stealing with style
Yeah, but it can sound cool as fuck when done right.
nope, just like taking a picture of a statue or a work of art isn't stealing
>>55470049
lol why, i haven't said anything racist!?
>in this thread
Don't kid yourself, all music creation is stealing in some shape, some more subtle than others.
Sampling can be used in extremely creative ways to the point where you can barely recognize that it was ever sampled at all, or lazily so you start to ask yourself which version it is.
But no, sampling as a method isn't necessarily stealing
>>55470063
tediously reductionist way to look at it
for that analogy to make sense they would have to "take a picture" then segment it, taking only a part of it, and through a process of repetition collage and combination with other elements, turn it into something completely different
>>55470066
Racists should be exterminated. Non-racists are the master race.
>>55470021
is buying ingredients from the market and making a meal considered cheating?
>>55470136
i like that analogy.
Sampling is good when the composition is radically different from the various samples it uses.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2R5Vu1kpSdc
In contrast, sampling is bad when you take like one or two samples and do almost fuck all with it.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVlnigrbHAw
>>55470112
>I'M INTOLERANT OF INTOLERANCE
Liberals are a fucking joke.
>>55470206
actually the post you responded to was literally a joke
but don't let that stop you from ranting about LIBRULS!!1!
>>55470206
Not a very funny one
>>55470206
i tolerate your intolerance of liberals.
>>55470194
good examples, i hate that kanye can be so lazy sometimes.
Not of you have permission from the artist who your sampling from.
>>55470194
Sometimes thats all you need
Thats the part about sampling that most people don't get. You dont always need to go crazy with your samples all the time, sometimes a loop is all you need
>>55470194
>sampling is bad when you take like one or two samples and do almost fuck all with it
madlib and party supplies and a shitload of other producers would like a word with you
>>55470021
hahahahahahah no
people have been making songs out of bits of other songs since the fucking dawn of mankind
this is the whole foundation of the tradition of music, and of how we create anything fictional in the first place.
this only became defined as "stealing" when the music industry was established in the first half of the 20th century and needed to make money by copyrighting peoples' songs.
>>55470021
Google 'dub' or 'Musique Concrete'
>>55470194
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_Eqz_Vc1VQ
how are you gonna shit on this beat?
>>55470259
ah so what you're saying it's the powers that b (that's the yams!!) are the ones that are stealing from the artists that are sampling?
>>55470206
there are only two things i hate; people who are intolerant of other people's nationalities, and the dutch.
Is downloading a car stealing?
Depends on:
1. whether you give credit to the original artist and pay the rights or not
2. whether the sample is recognizable as a sample or not
3. whether it's used in a creative way, sounding different in context than in the original, or not
4. how much of your track is based on the sample.
(Am I forgetting something?)
Les Sculpteurs de Vinyl or Endtroducing are perfectly okay.
Disco edits can be as close to stealing as you can get — though I don't think that many listeners are fooled.
Daft Punk do credit their sources in the liner notes and pay rights, but they're really trying to pass up other people's work as their own: some of their tracks owe almost everything to the original sources, but Daft Punk remove the vocals and substitute their own, so I suspect that most listeners just don't know about it.
>>55470136
This analogy works perfectly for works like Endtroducing or Since I Left You, but sometimes it's really closer to a cook buying a ready-made meal from chain distributors, heating it up, adding a sprig of parsley on the side and presenting it as something they've cooked themselves.
>>55470376
i agree with crediting the artist but paying the rights is some weenieboy music industry lawyer bulllshit
>>55470417
This, motherfuckers are broke in 2015, do you know how many people you'd have to pay if you sampled the Beastie Boys, for example? You'd have to pay The Beastie Boys, one, the 5 or 6 people they sampled in the song you sampled, and whatever coked up middlemen happened to be inbetween.
>>55470354
WOAH. Talk about stealing, you dip! That image was MINE. I DOWNLOADED IT. Put it back.
>>55470246
That's why songs (and Mix-tapes) get released for free. It's only if you're releasing it commercially/for profit that you need to ask and get the sample cleared.
>>55470512
I wish that were true anon, but...
http://www.post-gazette.com/ae/music/2015/03/19/Band-from-the-70s-is-suing-Pittsburgh-rapper-Mac-Miller/stories/201503190200
>>55470559
WTF? Why would they care if its released for free?
>>55470559
Don't do this to me, Anon.
>>55470586
Because they were an old funk band that didn't make it and they are (probably) trying to cash in.
>>55470472
>>55470417
I think there should be a tolerance depending on how much you're using and how.
If you're just using a two-second sample once or twice in your track, then yeah, you should get away with it.
But if Kanye West didn't pay for the rights to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6mGHwHMB5s when he made Bound 2, then it's just wrong because it's the original band's work that makes up almost the entire track.
If there's no regulation at all, then there would be nothing preventing a well-known artist from just digging out an old hidden gem, not modifying it at all and "rebranding" it as their own, essentially taking the money from someone else's work.
>>55470635
I agree with you, blatant stealing should be punished. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OebqNsNRBtU This is what started off the whole "you must pay for samples thing" because it's not really different from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ELnhjGw4Zs
This shit is confusing. What is good sampling etiquette, then?
I just wanna have fun, make tune with sample(s) and upload to Soundcloud, I don't wanna get sued.
>>55470635
so just make crediting the samples mandatory, then nothing is getting "rebranded". also
>essentially taking the money from someone else's work
bullshit, i dont listen to elton john but i like this song >>55470296 . that song existing on a free mixtape isn't stopping me from giving money to elton john because i wouldn't be doing that either way. it's such a bullshit notion that the profits from the track with the sample are cutting into the sampled song's profits
>>55470635
Two-seconds seems kinda draconian to me. 6-7 doesn't seem bad.
I think longer is OK, as long as you change it.
>>55470791
>as long as you change it
how can you not change it? nobody has ever just released somebody else's song unaltered
>>55470633
That means if you wanna sample it has to be from Well-known artists?
Nah, son.
>>55470021
No
>>55470744
Don't think too highly of yourself, you're not gonna get sued for sampling and putting it on soundcloud, even on a much larger platform like youtube where people literally upload the entire songs/albums without permissions and in some cases make ad dollars from it, there's no one getting sued, worst case you get contacted and they ask you to remove it.
And no one is going to care about your soundcloud songs unless you're releasing albums and touring the world and getting press
No, making a transformative work is not stealing.
>>55470837
It sounded like Anon was implying any sample over two secs was straight up lifting.
>>55470896
but you're putting a vocal track and probably at least a couple of drum hits or other sounds on it, it's not just releasing somebody's song and calling it your own
>>55470872
This is what I though, but
>>55470559
>>55470851
this anon >>55470872 summed it up for me.
Mac Miller has a 10 Million Dollar net worth, and has been sued more than once, so he is an easy target
>>55470921
Mac Miller has over 5.2 million likes on facebook, that's an whole other league, you're talking about being an unknown soundcloud producer, but sure, if you're planning on getting to that level, be careful
Look we are sampling each other here in this thread.
>>55470110
>take a picture, then segment it, taking only a part of it, and through a process of repetition collage and combination with other elements, turn it into something completely different
fuck that makes sampling seem much more impressive, and i already think its impressive
>>55470990
Yeah dude, I take pictures of pictures all the time and add silly shit to make it my own.
>>55470791
>>55470896
>Two-seconds seems kinda draconian to me.
I just said "two-second" as an example, I'm not sure where you should draw the line.
And it's not just a matter of duration either — you can make an entire original album based on a single, heavily transformed sample. Deciding what's fair and what's not isn't easy.
Good sampling is like a puzzle you have to solve by buying 100s of puzzles just to find the right pieces, and even then you have to modify the pieces to fit perfectly with each other
This video is pretty interesting if you're a fan of the avalanches, shows some of the samples in since I left you, I think it's absolutely genius that they would hear all those small segments from completely different songs, re pitch, re tempo and fit them together into something new
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zehvICx-Rsg
>>55471072
>Deciding what's fair and what's not isn't easy.
it is if you realize how absurd it is to call something "unfair"
>>55470063
it is when you try to sell those pictures
>>55470021
Yes it's theft, plain and simple
If you wanna use someones music, you gotta pay for it.
>>55470063
>just like taking a picture of a statue or a work of art isn't stealing
Yeah but you can't sell those picture without the rights to do so you dumbass
>>55471166
i hope that one day, people will have to pay every time they "sample" a song into their ears.
EVERYONE SHOULD PAY FOR EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME!
>>55470110
>for that analogy to make sense they would have to "take a picture" then segment it, taking only a part of it, and through a process of repetition collage and combination with other elements, turn it into something completely different
Not all sampling uses repetitions, collages, combinations etc. Take The Caretaker for instance: it's just old, worn vinyl records being played, with very little modification at all.
By the way, here's an example of a legal dispute between Patrick Cariou (who took the original picture, left) and Robert Prince (a much more well-known artist who just used his pics and modified them without Cariou's authorization, right). I do think that Prince's work is original, but Cariou should get some credit.
>>55470872
Question. What if an Anon had a Soundcloud/online account whatever, used samples in their work, and they grew a very large following. What then?
>>55470063
>taking a picture of a statue or a work of art isn't stealing
This is horseshit. I'm a photographer and even on fashion shoots etc you have to get owner signed paperwork if there's a building, house, car or anything owned by someone in the photo behind the model, otherwise you could get sued for selling it.
>>55471219
You'd probably come under some scrutiny, maybe asked to have the work taken down, SC could take it down (as they do have a copyright infringement disclaimer)
You may or not get sued, probably depending on how much money you have.
>>55471108
What's your argument?
Is this thread making anyone self scared to sample?
>>55471260
Doesn't that depend how you sample, though? Like how much unaltered material you take?
>>55471450
HELL NAW NIGGA, IMMA DO IT ANYWAY.
>>55471009
>implying that what you said is what he said
>rap song samples older rap song that sampled electronic song that sampled original song
>>55471484
I don't really know to be honest, because there are varying factors and statutes set by law on how much you can sample. And depending on who goes after you (lawyers, publishers, label people, the artist themselves), or if you even show up on their radar.
Me personally, I sample without a care how the artist feels, because I use in a way that's different from how the original is. It's key to be original.
Yes, sampling is stealing, for one definition of stealing at least.
You take something that belongs to someone else and make it your own.
>>55470559
>Mac Miller
Nothing important here
>>55471599
It really depends on how original your creation is, and if you are making money on the track. Sampling one drum from an old song would probably go unnoticed unless you're very popular
>>55471685
Yuh, I realize Mac Miller is kinda wack, but it's the money that's the issue here. Have you even heard of Aquarian Dream, the group that he sampled? They are trying to get money from him for a song he made and released for free.
I also feel like pic related is also important in this context (I know, normie Pharell bullshit.) because, me personally, I don't hear the similarities between Blurred Lines and Got to Give it Up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ziz9HW2ZmmY
Here's a comparison.
>>55471845
You're not the only one.
>>55470021
bad musicians copy, good musicians steal
i think the robin thicke case is shitty. they're clearly influenced by gaye, but not ripping him off. pretty soon, anyone to use noisy guitars will have to pay all their shekels to the velvet underground rights holders.
i think they just ruled against thicke because he's so unlikable. i bet if it was a different artist, it might not have gone the way it did.
So, how does Pludertonics work, then?
>>55472307
Mades me wonder where the legal line between theft and inspiration is.
>>55472308
By releasing your shit independently because you label will want to carry you and getting sued to hell and back.
>>55471845
There have been songs that are MUCH more similar, practical rips, without lawsuits coming to them. Think of that typical rock and roll chord sequence and how many artists aped that. Personally I think the family is just wanting money, I doubt as a musician Marvin would want this lawsuit happening, because it barely if at all sounds like that sound besides the instruments used. As for Mac, that's just fucking stupid, and those musicians are greedy bastards.
LOOK AT THESE FUCKING PLAGIARISTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAI4-9yc6kA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAuqxEMRapg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvKTPDg0IW0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyw3knBuLRk
>>55472335
I think the Gaye family's lawyers argued that Pharell and Thicke were stealing a "vibe" or some shit like that, so the line is apparently extremely thin - especially if the artist you're inspired by is litigious
i invented the I IV V. where's my money??
If the artist is ok with it, it goes from stealing to charity, I feel. It's nice.
I do feel like artists who sample are worse than artists who don't, though.
>>55472307
>i think they just ruled against thicke because he's so unlikable
Thicke did sue first though, which makes it worse , because he's already such a piece of shit.
>>55472308
I wouldn't even try to get on a label to try to sell it, because who would really want to invest in an artist who's just a lawsuit waiting to happen.
>>55472535
>Thicke did sue first though
huh?
>>55470021
Is collage stealing?
Off course, if you don't like collages, or somebody is mediocre at making them, thats another story: it isn't stealing even if it's shit.
>>55472590
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/robin-thicke-sues-protect-blurred-607492
It was also on pitchfork.
Not stealing
If you take a sample an edit, make something different out of it, then it's not really stealing. I mean people list sampling as an instrument now so
Take a look at this example, a song edited differently and sounds totally different from the source material
http://youtube.com/watch?v=si1llfNXsI0
