Re: Sampling-dilemma (no solution offered here).

["Mikell D. Nelson" <mnelson@dmans.com>]

Thomas's analysis is  very insightful, I think, and points out a real
problem: who will determine if a sound is modified enough to be
original? If a law is passed to protect artist's rights then some
committee will have to be established to render judgements on every
case. Sounds like a perscription for slow and inconsistent treatment of
individuals, in other words a typical government beaurocracy.
  I don't think it's "reactionary" just good sense to say create your
own samples, license them from the creator or purchase commercially
available grooves and sounds.

Motley

> 
> The law on sampling is unclear and ambivalent. It states that you can 
>sample anything  given that you create a NEW , INDEPENDENT and ORIGINAL 
>work. Further it states that if noone can recognize what you`ve sampled , 
>then you`ve broken no copyright.  Pretty vague , huh?
> 
> What can be copyrighted? Noone can the copyright chordprogressions , 
>meters , grooves , rythmns , keys , riffs , licks  etc. etc. You can 
>copyright a combination of these , as in a song. Pick up a fake book and 
>check out "All of me". It`s a basic song , with a chord progression and a 
>melody. That`s all. If you reharmonize the chords and add passing-chords 
>or substitute on chord for another but keep the melody; you`re still 
>playing "All of me". If you change the melody but keep the chords you`re
> 
> BUT.  But once you record it ? What then? If you play all your Wes or 
>Benson licks on top of the chords , do you own them? If you  record the 
>voicings of Johhny Smith or the harmonocs of Tal Farlow , do you own 
>them? No , of course not. But you own the recording. You own the sound. 
>The writers of "All of me" own the melody you`re playing , but you own 
>the recording of  yourself playing it.
> 
> It seems to me that SOUND is the keyword here. Not just the sound of the 
>instrument but the groove/feel , the spirit. The orginality of your 
>playing. If you sample a couple of bars "Funky Drummer" ,the James Brown 
>tune,  you are taking the spirit ,groove and sound of that particular 
>drummer and using it to boost your own thing. This is , in my opinion , a 
>copyright infringement. If you add reverb or chorus to the sample you`re 
>still using HIS thing.
> 
> But if you alter the sound/feel/groove of the sample? If you chop the 
>beat up , move the bits around and speed it up to make a jungle groove? 
>Then you`ve moved away from the drummer`s own creation and used it to 
>make your own. You have simply used his stuff as
> starting point ,  like a soundsource. Just like you might have used a 
>mdid channel 10 on a GM machine. Only you`re not using individual 
>drumsounds , you`re using individual pieces of drumgrooves.
> 
> A "sample-ologist" might be able to trace this "jungle-groove" you made 
>, and tell that it`s from "Funky Drummer" and sue your ass off. But this 
>means that the sound itself is copyrighted. That the combination of 
>mic-placement , the room in the studio , the eq`ing , the outboard 
>effects and the drums that produced the sound are "owned" by James Brown. 
>If this is true then the drummer who played the beat can never record it 
>again under the same sircumstances. If he got the same sound he did on Br
> 
> So I think the complex problem of "copyright" should be approached in a 
>intuitive way. Not with spectral analyses or technical "back tracing"  
>but with a musical approach. If the samples are merely building blocks , 
>and not complete structures in the musical piece then I think it`s OK.
> 
> Anyways , I see now that the point I was building up to has eluded me. 
>I`m not really shure what I`m trying to say here...........Just airing my 
>thoughts on the subject.
> 
> Yours , Thomas W