TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- A serious discussion about sampling-
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What is a remix and how is it different from any other work of art?

While we're at it... what is "music", really?

quote:

Originally posted by david.michael No, I don't think it has to be a small part of a tune. What I was referring to is just taking an entire section of song and using it as an entire section of your own, essentially.

Ok, so this is your line. This is what I want to start to hear.

i got to get to class, but i'll be back tonight to respond because i like this topic

Also, I think it is possible to sample part of a song and use it in the "same way" in your track... I guess "conceptual stealing". Whereas perhaps you can sample part of a track and use it in a totally new and innovative way, which would be more acceptable to me.

Dunno. Hard to explain in text.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What is a remix and how is it different from any other work of art?

re�mix
tr.v. re�mixed, re�mix�ing, re�mix�es

To recombine (audio tracks or channels from a recording) to produce a new or modified audio recording.


As for your second question, it all depends on how you define "art", which is rather subjective.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller i got to get to class, but i'll be back tonight to respond because i like this topic

+1... leaving work now, I know this is going to explode into a million pages before I can respond further...

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations So each sample work should be reviewed in an individual basis?

I think that's probably the best approach.

For instance, hypothetically, I could read a thread about "X" tune on TA and perhaps come across something like this:

quote:

This tune uses a 45 second samples from this other tune.

It's a fact, there's no inflection of opinion in that statement. Now, if I read that and automatically dismiss the tune as not worth my time solely because I live by the rule "Samples over "X" seconds long shouldn't be used," I think it's fair to say I'm taking a very narrow view.

What if the tune uses a full sample but so drastically altered that it surpasses the original work in quality? I missed it because I had some general rule about how samples should be used.

Perhaps it's a convoluted explanation, but I think it's probably best not to generalize about sample use, but rather to take them on an individual basis and discuss why it is we think that use is particularly bad or good.

quote:

Originally posted by Floorfiller i got to get to class, but i'll be back tonight to respond because i like this topic

It's a bit of an experiment I'm going to use for one of my courses. My course deals with Reproductive Media and Contemporary Art and the ramifications of digital technologies and our ability to reproduce on our culture.

I have chose to focus my interests around this topic of discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by TOR re�mix tr.v. re�mixed, re�mix�ing, re�mix�es To recombine (audio tracks or channels from a recording) to produce a new or modified audio recording. As for your second question, it all depends on how you define "art", which is rather subjective.

What I'm asking is a remix a work of art that can stand on it's own or is it dependent on the 'original mix'? Essentially it's (usually) never presented with the original- so this could create problems.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What about that drummer in the 70's who recorded that kick? What about owner of that song it was in? Should these people be cut out of the loop completely?

That was just a tongue-in-cheek response m8! Nothing serious

And to answer your question, in a perfect world, everyone would be compensated fairly - But to define fair compensation for a single beat of music is in my eyes a legal "grey area." I'm inclined to say that for a single kick beat there is no substantial claim to royalties from the artist who played it, because honestly it more than likely appears on countless records. The people who own the record on may have more of a claim to royalties, but proving that a single kick came from their tune and in no way could have come from any other recording would be one hell of an uphill legal battle that I doubt would be worthwhile.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I think that's probably the best approach. For instance, hypothetically, I could read a thread about "X" tune on TA and perhaps come across something like this: It's a fact, there's no inflection of opinion in that statement. Now, if I read that and automatically dismiss the tune as not worth my time solely because I live by the rule "Samples over "X" seconds long shouldn't be used," I think it's fair to say I'm taking a very narrow view. What if the tune uses a full sample but so drastically altered that it surpasses the original work in quality? I missed it because I had some general rule about how samples should be used. Perhaps it's a convoluted explanation, but I think it's probably best not to generalize about sample use, but rather to take them on an individual basis and discuss why it is we think that use is particularly bad or good.

Is this a practical solution? There are 6 billion people in the world, even if %.01 were sampling and needed their works [approved] that's still a ridiculous amount of people.

Does out whole system of copyright need to be reworked? Is something like the "Creative Commons" the way of the future?

http://creativecommons.org/

(Essentially I agree with you, I'm just trying to move the discussion forward-)

quote:

Originally posted by RJT That was just a tongue-in-cheek response m8! Nothing serious And to answer your question, in a perfect world, everyone would be compensated fairly - But to define fair compensation for a single beat of music is in my eyes a legal "grey area." I'm inclined to say that for a single kick beat there is no substantial claim to royalties from the artist who played it, because honestly it more than likely appears on countless records. The people who own the record on may have more of a claim to royalties, but proving that a single kick came from their tune and in no way could have come from any other recording would be one hell of an uphill legal battle that I doubt would be worthwhile.

Well then what about this particular issue in an ethical/artistic context? Should the artist feel obligated to clear that sample? Is he allowed to make money off it?

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Is this a practical solution? There are 6 billion people in the world, even if %.01 were sampling and needed their works [approved] that's still a ridiculous amount of people.

Probably not, but I don't see a better one that will allow for complete artistic freedom. It may be a bummer to those will never see compensation for samples used, but I think it's the way it has to be in order to allow people the creative freedom to move forward with whichever musical endeavors they choose.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Does out whole system of copyright need to be reworked? Is something like the "Creative Commons" the way of the future? http://creativecommons.org/ (Essentially I agree with you, I'm just trying to move forth the discussion-)

CC looks like a neat site, I need to learn more about it to comment.

Copyright law in general is something I don't have too much knowledge on - So my attempt at additions on the subject would pretty much be futile.

This thread is a little confusing imo. Is the question if we like sampling or not, or is the question if we think IP is legitimate or not. There is a discussion about opinions and taste regarding sampling but then words like STEAL appear, now that's a totally different thing.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT - So my attempt at additions on the subject would pretty much be futile.

Actually incorrect- if anything you have a much different view on how things should be vs how they are. Copyright was created for artists, and is now used to exploit artists in many ways.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC This thread is a little confusing imo. Is the question if we like sampling or not, or is the question if we think IP is legitimate or not. There is a discussion about opinions and taste regarding sampling but then words like STEAL appear, now that's a totally different thing.

I am trying to get people to think money and art at the same time- it's very difficult to do and usually unsuccessful, but in my opinion, they are both directly related to each other and can't be separated.

There is no right or wrong answer, I just want ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations What I'm asking is a remix a work of art that can stand on it's own or is it dependent on the 'original mix'? Essentially it's (usually) never presented with the original- so this could create problems.

I guess the most famous example is Tiesto's version of Adagio For Strings. Even though he gave the track his own sound, it wouldn't exist without the original. In a case like that, the producer shouldn't get full credit as the track was not entirely created by himself.

Legally, there was no issue though, as the harmony was used with the original writer's consent.

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations Actually incorrect- if anything you have a much different view on how things should be vs how they are. Copyright was created for artists, and is now used to exploit artists in many ways.

I just don't understand really how U.S. or International Copyright Law works. What I do see is a lot of fighting over tunes being used for advertising, a lot of angry people who sold rights to their tunes wanting them back after time (**cough** the beatles **cough cough**), and just a whole lot of negativity regarding artists essentially losing the rights to their works and then being upset over how they're used, which can be due to everything from fundraising to shit initial record contracts.

Again, it's a complicated issue that probably has to be taken on in a subjective context, but in general I think I'm an idealist trapped in a philosophically minded body.

I want all artists to get the compensation they deserve, but I don't want them to abuse the right to compensation by staking claims on samples whose origins are, at best, questionable. If artists can prove they created an intellectual property first, they have every right to be compensated for their work. I am, however, uncertain as to whether I think intellectual property rights should be able to be sold. Essentially, if you created it, I think it should be yours forever; But this of course raises all sorts of other issues.

This is really a great thread Greg, I hope my ramblings are in some way meaningful.

quote:

Originally posted by TOR I guess the most famous example is Tiesto's version of Adagio For Strings. Even though he gave the track his own sound, it wouldn't exist without the original. In a case like that, the producer shouldn't get full credit as the track was not entirely created by himself. Legally, there was no issue though, as the harmony was used with the original writer's consent.

So do you tbhink Tiesto's work stands alone? We could debate about him for ages regarding his actual involvement with the making of it and whether or not it's actually any 'good'...

Also, keep in mind many of the worlds 'greats' like shakespear for example took ideas for their work from all sort of different places...

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations I am trying to get people to think money and art at the same time- it's very difficult to do and usually unsuccessful, but in my opinion, they are both directly related to each other and can't be separated. There is no right or wrong answer, I just want ideas.

Ok. My personal opinion is that i don't mind sampling at all. If it sounds good it's good, if it sounds bad i don't have to listen to it.

My ethical view is that IP is illegitamate. And that doesn't mean that i don't think money and art at the same time, on the contrary it means i say anyone should be free to sell whatever is an output of his (tangible) property and labour.

quote:

Originally posted by RJT I just don't understand really how U.S. or International Copyright Law works.

Who does? It's one of the most problematic things for an artist!

quote:

What I do see is a lot of fighting over tunes being used for advertising, a lot of angry people who sold rights to their tunes wanting them back after time (**cough** the beatles **cough cough**), and just a whole lot of negativity regarding artists essentially losing the rights to their works and then being upset over how they're used, which can be due to everything from fundraising to shit initial record contracts.

I think an artist has a right to do this, at least for the 50 years (I think) that they are entitled to the copyright- it;s the corporations who never die who are able to keep copyrights to things- otherwise everything would be public domain after something like 50 years.

quote:

Again, it's a complicated issue that probably has to be taken on in a subjective context, but in general I think I'm an idealist trapped in a philosophically minded body. I want all artists to get the compensation they deserve, but I don't want them to abuse the right to compensation by staking claims on samples whose origins are, at best, questionable. If artists can prove they created an intellectual property first, they have every right to be compensated for their work. I am, however, uncertain as to whether I think intellectual property rights should be able to be sold. Essentially, if you created it, I think it should be yours forever; But this of course raises all sorts of other issues.

How do you prove they create IP?

quote:

This is really a great thread Greg, I hope my ramblings are in some way meaningful.

Cheers, and yes they are.

quote:

Originally posted by SMC Ok. My personal opinion is that i don't mind sampling at all. If it sounds good it's good, if it sounds bad i don't have to listen to it. My ethical view is that IP is illegitamate. And that doesn't mean that i don't think money and art at the same time, on the contrary it means i say anyone should be free to sell whatever is an output of his (tangible) property and labour.

Is digital information tangible?

What if a work sampling another work is heralded by the public audience, and completely hated by the owner of the copyright - take Danger Mouse - Grey Album for example- this ia very imprtant work which deals with copyright and sampling issues. Many will agree this is a legitimate work of art, yet the label who owned the a lot of the material (I think it was the beatles stuff and it may have been capitol, i forget) wouldn't fought against it's release- How is this copyright benifiting artists?

He used almost exlusively JayZ and Beatles material to put together the grey album (maybe completely exclusive), yet still made something arguable artistic and exciting-

quote:

Originally posted by Allied Nations How do you prove they create IP?

Just like Plato's defintion of "knowledge," the ability to prove the creation of an IP, or rather, the debate regarding whether or not this is even possible to prove, will more than likely be a mystery that I'll puzzle over forever.

My gut feeling says that in the strictest sense, it's impossible - Though this raises all sorts of question about the idea of proving "innovation" or "pioneering" something new. I think we can arguably point to people who have clearly done "new" things in our eyes, how do we prove that they were beyond a shadow of a doubt the first to do so?

Gah - So many questions leading to so few answers!

"Good artists copy, great artists steal."

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Just like Plato's defintion of "knowledge," the ability to prove the creation of an IP, or rather, the debate regarding whether or not this is even possible to prove, will more than likely be a mystery that I'll puzzle over forever. My gut feeling says that in the strictest sense, it's impossible - Though this raises all sorts of question about the idea of proving "innovation" or "pioneering" something new. I think we can arguably point to people who have clearly done "new" things in our eyes, how do we prove that they were beyond a shadow of a doubt the first to do so? Gah - So many questions leading to so few answers!

"But the distinction between creation and discovery is not clearcut or rigorous. Nor is it clear why such a distinction, even if clear, is ethically relevant in defining property rights. No one creates matter; they just manipulate and grapple with it according to physical laws. In this sense, no one really creates anything. They merely rearrange matter into new arrangements and patterns. An engineer who invents a new mousetrap has rearranged existing parts to provide a function not previously performed. Others who learn of this new arrangement can now also make an improved mousetrap. Yet the mousetrap merely follows laws of nature. The inventor did not invent the matter out of which the mousetrap is made, nor the facts and laws exploited to make it work. Similarly, Einstein�s �discovery� of the relation E=mc2, once known by others, allows them to manipulate matter in a more efficient way. Without Einstein�s, or the inventor�s, efforts, others would have been ignorant of certain causal laws, of ways matter can be manipulated and utilized. Both the inventor and the theoretical scientist engage in creative mental effort to produce useful, new ideas. Yet one is rewarded, and the other is not. In one recent case, the inventor of a new way to calculate a number representing the shortest path between two points�an extremely useful technique�was not given patent protection because this was �merely� a mathematical algorithm. But it is arbitrary and unfair to reward more practical inventors and entertainment providers, such as the engineer and songwriter, and to leave more theoretical science and math researchers and philosophers unrewarded. The distinction is inherently vague, arbitrary, and unjust."

from Stephan Kinsella's "Against Intellectual Property"
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.