George Clinton Sues Black Eyed Peas; Apparently He No Longer Thinks Sampling Is 'Cool'
from the all-about-the-cash dept
A few years back, we pointed to this wonderful interview with funk legend George Clinton (and the second half is with hip hop legend Hank Shocklee, which makes it even more interesting), all about music sampling, where Clinton claims sampling's "cool" and "good." He says "it's a whole new music -- a new way of making music." And he says that it helps young people learn how to make and play music as well as learn important skills like how to use a computer. He talks about how glad he was when hip hop artists started making records with samples. The interviewer points out that in many cases Clinton wouldn't get paid for those samples and he notes that it's okay because, in the long run, he'd figure out how to make money from it. In fact, he notes that the rise of hip hop using many of his samples revived interest in his band leading them to get back out on the road and to make money touring again. He even put out some records specifically for sampling. He does talk about how, if someone makes money, he expects them to share some of the proceeds and how he prefers that bands clear samples beforehand, but he seems to think that these things can all be worked out pretty easily. Towards the end of the interview, he notes that licenses should be "pennies" per song to make it reasonable, and that "it's blackmail the way it is now."Perhaps he's changed his mind when it comes to a band like the Black Eyed Peas, as he's apparently suing the band for sampling one of his tunes. I believe that report misstates previous lawsuits by saying they involved Clinton, when they were actually done by Bridgeport Music -- a company that Clinton has claimed forged his signature to claim rights to his music. This report suggests that Clinton himself is now following in Bridgeport's footsteps though (Bridgeport has become famous for suing a ton of musicians demanding a ton of money for samples). Another report on the lawsuit says that Clinton is accusing someone (yet again) of forging his signature to say that this license was cleared.
In the end, once again, this is disappointing that rather than focusing on making cool and unique new music, people are focusing on going to court and fighting over who should be able to put up a toll booth on new music.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: black eyed peas, copyright, george clinton, p-funk, sampling
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps. What's interesting in that interview I link to is that he literally says that he's drawn to the music that everyone's parents "hate" because that's the music he knows will be the next big thing. That said, in the interview, he implies he's happy with all kinds of musicians sampling his stuff.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Forget copyright for a second, it is disrespectful of the original artist otherwise.
Couldn't BEP make "cool and unique new music" without having to borrow someone else's performance to do it? Seems somewhat less unique, no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I take it you've never actually heard Black Eyed Peas. They can't make "cool and unique new music" either way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hommage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hi Mike. Thought I'd stop by. The "freeloading" book is happening, so perhaps we'll cross paths at some conference in the future. Later, -C
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or he could just really hate the Black Eyed Peas. They've become extremely successful without coming up with a single original idea of their own. I'd imagine that musicians hate them. I know I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The BEP are the musical equivalent of someone taking a camera to the Louvre and selling their photos of famous artworks (after taking a dump on them)as their own creation. "Cool and unique new music" does not require wholesale copying of other people's work. I would be furious too if someone sampled my work (yes I am a musician) and turned it into something twee and vapid like this so called band does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.marcelduchamp.net/L.H.O.O.Q.php
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Are you trying to tell me that the art world has already been through all of this at least a century ago?
But it's for the artists, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you did some work for someone and they sidn't pay you, you'd sue too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He didn't do work for others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
I realize that this is one of those obvious truths and all, but humor me: Why? Why is it so obviously the right thing for shitty but popular artists to be able to freely sample the music of good but less popular artists, thereby forever associating good-original-song A with crappy-derivative-song B?
Again, I know that this is super-obvious stuff: forward-thinking-pop-culture-philosophy 101 as it were, but for the sake of argument, could someone spell it out?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disentangle
Because in the long run that is the only way to get rid of the "shitty but popular artists" once and for all.
"shitty but popular artists" only EXIST on the back of the rules of copyright which are responsible for the publicity machine that is called the music industry.
Without that publicity machine there would be no mechanism for these people to prosper. The more the rules of copyright are eroded the less viable that machine wil become - until in the end it collapses. In the meantime the problem you are talking about is an unfortunate side effect. Sometimes the treatment of an illness hurts a bit but in the long run it's good for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How would you feel if you were a photographer and I cut up your photos and made a new photo? What about your new movie? Can I cut it up and mix it with other movies and call it my own? It's OK it's only sampling. It's OK if I cheat and steal my hooks from everyone else. Guaranteed success, right!
How is that art? Would you allow it or would you sue? I would sue. After all if I copyrighted my work the government already gave me a License for Litigation.
Keepa yo' handz offa my junk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why do you hold a different standard for those who work directly with sound compared to those who use a written score. Proper composers who write their work down have always borrowed material left right and centre. Those who work "by ear" do exactly the same.
Only a musician who never copied a theme or a musical structure in their life has the right to make a statement like yours. No such musician exists.
originally played by competent talented musicians and then cut up and put into a collage of music from many sources with their own words. It is a clumsy cover up for non-musicians that have no actual musical talent. Real musicians spend years practicing and forming their own style
You confuse musicianship with the relativity trivial manual skills of playing an instrument.
These days you can create music without those manual skills (not necessarily by sampling).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, wouldn't have guessed that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's also lazy as hell songwriting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's also lazy as hell songwriting
ALL songwriting in some sense "samples" what has gone before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
George comments on the situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ugh
Only a greedy bastard wants to get paid for their own music. What a douche.
Clearly, the BEPs should just be allowed to use whoever's music they want without paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't think of ONE hip hop record that is good IN SPITE of the sample, rather than because of it.
Hip hop is a lazy & anti-creative form. You only need listen to the original artists they stole ( sorry sampled ) from to appreciate that.
Of course, you DON'T appreciate it if you're a clueless 20 or 30 something who "samples".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]