>artists samples another track
>pleb accuses them of "stealing"
>mfw
>>63910962
Wow you're so enlightened
>>63910962
Did they credit the orignal artist?
If not, it's stealing.
>>63910993
Hey there! Welcome to 4chan!
Sampling parts of other songs may not be considered stealing, but I think most people would agree that it's easier than actually being inventive. The gap in effort or talent is obvious because the sample is usually the catchy or interesting part of the track.
It's also frustrating when plebs only know about good music because it was sampled
a lot of people steal progressions and shit from other songs so I don't think samplings a big deal
I think they should at least credit the artist they sample though
Sometimes it IS stealing you fucking idiot
Case in point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3AKrwna2C8
>>63912117
Yeah they turned some disco crap into a world recognised song. So what.
You haven't touched an instrument in your life, OP.
>>63910962
Excessive sampling is stealing
There's a difference between taking a detail from one song and composing a new song from it and simply copying and pasting an already successful and well-known song and adding nothing interesting to it
This is a big problem in hip hop music and it's one of the reasons it totally bores me. If you can't compose your own melodies (which you're basing your entire song around!) then maybe you shouldn't be making music
>>63910962
>>63912117
almost as blatant as this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsO6ZnUZI0g
from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDpmVUEjagg
>>63911822
Depends on how it's used.
If it sounds good who cares, and if they give the original artist some credit even better.
>>63912252
So what do guys think about artists like Saint Pepsi/Skylar Spence?
>>63912382
It's mostly uninteresting music that is appreciated more for the image and thought behind it than the actual content
>artist is afraid of things he doesn't understand
>thinks someone is copying his style when he's just doing it better and his style wasn't even his to begin with
>>63912254
I think with the Lou Reed thing where he let someone use his sample but they couldn't ever get a penny from it or something was pretty stingy of Lou if that was the case,
then on the other hand there was this video artist who had an idea, which he said was used by loads of people , really big, and he got nowt from it
that sucks, you'd help them out wouldn't you or pay them a credit?
but they didn't,
what they should have done is said "we like what you've done, we're gonna use it and we'll pay you the consultancy" - all that dude's sweat, made them a tun and he's no-where.
like, I had this art idea but I couldn't do it as it would mean profiting off other's backs and I couldn't get permission, so it's a no-go I can't do it and shouldn't or it's theft by me if I can't compensate the originator.
>>63912445
Also the fact that they "stole his style" in only one song, and it wasn't even that similar anyway
>>63912445
Can someone explain what anon means?
Nah
did you post this thread to check I was here?
>>63913268
Who's this?
