UPDATE - I HAVE THE DATE ON THIS POSTED FOR WEDNESDAY - NEW POSTS FOLLOW BELOW...
got 18 minutes? and speakers?
enjoy music? like thinking about usage, copyright and sampling?
well, i'm posting this video mainly for woody. so, you had better watch it.
it's about the "amen break."
8 comments:
well done, lad. it is so good to see this important info laid down in this kind of way. props to the author of the video, ahh i mean big up!
This should have been a weekday post man. I think you should move it up and try in instigate some discussion.
As a fan of electronic music and hip/hop, I totally agree with the idea of public domain.
Shoot, as an artist in my own field of furniture, I'd be totally bummed out if someone came and told me that I had to pay for each dovetail I cut or any other technique I learned from someone else.
maybe i'll repost/adjust the date to monday or tuesday. shoot, with the thanksgiving holiday, it may be a slim week of posts anyhow.
i like electronic & hip hop, but i wonder @ what point you're taking someone's else's product, idea or intellectual property. how much can you use before you need to give them credit. i mean, in writing you need to cite any time you're using ideas, quotes, etc. at some point, i think you need to pay for your sample (clear it).
and, i think many are doing just that. but, how little can you do it? one measure, two? i'm not sure on the law. because, if i come up with something, i want credit for it.
the example of the amen break, it's a great one. these guys should get credit of some sort.
ed, i would listen to it but i don't have speakers on my work computer...in case you didn't know.
But I don't think the guy in the video is advocating that the guys in the original group get credit for the amen break. I think he's trying to argue that in order for art of any kind to progress, we as a society should be more open in the sharing of ideas.
If someone looked at a piece I did, took the idea and ran with it, came up with something different, I would be more honored than incensed.
Taking the 6 second loop and changing it, adding things over the top, slicing it up and adding beats, I don't see a problem with it. But selling it as is, like the company selling break beat compilations, that would be like someone recreating one of my designs almost exactly and selling it without my permission. That's the difference I think.
And it's what I tried to get at with my woodworking metaphor. I shouldn't have to pay anyone for the right to use an aspect or a skill like dovetailing or mortise-and-tenon or bookmatching. Yeah, someone before me has figured these things out already, but I'm using them to create something new.
right, and that's the difference i'm trying to get at. when is it just a similar dovetail (or beat) and when are they actually doing the same thing you created?
it's one thing to say, "we need to share more." but, does that mean we completely throw out copyright?
No, I don't think we should throw it out, but I don't think the expiration date should be so long.
I also don't think that bit about crediting the source even if the sample has been distorted beyond recognition is needed. I mean really, if you're gonna slice a beat up and make it so different from the original, at that point, I think you're making something new.
i agree with that. i think when you chop it up you do make something new. but, i also think about ice ice baby/under pressure. if i add a beat, it's not really something new. or, think bittersweet symphony by the verve. those cats didn't make a dime on their huge smash song because they sampled the rolling stones w/o permission.
but, i also don't think you can go with a 100 year copyright or something. there's got to be some sort of realistic middle ground. 20 years probably isn't long enough. i mean, puffy should have to pay when "redoes/samples" some police song. especially when it's still recognizable. but, if i take 10 seconds from a song, slow it down, chop & rearrange, then sure it's a new deal.
Post a Comment