualtions on your superior logic.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
Under pressure sucks, and so does Ice Ice Baby. Mercury and Ice are on the same level of embarassing crapness.

There. Problem solved.

I'm continually amazed how music critics like you get jobs.

Honestly, who buys publications where you hear people with such horribly bad taste tell people what is good and bad?

Music is a personal things, and every single music critic -- without fail -- is an enormous tw*t.

[Az]

I used to think so, but I listened to Robert Van Winkle when he was on The Surreal World. He's really embarressed by his Vanilla Ice period. He blew up when he roommates kept teasing him about it. Then they ended up at a kareoke bar, and the ladies startd dong the song, and the whole crowd started getting into it, and got him to do the song. It was a lot less processed and sterile and actually kinda fun.

I'm not saying it's art, but it was quite enjoyable.

I hear he's making hardcore rock these days, is it so?

[chequita guevara]

He was, don't know if he still is.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Argument 1: Sampling isn't creative, untrue

Still a matter of opinion. It's untrue that it IS creative. "Ice, Ice Baby" samples heavily, and for that reason is one of the most unoriginal and least creative songs I've ever heard.

Sampling, by definition, is:

sam·ple Audio pronunciation of "sampling" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (smpl)
n. A usually digitized audio segment taken from an original recording and inserted, often repetitively, in a new recording.

Since all you're doing is repeating something already done, it is not original or creative. Scratching a sample is a different story.

Argument 2: This has always been theft, untrue

Never said that.

Argument 3: This is stealing from artists, untrue

It is true. Artists get their money from record companies, based on number of sales. Plus, what about indy artists?

Congratualtions on your superior logic.

Accepted.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Azazel
A) Their work is sold. p2ps never stopped this, The vast majority of people who p2p buy music as well.
B) Gigs, videos played on TV, etc.

If it wasn't illegal to download it, far less people would do it. There would be painfully easy services for downloading and burning CDs of free music.

The reason p2p doesn't inhibit sales is because many people are scared off by it being illegal, or find it too much of a hassle.

If you legalize music downloads, it'll f*ck everything up.

A) they would make money, as I explained earlier.

No, this is nonsense because you're assuming people's attitudes towards buying music wouldn't be changed when they find out they can legally own it without paying for it. Which is kinda ridiculous if you think about it...

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
In such a situation does it matter how much the individuals are putting in in terms of artistic contribution?

In a situation like that, where there is an entire culture built around a distributed creative process, then it doesn't matter in the least. But that isn't the case in a song like 'Ice Ice Baby'. Queen put out a completed work in 'Under Pressure'. They weren't out to provide a base that others could work from, they were out to put a song on the radio. When Vanilla Ice comes in and rips a part of their creative work, it is not following Queen's intent for the use of their work. While it has no bearing on the final quality of Ice Ice Baby, I think it does have a bearing on Vanilla Ice as an artist.

It would be somewhat similar (not too much, though, so nobody start any stupid threadjacks over it) to an open source software project. If a group builds a quality application from scratch, they have put significant work into it and their work is impressive. If somebody else comes along and forks the project into a new release with only a few minor changes, their work is not nearly as impressive. Your Jamaican example would be more along the lines of an application being assembled from a library of code objects...in which case, the application may be just as good, but the credit goes to everybody who contributed.

Like I said, I'm not making any claims on the actual quality of the end result, just the abilities of the people who are creating it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Odd metaphor follows:

Think of it like this: is it more impressive for somebody to make a table in a woodshop or in the middle of a forest with no tools? If the tables end up the same quality, you can probably say that the second guy was more impressive. On the other hand, if the table built in the woodshop is magnificent and the one built in the woods is nothing more than one big log on four smaller ones, the craftsman in the woodshop is at least as impressive as the one in the woods.

[Al B. Sure!]

just an aside...

have yall ever listened to songs that happen to sample the same thing (which happens a lot in rap) yet sound completely different? One DJ recently used all the samples used for Jay-Z's Black Album but his remix album sounds nothing like the original. His point was to show that even using the same exact samples, you can come up with completely different music.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher


Music is a personal things, and every single music critic -- without fail -- is an enormous tw*t.

Every person who discriminates with regard to music is a music critic.


If you do not possess, listen to, or enjoy without distinction or exception, each and every musical act, performance, piece of music, recording, you are a 'music critic'.

Ergo, YOU are an enormous....


But this has long been evident.

After all, you like 'Matchbox 20'.






It might not be too late. Help may still be available.

[Last Conformist]

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. 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.

If he needs to eat, let him do work that he can get money from. If making music isn't such work, find another job.

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Every person who discriminates with regard to music is a music critic.

The obvious implication was that the people who consider themselves music critics and write in magazines, etc. is what I meant.

Ergo, YOU are an enormous....

No, dude, I'm not -- you are for the dumbest argument in a thread full of dumb arguments.

The intent of the statement was obvious to those who possess any intellectual ability at all. Suspiciously, it escaped you...

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Asher

How do musicians make money if their work is not sold?

By doing something other than music. Duh!