RE: Samples and looping

[Anders Bergdahl <anders_e_bergdahl@hotmail.com>]

So IF filmmakers could ligt any music they like from any media, other films, videogames, music etc, do you really think that they would pay a composer for a commisoned peice of music?? Somtimes yes, but much less frequelntly. THe artist that makes a furtune are less than 1% af the artist out there... must artist struggle for every cent... If you could use any already existing peice of music, or other art, copmpletly free even fewer would be able to make a living from art. Thsi will NOT affect the richest as much since they can sell theier name for endorsments and usage in commercials. Or du you think that it would be free to use, for example,. MIles name and art when making commercials???
If you make 100 000$ on remiastereing and reselling a tune I have composed and recorded should you have all the money?? If so it means that the unknown composers should count on heving their best peices stolen so that the well known artist can use their art to make BIG money...
 

---

Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:20:19 +0400
Subject: Re: Samples and looping
From: louigi.verona@gmail.com
To: Loopers-Delight@loopers-delight.com

Hey Mark!

"If you answer yes, then do you view recorded music as a viable way for musicians to make a living?"

I would answer yes.
There is a considerable difference between making a living and making
a fortune. If a composer writes music specifically for a movie and he has a contract, I believe he should receive a
one time pay. It might be big or not, but it should be a one time thing.
If a film director is using someone's music in his movie, he can choose to pay the composer to thank him, but he,
in my opinion, should not be obliged.
I know personally about a hundred professional musicians. Very different musicians - classical composers, game
composers, pop music writers. NONE of them make a living by selling copies of their works. They do sometimes
sell cds on their concerts, but they do not rely on disc selling as their primary basis. And they live absolutely
fine without getting royalties each time someone cuts out 5 seconds of their work.

You also say an interesting thing: you say that you can "steal" atmosphere that someone else worked to create.
This is a very interesting statement because it reveals how a lot of us view creativity - as something that is done
purely to an advantage of the artist. But not all people aim to get money, fame and other things when they do art.
There are a lot of people who do art because they cannot be otherwise, because their heart calls them to say
something important that lies within their spirit. They do not care for rewards. And thus - when they are using a
piece of work someone else created, this use is legit, morally legit because in turn their own work will be as usable
to everybody else. An example: do you know that Shakespeare took many plots of his famous plays from works of
other authors? Today it would've been called a cheap rip off. But is it? I do not believe so.

Modern "show business" and music "industry" try to make us believe that artists' main incentive to create is the
holy copyright and the amount of money on the credit card. They say this because this is what they are in music
for - to make lots of money. But in reality, the artist's incentive to create comes from his talent and dedication.

So it does not mean that artists shouldn't be payed - they should. But there is no need to give them a fortune at
the expense of everybody's freedom. Providing them a living is quite enough - and that does not require to pay or
even ask permission each time one of the 5 billion people of our planet decides to use a piece of their work.

I would say that as a decision one should credit the author if possible - if the work is commercial you should credit the
author if you know who the author is. That would provide him with enough attention and that attention would be
quite enough, I believe.

This is my opinion.

Louigi.

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 6:00 AM, Mark Hamburg <mark@grubmah.com> wrote:

Would it be appropriate for a movie producer to take a musician's work and use it as a soundtrack without permission or compensation? This is after all just sampling it for use in a larger and different artistic whole.

If you answer yes, then do you view recorded music as a viable way for musicians to make a living?

If you answer no, then how is this different from sampling a movie for use in a song?

I appreciate the atmosphere and cultural references that can come from using samples, but I also recognize that at some point I'd be basically stealing the atmosphere and cultural associations that someone else worked to create.

Mark