[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Sampling-dilemma (no solution offered here).
In a message dated 98-08-27 00:42:06 EDT, you write:
<< 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. >>
I have to say that I don't agree with the above definition of copyright
infringement. If you were to take "Funky Drummer" and lay death metal
guitars,
an acid line and hindu chanting samples over it you would be creating a
piece
that, hopefully, is greater than the some of it's parts. Therefore it is a
creative step forward which is what copyright law is supposed to be
fostering.
But it has been basterdized by greedy buinessmen who are useing the
evolution
and popularzation of sampling as a way to make some bucks on stuff
collecting
dust in their backcatalogs. They are the ones who are gonna make the cash
if
you clear the sample, not the drummer (whose name is Bernard Purty, I
belive.
It'z an absolute sin that he is not in the rock n' roll hall of fame yet.)
It
would be beautiful if samplists could simply list their sources. It would
generate interest in the originals and stir up some sales. But instead
publishers charge absolutly silly amounts of money to clear shit so people
have to play hide and seek. This crap is hampering the evolution of music.
I
suggest you all read Chris Griggs excelent article on Fair Use when I find
the
damn address for it.
Aaron Zilch
VicePrezident in charge ov Cerebral Dizcomfort
Audio Terrorism Corporation/House ov Scof
The Makers ov A:P0D.
www.atomick.com