TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Wolf + Lamb Podcast
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by Max Thomson you guys are a little late to jump on the soul clap bandwagon,

Jumping on the bandwagon? The only thing that changed for me was that I saw them play.

quote:

being from Boston I've been listening to their stuff and going to their parties since I was 16, so I think I've got a right to say what I want about them. And let me assure you, as nice of guys as they are and as great of djs as they are, they are far from the funkiest thing in dance music right now.

Then who has more funk?

quote:

I'm not exactly speaking out of turn here when I say that Soul Clap, more specifically W+L did not have the rights to do what they did with that Stevie Wonder track and all those other edits. Like I said, I'm all for bootlegging/remixing/whatever but when you blatantly rip off a key component of a famous track then pass it off as your own, you deserve to be sued in my book. There's a big difference between calling the track Stevie Wonder - Love Light in Flight (Soul Clap Edit) and Soul Clap - Love Light.

Thats because if you call it Stevie Wonder it can no longer go under the radar as it has.

quote:

Just think about it, how many 16 year old kids are going to come along to beatport, having never heard of Stevie Wonder, and think Soul Clap and W+L did that shit all on their own? Not fucking cool. And again, there's a big difference between making an edit like that and releasing a couple hundred white labels vs. releasing it digitally and stamping your name on it, providing no credit to the original artist.

I'm sorry but that handful of 16 year old morons who have never heard of stevie don't really matter, most people will buy the edit BECAUSE it is an edit of stevie wonder and because they love the new take on the original. And how exactly do you release a white label in the digital age? You use a pseudonym or your artist name as people have been doing on beatport for a while now.

quote:

As someone else pointed out, the rights were not secured for the release, plain and simple. If you understand copyright law, its not difficult to appreciate the far reaching legal implications of stealing something like that. I've got a degree in music business and have taken many classes on copyright law and find this kind of thing far more shameful than pirating a 10 year old tiesto track on kazaa.

I don't. It's a fine line, because while I agree the samples they used are quite blatant and obvious, the tracks are still original productions. The MGMT samples in the Hot Natured release were not cleared either. I doubt Chris Isaac's sample was cleared in Jichael Mackson - Grass Is Always Greener. There are tons of dance music tracks, some really great ones too, that contain uncleared samples from famous songs. Often times, for niche within a niche genres that we enjoy it just doesn't make sense monetarily or practically to go through the process of clearing samples. It would end up just killing the tracks all together.
It's fine for you to disagree, and I wish the process was easier so that more samples could get cleared, but as it stands there are two choices: 1. let all this great music never go anywhere because clearing the samples would be tedious, expensive and sometimes just impossible, or 2. Release the stuff under the radar with the knowledge that your sales and audience are so small anyway it is highly unlikely anyone will care. Thats what Wolf + Lamb are doing. They decided to take the risk.

Also really, if you think they're making some huge profit off of these releases, fuck man I don't know what to tell you. Beatport sales are not putting food on the table for most artists or keeping labels afloat these days. Even if they were sued for the samples, the profits are so miniscule that it would be of little benefit to anyone, and in all likelihood if any repercussions did come about it would probably just be a cease and desist from the rights holders.

quote:

Originally posted by Sadface For sure. Its not that big of a deal but I still disagree with it in principle. Bas, if you're going to tell us to stfu, maybe you could summarize what the law actually says, or at least shoot us a link? I have no idea where to look up "sample stealing" laws.

No.

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks this is not an official website so i'll keep looking.... http://www.music-law.com/sampling.html basically says you need permission to do what w+l are doing.

Real credible source there

quote:

Originally posted by Max Thomson true, people want them, but that doesn't make it any less illegal. If they were so passionate about releasing it digitally they should've secured the rights rather than just put it out and assumed that they won't get caught (dangeorus assumption IMO). just look at dj shadow, he chops his samples to hell and still goes to the ends of the earth to clear them. its about giving credit where credits due, not capitalizing on the latest trend so you can cater to your audience. again, if it was a white label vinyl limited release then whatever but stamping your name on something that isnt yours then putting it out there for mass consumption is wrong and illegal. I have a hard time seeing how anyone can argue with that.

What trend are they capitalizing on? lol

You seem awfully bitter about guys you grew up on.


DJ Shadow is going to sell albums at virgin megastore. He plays at massive festivals all over the world, yeah he has a slightly bigger prerogative to clear his samples.

quote:

Originally posted by epdarks apples to oranges maybe... in my mind, releasing music for profit is worse than simply downloading music illegally. not only are you not giving $ to the original artist, you are making $ on their work. people begged for the tracks to be released, gimme a break man... that makes it ok? i guess when you start producing i will blantly rip off your music and release it FOR PROFIT, b/c i can???

They're not selling stevie wonder albums on some russian mp3 site you moron. These are original productions which heavily sample and rearrange the original. There is a difference.

If we went by your rules 90% of good hip hop would have never been available. Fuck that.

This is like a reverse troll thread.

Amazing what TA has come to these days.

quote:

Originally posted by bas Real credible source there

... and yet it somehow manages to be infinitely more credible than anything you've come up with.

quote:

Originally posted by Sadface ... and yet it somehow manages to be infinitely more credible than anything you've come up with.

They sampled all that text and didn't even give credit. Hypocrites!

quote:

Originally posted by Sadface ... and yet it somehow manages to be infinitely more credible than anything you've come up with.

Did you actually read the text there?

According to them even .5 seconds of "sampled" material is illegal. Do you realize how much music that wipes out right there?


This has been and always will be a massive grey area in the music business.

Fucking hell Max, just let it go. Don't know why you care so much, really.

Clovis, are you sure the MGMT samples weren't cleared? I could be wrong, but I think they mentioned on the label showcase podcast that the MGMT guys lived next door or on the same street as them and they had no problem with it. Sure, it wasn't a formal clearing per se, but at least there was some sort of verbal agreement that they were cool with the whole thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis Did you actually read the text there? According to them even .5 seconds of "sampled" material is illegal. Do you realize how much music that wipes out right there? This has been and always will be a massive grey area in the music business.

I didn't, I'm at work and figured it could wait until later, but now I guess I won't bother. I still don't know what the deal is besides it being a "gray area," which seems pretty ridiculous for a billion dollar industry to have such a glaring ambiguity, but thats life I guess.

Either way, if I were to pull together the info just from this thread, it would seem that sampling without credit (length of sample undetermined) is in fact illegal, but the vast majority of the time nobody gives a fuck. Close enough?

quote:

Originally posted by Sadface I didn't, I'm at work and figured it could wait until later, but now I guess I won't bother. I still don't know what the deal is besides it being a "gray area," which seems pretty ridiculous for a billion dollar industry to have such a glaring ambiguity, but thats life I guess. Either way, if I were to pull together the info just from this thread, it would seem that sampling without credit (length of sample undetermined) is in fact illegal, but the vast majority of the time nobody gives a fuck. Close enough?

Close enough, and you touched on the one thing that does matter. $$$

In a billion dollar industry, wolf + lamb releasing some edits in underground dance music avenues register almost nothing on the radar. Neither do most other dance music tracks that we like. Nor have white label vinyls for years and years. That is the point here.

People can get their panties in a bunch over technical legality or they can look at the reality of the situation and take it for what it is.

quote:

Originally posted by woscar Fucking hell Max, just let it go. Don't know why you care so much, really. Clovis, are you sure the MGMT samples weren't cleared? I could be wrong, but I think they mentioned on the label showcase podcast that the MGMT guys lived next door or on the same street as them and they had no problem with it. Sure, it wasn't a formal clearing per se, but at least there was some sort of verbal agreement that they were cool with the whole thing.

I'm not sure, no, but as far as I know they were not.

woah woah woah guys sorry if I am coming off as bitter or stuck on a point here, I'm just trying to point out the legal difficulties in doing what W+L are doing and want to respectfully present my position. no need to get all huffy here, I have the utmost respect for you guys (clovis, woscar, bas) regardless of your position on this issue.

I agree beatport sales do not really take a huge chunk out the original artist's revenues, and making a cheeky edit and releasing it for $2.49 isn't nearly as damaging as pirating an entire label's discography, but I still think that most DJs and producers who have been around for some time will agree that doing a re-edit for private use is one thing, and doing a re-edit then calling it your own and releasing it for public consumption is another. I think my main problem with it is the labelling, If its a re-edit, call it a fucking re-edit! if its a bootleg, call it a fucking bootleg. You didn't produce the vocal, so why slap your name on the artist field and pretend you did? No ones gonna buy the track if its just got your cheeky drum loops and synth work, the vocal gives the edit its value.

Bottom line is if you're the original artist of a production, the samples should be unrecognizably fucked with and/or copyright free, otherwise its a remix!

quote:

Originally posted by Max Thomson Bottom line is if you're the original artist of a production, the samples should be unrecognizably fucked with and/or copyright free, otherwise its a remix!

I'm glad a lot of people don't agree because half of my music collection would likely be gone.

ok i could've phrased that better, we're not talking a couple little snippets or a sample or two here and there, we're talking the entire vocal...

Max, they're not "calling it their own" because they want to steal any credit. Pretty much ALL bootlegs/edits are sold this way in order for them to stay below the radar as Clovis mentioned.

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis This has been and always will be a massive grey area in the music business.

It isn't a grey area at all. Sampling without paying royalties is illegal, black and white. There are two main reasons why so many uncleared samples escape:

1. The sampled artist/label simply doesn't realise it's happened.
2. The sampler often isn't rich enough to be worth sueing.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It isn't a grey area at all. Sampling without paying royalties is illegal, black and white.

It might not be, on paper, in a court of law, but it is in reality. Both because of:

quote:

There are two main reasons why so many uncleared samples escape: 1. The sampled artist/label simply doesn't realise it's happened. 2. The sampler often isn't rich enough to be worth sueing.

...and because defining a "sample" can be very difficult. Musically, the area is very gray. The decision on where to draw the line is up for debate. I think thats a good thing.

Who cares...

quote:

Originally posted by Clovis ...and because defining a "sample" can be very difficult. Musically, the area is very gray. The decision on where to draw the line is up for debate. I think thats a good thing.

Defining a sample is very easy. It's the use of an existing sound recording with a verifiable copyright in a piece of music. Things like plagiarism are much harder to argue, but what defines a sample is very cut and dried. And in a business sense, sampling without royalties is illegal.

Basically, these days you can release a free MP3 of a remix at absolutely no charge. It's even easier than pressing a white label. If Wolf + Lamb really just made these edits for personal use and really just release them because people want them, they can effortlessly do it for free. This "under the radar" argument is utter bullshit.

They're charging for these tracks because they want to make money without paying Stevie Wonder what he's owed. Very simple.

I still don't get why people seem to think they make any kind of money off of these or any of their other releases.

It's generally assumed that when someone sells a product for a given monetary value, they are in fact making some kind of money from that transaction. Crazy, I know.

By that I mean any substantial amount of money. Too say their sole purpose in releasing these is to make money is ridiculous.

Define substantial in non-arbitrary terms and then provide evidence beyond conjecture and assumption to show W+L aren't making that amount of money.

Its pretty much common knowledge that producers don't make much for selling music nowdays, especially considering niche within a niche genres like this.

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