Should sampling be illegal?

should sampling be illegal?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version
youtube.com/watch?v=i0yY0zxk-18&list=PLADB18753FE37E7DA&index=11
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

only vaporwave sampling where the "artist" applies a filter to a full length 80s synth song and calls it a day

this

mash-ups that possess some sort of creative/original merit are ok

legalize ranch

>should art be illegal
Probably not, ever, not to say there aren't tons of shitty beatmakers

Should covering other people's songs be illegal?

>Three feet high and rising
Probably a huge copyright crackdown is on its way. In the future we won't be able to right click to save images.

the government should be tasked with listening to each and every cover thats made of any registered song (even those recorded for at-home/non-commercial use) and determine as objectively as possible if the cover holds up to sufficient quality standards to be allowed to exist. if it doesnt, the cover artist is executed by bee stings

sampling as i see it, is incorporating someone else's work and redefining and redesigning it to fit your own vision and creation. taking someone's song and barely changing it while still possessing the same qualities of what made the original great, is essentially stealing masquerading as something else.

face and voice recognition technology being designed by some sperg should help tax these awful pub bands

jesus christ. lost my shit reading that

He's not wrong though

no. abolish copyright law completely
you think you deserve something cause it was "your idea"?
fuck that

>taking someone's song
A very small portion of it in most cases.
Samples are often 5-10 seconds.
I don't see why artists would complain about such a small fraction of their song being "taken".

>barely changing it
To be fair it depends on how it's sampled.

There's these university graduates designing tech that can do this and they're pissing their pants laughing that 'box follows face and matches NI number' on test machine. Little do they realise the future hell they are coding ground up.

im ready to please our google overlords

>A very small portion of it in most cases.
usually if sampling is done well you wont be able to tell where it came from but if its done badly then they have taken either the most important part like the chorus or a hook or memorable line and reuse it for their song.Kanye did this with blame game and madlib did this with meat grinder, i could name more but these are obvious examples. Rap music is notorious for blatantly just taking aspects of people song's they find catchy and looping it over

there was that one stupid as fuck case with that nwa song though. they took like a 2 second three-note guitar riff and slowed it down and buried it in the mix but the record label still filed a lawsuit and somehow fucking won.

turn that poop into wine

man fuck salad dressing

Conceptual art is art too

>cut to De La Soul being put before a firing squad
Don't punish the ones with skill and creativity just because there are a lot of hacks

...

It was on Click

>an entire field of human creativity should be ignored forever
t. anti-sampling advocate

I'm not trying to take your sampling away, I'm just saying we need to have a conversational about the need for common sense sampling control.

>common sense sampling control
What does this mean?

stop doing what i dont like

It's that creative if you need to rely on others' work.

...

Do you really not know the difference between a sample and a cover?

Entirely untrue. Creativity isn't deriving something out of thin air. Inspiration is a thing.

"There's nothing new under the sun" is a saying for a reason.

Every single artistic piece before it has a predecessor from which it lifts elements.

Graduate from high school

I think what he means is both is taking an artists original work (one taking a much larger portion, in fact) so if you're ok with one you must be ok with the other.

did you build your guitar?

>Creativity isn't deriving something out of thin air. Inspiration is a thing.
Except if you can come to the same result without the need of a derivative work, then it's MORE creative than if you had to rely on it

>Every single artistic piece before it has a predecessor from which it lifts elements.
There's a difference between inspiration and using someone else's original work.
False equivalency

>both is taking an artists original work
Incorrect. Sampling is taking the artist's original work (both the composition and sound rerecording).

A cover is just simply the composition.

if you use a note because it sounds good, did you really choose the note? or did you use it because it sounds good

no but im also not taking the body of a guitar and adding some different strings and calling that a new instrument

sampling doesnt necessarily take the composition

>if you use a note because it sounds good
You mean a note on a musical scale, or someone else's sound recording?

>sampling doesnt necessarily take the composition
It's still there whether you like it not.

>t. Someone who's never created anything

but its not. the composition is the abstract expression of the song, it has nothing to do with the recording. if you sample one note from a recording you are not taking the composition.

Repeat after me: Cultural appropriation is problematic.

Saved

>the composition is the abstract expression of the song
What do you mean abstract? It's definable and expressible.
>if you sample one note from a recording you are not taking the composition.
Why not just make your own note?

this is good

I'll say it since no one else seems willing to:

Sampling is OK if the artist is a POC sampling a white 'artist.' Otherwise, yes, it should be illegal. We need to overturn and recontextualize white supremacist power structures.

Thanks for your input, Tumblr

Sampling is good but some people go way too far with it and basically just replay an existing song. It's a pretty grey area legally though since you are making money off of other people's stuff but it shouldn't be made illegal, no.

so like how lots of black artists get attacked/sued all the time for their samples yet Girl Talk hasnt faced an ounce of legal ordeals?

Yes. That's problematic. It needs to be the other way around.

it is true. the art of covering was made easy and cheap when laws were decided on it in the early 1900s, cause it benefited white male bands that wanted to cover black soul music. now that black artists want to pay their respects back to white music from the past the law cracks down on them and treats them as unoriginal thieves.

>cause it benefited white male bands that wanted to cover black soul music
Examples?

Every white rock musician from the 50s.

>50s
>early 1900s

Does anyone actually like girl talk?

I listened to the first album it it is the worst fucking lazy plagarized shit i’ve ever heard. It’s faggots like these that give plunderphonics a bad rep. Granted, i didn’t listen to his recent albums but i just can’t bring myself to do it.

beatles, elvis, rolling stones, the kingsmen, led zeppelin, quicksilver messenger service, eric clapton, pat boone.....

>beatles, elvis, rolling stones, the kingsmen, led zeppelin, quicksilver messenger service, eric clapton, pat boone.....
None of those artists were from the early 1900s. Try again.

Buzz me mulatto

yea i meant mid. please forgive my typo

its extremely shallow dance music, but its also an extremely bold statement against the music industry status quo

the problem with cultural appropriation is the appropriator doesn't really understand the message and meaning of the thing they're copying, it's not about propriety or ownership

OK then that's also incorrect. Copyright Law first came into the US in 1790

i didnt say copyright law. i said laws regarding covers

>i said laws regarding covers
Like what?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cover_version

>Since the Copyright Act of 1909, United States musicians have had the right to record a version of someone else's previously recorded and released tune, whether it is music alone or music with lyrics
>1909

What Girl Talk is known for has been a thing in dance music for a long time beforehand, and has been done better. Pic related

yep. early 1900s copyright law benefited artists in the coming decades, especially booming acts in the mid 1900s

OK then which white male bands from 1909 wanted to cover black soul music?

Oh, I see. Who is the final arbiter of someone 'understanding' the thing? Let me guess: you? Philosopher-queens?

not very many...

yea you have a point. the law wasnt made FOR white people, but it definitely made it easy as hell for white people to cover black music later on, albeit inadvertently.

im just saying, sampling was made popular by hip hop, and albums like The Grey Album and so on are showing their appreciation for white music of the past, just as white bands from the mid 1900s showed their appreciation for black music from the past by making covers. but sampling has been treated much more harshly.

>not very many...
Well, name them. You made a claim, you need to back it up. i am curious what white musician was playing black soul music 50 years before it existed.
>albeit inadvertently
Then your argument isn't relevant.
>but sampling has been treated much more harshly.
That's because it's very different than covering a composition. Performing and recording one's own version of a someone else's composition that was meant to be covered, is different that just reusing someone else's actual performance and recording.

There's this bloke who appeared in the paper and all he does is work with IP law and music. Getting NPCs to speak to me can be very difficult, I tried.

>black soul music didnt exist before 1959

lmao wait pause it real quick ima cook some popcorn

its abstract because a cover of it can be played on an entirely different set of instruments at a completely different speed and using different recording equipment and its still the same song. a composition isnt bound to the means of performing or recording it.

Negativland

>ts abstract because a cover of it can be played on an entirely different set of instruments at a completely different speed and using different recording equipment and its still the same song
That's not a composition. That's an arrangement.

Try again.

hahahaha jesus christ youre fucking retarded.

you completely missed my point.

a composition can have tons of different arrangements; all of the arrangements are still playing the same composition.

a composition can have tons of different recordings; all of the recordings are still playing the same composition.

the composition is not bound to the arrangements made of it or the recordings made of it.

it is separate. it is abstract.

are you still with me?

>are you still with me?
It's all irrelevant

The reason is because you can clearly define a song's composition by charting it out. It is expressible.

If you think compositions are abstract, I suggest you learn some music theory.

because its not about the note. its about the sound. a recording is sound. a recording is not notes. people are sampling a clip of sound because the sound adds to the art in some way, not the note.

>people are sampling a clip of sound because the sound adds to the art in some way, not the note.
Why not do it yourself? You don't *need* to sample it.

I love Girl Talk, All Day and Feed The Animals a fucking godsend on long road trips.
>worst fucking lazy plagarized shit i’ve ever heard.
It's fun music, it's not meant to be dissected and complex. It's just pure fun. I honestly don't know what's to hate about it, like it's a mashup not an original composition.

holy shit, talk about irrelevance. you dragged this into a philosophical debate over the meaning of the word "abstract."

do you even remember what this thread was about?

Some people just like sampling. There are people who even commission recordings to sample. They could just commission something more specific that would be identical to the end product but they don't.

you dont *need* to make art. no one *needs* to listen to music. no one *needs* to be happy.

its this autistic way of thinking that stifles culture and creativity.

>dat damage control
read: less creative

Yeah, plucking a string sure is more creative than arranging preexisting sounds to create something new.

>just heard a bit of All Day
Well, your right. I certainly did kinda like it. I guess my first impressions from Secret Diary just upset me to the point of refusing to give the rest of his work a chance.

>less creative

creativity isnt a quantifiable substance you intellectually stunted fuck. you cant pour a song into a test tube and measure how many ounces of creative juice it produces.

go back to poli sci class

Except you can do both, pluck a string and then rearrange it into something new

Stop being an idiot.

HA told you, some parts of it are absolute bangers. I haven't had the chance to play it at a party yet but I will as soon as I get the chance.

youtube.com/watch?v=i0yY0zxk-18&list=PLADB18753FE37E7DA&index=11

This is close to the end of All Day and is my favorite part.

Not correct. The amount of work put into a composition and it's production can be measured. If you are sampling someone else's drums, for example, you've already put less effort by skipping the process of learning to play drums, play the beat, tune the drums, mic the kit in an environment to get a good sound, and then record the drum part.

What's the difference between plucking the string yourself and using a recording of someone else plucking a string?

why is the idea of "can" so important to you? why does the fact that someone "can" do something immediately make doing it any other way irrelevant?

You didn't do it. Someone else did. You just took their performance (usually without permission). Less creative.
Why is the idea of "cannot" so important to you?
>make doing it any other way irrelevant?
What do you have against plucking strings?

A lot of artists just hire a session drummer and someone to go on tour with them so according to you an artist that writes their music but doesn't play all the instruments themselves is worth less than a one man band, which isn't that common.

see

youre acting as if people who sample are making rock songs out of rock samples, or symphonic pieces out of string samples. thats just not the point/intention of sampling whatsoever.

i feel like im talking to a robot.