Bruce Springsteen, Another Pirate Remixer!
from the it's-almost-as-if-this-is-totally-normal-or-something dept
We recently wrote about the fact that Michael Jackson copied the bass line for his famous song Billy Jean from Hall & Oates, who then admitted to having copied it themselves. Now, reader gort-o-matic points us to another legendary musician with a similar story. Bruce Springsteen, in his keynote address at SXSW, talked about how he copied riffs from his favorite bands, and encouraged young artists to do the same. (You can hear the relevant highlights at that link, or the entire keynote here)
For me, it was The Animals. ... "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place" had a great bass riff, you know it had that—[plays riff on guitar]—and that was just a clock, a clock marking time. [sings the first few lines] That's every song I've ever written. "Badlands", "Prove It All Night", "Darkness" was filled with Animals. Youngsters, watch this one. I'll tell you how it's done right now. I took "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" [hums and strums the Animals riff, then transitions into his song Badlands]—It's the same fucking riff man. Listen up youngsters: this is how successful theft is accomplished.
Okay, so he calls it "theft" which it really isn't, but I'm less bothered by that when artists are using it as a playful term for copying than when they use it to try to give false emotional resonance to infringement. The point remains the same: artists (and I don't think anyone can argue that the The Boss is not a bona fide artist) copy and build upon the work of others. Michael Jackson and Bruce Springsteen are high-profile examples, but they are just a drop in the bucket. Every artist, big and small, does the same thing. It's not being unoriginal, it's just how art works.
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: bruce springsteen, copyright, inspiration
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hopefully never because if it ever stops, there will be no artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry Marcus, but it isn't a justification for the shit you make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Meh, old news. Is that supposed to nullify what Leigh/Marcus writes?(It does not.) It's been pretty clear I am no fan of Marcus, but to slam him for this, especially when he was clear from the get go that he was both is pretty silly. Especially when there is so much more to slam him for. Jab jab. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. And this sort of re-use/re-imagining, and indeed even many many examples far LESS than this one, are called theft by the labels/studios.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basically, he was inspired by something,but didn't just take a sample and loop it (like Marcus would have his DJ dude do, because Marcus ain't talented enough to do it himself).
The difference is almost as wide as the gaps in your knowledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Basically, he was inspired by something,but didn't just take a sample and loop it (like Marcus would have his DJ dude do, because Marcus ain't talented enough to do it himself).
The difference is almost as wide as the gaps in your knowledge."
And yet, my point still stands: the music industry considers this THEFT. They have stated this openly and repeatedly. Its only because him and Michael Jackson are too big to sue. But you can bet your paid-for shill ass that anyone else can (and has) gotten the Lawyer-hammer right up the ass if they try to be "inspired" even a FRACTION of what Bruce demonstrates here. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge what is repeatedly provable fact pretty much destroys any argument you have in this direction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, actually they don't consider it theft. or THEFT, if you prefer. The line between inspiration and copying is often very narrow, but very few cases are ever brought on this subject. Many of them are directly by the artist and not by the "industry", and they often seem to lose.
Oh, and quit being a pillhead - I am not a paid shill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That took all of five seconds to find.
But you are right on one point (and I applaud you for that) - it is not "theft", it is infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This case may have been heard in Australia - but you can find other examples quite easily - The George Harrison cas has already been mentioned here - but there are many others.
So I think that confining the argument to US law and dismissing examples from elsewhere is pretty much without merit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
But the record industry has always sued and tried to vilify anybody who sampled, remixed or borough anything.
The end of the de minimis in the USA came from Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films
Bruce Springsteen sampled others so that makes him another loser right?
http://www.whosampled.com/artist/Bruce%20Springsteen/
About your assertion that this is mostly litigated by artists you are just ignorant or BS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_sampling_%28legal_issues%29
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
The Economist: Seven seconds of fire
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stockholm Syndrome is so 2004.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're not a paid shill, why are you working for free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, so the industry does not only not pay their artists but also not their shills? Bummer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Playing the notes himself means nothing, I can have the sequence on a midi file and choose any instrument and you punks would still call it stealing.
Remixing often produces a sound completely different from the original and yet it didn't stop rappers from being convicted of stealing in court over 3 notes heavily modified.
Also the law doesn't make a distinction, if you took one note it is infringement under the law since court after court have in fact eliminated the de minimis requirement for anything to be considered infringement. Further the courts entered in the area of surrealism trying to define what constitutes "transformative" enough to be considered fair use, that makes any judgement about it based on their own bias towards something and that is no way to apply law anywhere.
Without the stealing there would be no music to be made, no money, no nothing.
Without the stealing there would be no economy to grow, because there would be no market from the fact that there would be no one stealing, I mean being inspired.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It takes 10x the creativity (or "talent") to re-use existing content in a way that is new and fresh than it is to make something from scratch.
Of course, you aren't "talented" enough to understand this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course, you aren't "talented" enough to understand this."
Speaking as a musician, I can tell you that's absolutely fallacious to the core. It's 10x easier to take a pre-existing work and tweak it in some way than it is to come up with something wholly original. To put this in more appreciable context, imagine someone wants to create a wallpaper but is terrible at drawing backgrounds. So that person lifts a pre-existing picture of a background image, throws it up on Photoshop, does a few adjustments to the color/saturation/hue/whatever, maybe adds a few graphic effects, and then draws a character over it and calls it his own work. The same principle applies to music. It doesn't require much skill to loop a sample from a pre-existing song and then throw a rap on top of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have tried making "original" content before.
It's definitely easier, slower, but easier, if I need a piece for something no problem! I can have one custom-made that fits exactly the space I need.
Now, if I'm remixing it is much harder.
First, I have to locate the piece, if I already have it great! If not, I must search for it.
Most of the time it doesn't really fit anyway, so I have to tweak it, I have the same likeness for tweaking that I do de-bugging: It sucks.
Especially when tweaking big complicated things like game maps, I have had ones where I changed every light, every texture, added and deleted meshes, added sounds...
Sometimes it is so annoying I would rather just remake it from scratch or make something totally new, sometimes I don't like the layout. Or whatever. But changing it means literally doing it new.
Sometimes some songs I use have lyrics I don't really like and/or don't really fit... But the tune is perfect.
Sometimes I remove the lyrics, sometimes I can't without it sounding like crap, sometimes I just find a different song.
While slapping a background on something is easy, finding one that'll work is not easy, I have done it before and it can takes hours to find a picture that 1. fits what I'm looking for 2. is a good resolution 3. a workable size
Ditto for songs, textures, sound effects, meshes and everything else I've mixed.
Now if I put in the time to make my own stuff, had I the ability in some cases (I can't make meshes nor do I have an ear to make music), I would not have this problem, I could make exactly what I needed.
Why don't I?
The same reason I don't like to have too many new/original characters in my stories:
There's already too many of them around, old and new.
People have to know them from scratch, and things take time to settle, most never do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I still have to find episodes of the shows I want to mix, I have to find them at atleast a decent quality, not re-dubbed or pooped and of course the full episode not a clip.
Then I've got to find the right scenes of these episodes, I don't know them all by heart there's too many so I have to search through them, then cut it out.
Then I gotta look at the ones I got here, think of what I could do to them, then I gotta get all the stuff I need together, if I don't have something I must look for it.
Same deal. Needs to be certain quality, usefulness .etc
Things like that are hard to come by, especially of just quotes from shows for sentence mixing.
If I just made my own custom episode I wouldn't have any of these problems, even voice overs wouldn't be a problem I can do them myself, hell I don't even have to just using text-to-speech or text bubbles works well enough for me.
If there's one thing for sure making them new would certainly take much MUCH longer, but it would still be easier, atleast in terms of making sure everything fits and works together which is a BIG part of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Western scales and notes being what they are means there's a finite way of arranging them that results in something wholly original. Given how many rock riffs are based on and "stolen from" (often note by note) from old bluesmen and country artists and the few other major sources of early rock and the somewhat large number of sources (The Police and reggae, for example). Don't forget black church/sacred music that formed the basis of R&B.
The Boss is only doing what every other composer/songwriter has done before him in his theft from "The Animals" who undountedly got the riffs from elsewhere. That's how music creativity works. Think of the number of European folk songs hijacked for the great symphony's of the 19th Century.
I doubt that MJ and Springsteen weren't sued is because of their power and popularity, a hard argument to make when George Harrison was.
Your analogy falls apart when you compare it to someone in Photoshop recasting the background of one kind of wallpaper then spends time going through all the adjustments you suggest (and far more) to create his own wallpaper from that single background. It takes a highly skilled and artistic user of PS to do that AND get his copy to line up perfectly and, preferably, invisibly along any possible seams the person hanging the wallpaper may create. Suddenly your quickie copy of the background turns into quite the task, doesn't it? One requiring the eye of a skilled and trained visual artist.
I'm not a big fan of rap, hip-hop and what have we and the next time I hear autotune I'm gonna scream BUT there is skill and talent used to remix bass lines and other sampling that goes into a rap or hip-hop song long before it's released. It's become an art in and of itself.
As I've said before you can hear some or a lot of remix going on in Beatles songs that Sir George Martin produced and all of that was done on 8,16 or 24 track analog tape open reel tape.
It's the norm in music, always has been and always will be unless the copyright extremists get their way and then we'll have some awfully stale sounds parading around as music while the creativity of music starts to entropy.
Somehow, as evil as they are, I can't even see the RIAA wanting that to happen though I admit to having my doubts about it from time to time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think you mean atrophy.
In any case the thing that makes stuff hard is not being original - it is being good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As a musician, I listen to a lot of music and have learned things from every song, but good artists take the concepts and reimagine them, not outright steal. Take the theory, the chords, the syncopation, the feel, and make your own thing with those tools. And I would think an honest musician would rather claim complete ownership to a song then having to say the best part was taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because that is exactly what appropriation artists do they take the work of others and reimagine the whole thing under different contexts and still is called theft by some.
There is no difference from getting a beat and using it in producing another, you used it, is the equivalent of cutting the tape and pasting it together, before glue and recording tapes people used a sheet of paper to write down the notes so they could cut and paste those onto their own work, some people do it in their minds but the concept is the same no matter what you use.
The one part I agree is the part that it is 10x more harder to create something from nothing that it is to reuse and modify existing things, that is exactly why those people who create something from nothing are rare like in centuries apart rare to come by, everybody else took something from somewhere and adapted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please stop trying to equate a musician using sheet music with somebody sampling a pre-existing recording because that's just insulting. The musician working from sheet music or a lead sheet must interpret the score by performing it, whereas the person who samples is simply editing someone else's recording. What's next? Are people who use film editing software to edit pre-existing work the same as the people who create films from scratch? My interpretation of a Bach piece such as Prelude -BWV 997 on classical guitar will be noticeably different in tone, timbre, nuance, resonance, timing, et al. than that of, say, Julian Bream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I went to college to study music composition. My main instrument was the guitar. (Admittedly, I was never close to Bream's level.)
I also have made, and listen to, sample-based music.
It is just as hard to make good sample-based music as it is to play a guitar piece.
That's not insulting, it's the way it is.
You may be "insulted" because the only sample-based music you've heard is utter crap like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDwb9jOVRtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySuMIK190oQ
But keep in mind, 90% of musicians who play their instruments sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybDCObQRRM4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I also have made, and listen to, sample-based music.
It is just as hard to make good sample-based music as it is to play a guitar piece.
That's not insulting, it's the way it is."
Whatever you may think of the challenge, ripping samples from someone else's pre-existing work is nowhere near the same thing as performing music on an instrument, just as taking a photograph of the Sistine Chapel is nowhere near the same thing as painting it yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If the end result is the same the level of skills of someone is irrelevant to the point, before only skilled people could cut and paste sound from one music to another, now everybody can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So technological advances opened up the sampling/DJing medium to the layman. I fail to see the relevance with regards to what I'm discussing: equating deriving ideas from a pre-existing work with sampling a recording. Two very different things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The person working with a musical score is simply editing someone else's musical score.
They do not need to interpret the score by "performing" it - whatever that means - they can always hire someone else to do that. If you write a symphony you aren't going to play every note yourself and most major performing artists hire session musicains to help out.
Also - given a score - there are now many software options to create the "performance" automatically for example this version of the piece you mentioned
Please quit worshipping the trivial skills of performance - they are no longer necessary except for the great pleasure that they give to the performer him/herself
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if that individual wrote their own piece of music. As far as interpreting pre-existing material, each performance is unique.
"They do not need to interpret the score by 'performing' it - whatever that means - they can always hire someone else to do that. If you write a symphony you aren't going to play every note yourself and most major performing artists hire session musicains to help out."
Now you're just reframing the argument. Regardless *who* is playing on what instrument(s), it still remains a performance.
"Also - given a score - there are now many software options to create the 'performance' automatically for example this version of the piece you mentioned"
Again, so what? Yeah, there are MIDI programmers and other such computer-generated effects which can be utilized -- heck, I use some of them for composing/arranging purposes -- but that's still not the same thing as sampling a pre-existing recording.
"Please quit worshipping the trivial skills of performance - they are no longer necessary except for the great pleasure that they give to the performer him/herself"
Computerized music has its relevance but there is no substitute for organic music. Otherwise, everybody may as well just stay home and listen to MIDI rather than go out and enjoy a live performance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not if that individual wrote their own piece of music.
What about "X's variations on a theme of Y (insert desired classical composers in place of X and Y - or for that matter Bruce Springsteen and the Animals). In these cases the composer certainly started by editing someone else's score.
I use some of them for composing/arranging purposes -- but that's still not the same thing as sampling a pre-existing recording.
I think you are knocking the skills involved in sampling because you don't understand where they lie. I am reminded of an old story about a big machine that made widgets. automatically. One day it broke down and they called out a repair man. He listened to the machine malfunctioning and then pulled out a hammer and tapped the machine with it. The machine started working perfectly again.
A few days later he sent the bill - for $10,000. The machine's owners were puzzled by the size of the bill - so they asked for a breakdown of the $10,000.
The reply was:
"For hitting machine with hammer 1 Penny. For knowing where to hit $9999.99."
Sampling is a bit like this - the technical process may be trivial - but knowing what will work is not.
but there is no substitute for organic music. Otherwise, everybody may as well just stay home and listen to MIDI rather than go out and enjoy a live performance.
I'd agree that there is a unique value to performance skills in a live setting - but I thought we were discussing recorded music here - after all some of what is sampled may have been computer generated anyway. It is a lot more common in major lable music than many people realise. Often apparent orchestral backings are synthesised, rhythm lines are produced by drum machines and singing is autotuned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's correct but I was referring to the method behind the creative process. There's a clear distinction between recycling a thematic idea or motif/leitmotif for usage in a song and sampling. Both represent pre-existing ideas but the latter is utilizing a recording, i.e. someone else already did the work. That's not to say 'live performance is good; sampling is bad' but rather that these remain distinct processes in the creative realm.
"I think you are knocking the skills involved in sampling because you don't understand where they lie."
I think not. I am making the distinction clear between one process which involves manually creating the sounds and the other using pre-existing recordings.
"I'd agree that there is a unique value to performance skills in a live setting - but I thought we were discussing recorded music here - after all some of what is sampled may have been computer generated anyway. It is a lot more common in major lable music than many people realise. Often apparent orchestral backings are synthesised, rhythm lines are produced by drum machines and singing is autotuned."
The autotune. *sigh* The bane of the studio. That thing is largely responsible for the regurgitated garbage sound that's currently being produced by the major labels. With it, nobody needs to be a good singer -- the computer will automatically "correct" their pitch. On the other hand, musicians have been utilizing computer sounds, synths and effects since, what, the 70's? Unlike the dreaded autotune, computer-generated sounds are A-OK when put to good use. As far as the original subject matter, my issue was with people conflating sampling with performance as if they required the same skills.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Only if you consider the act of sampling "not work". Creating a new song utilising samples is a different kind of work than using an instrument, but I can assure you there's definitely work involved in creating a decent sample-based song.
"As far as the original subject matter, my issue was with people conflating sampling with performance as if they required the same skills."
But, they certainly do require skills. Also, in the modern world there is such a thing as creating live music on the fly using samples, so the lines can be very much blurred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm well aware. Still, it's not the same process.
"But, they certainly do require skills. Also, in the modern world there is such a thing as creating live music on the fly using samples, so the lines can be very much blurred."
Not really. A performance requires manual skill on an instrument whereas DJing and the like requires skill on a turntable/DAW. Different skill-sets to be sure. Once again, I'm not saying that 'sampling = bad.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In other words, you're just arguing semantics, then. Many would consider the turntable itself to be an instrument, and it definitely can require manual skill, it all depends on how it's utilised. Samplers, Kaoss pads, synthesisers and so forth are also instruments that can be used to create music. The fact that many of them build upon existing sounds doesn't change that in the context of a live performance.
"Once again, I'm not saying that 'sampling = bad.'"
No, you just clearly consider electronic music to be inferior to other types of music. You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but there's no need to tie yourself in knots to avoid using the word "performance" when referring to it. Sure, some uses of samplers don't fit into that definition, but others do. The range of skills involved vary greatly. I wouldn't say that a toddler making unmusical noises with a drum diminishes the musical sounds made by a pro drummer, just as I wouldn't say that lazy or basic uses of samplers makes a live performer utilising a sampler any less of a performer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You say to replay a sample with instruments is different because you still have to work for it actually create the sound. But it is no harder for a talented musician to replay a riff that someone else wrote then it is for a talented DJ to layer that same riff into a new song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I flatly disagree with that.
Both represent pre-existing ideas but the latter is utilizing a recording, i.e. someone else already did the work.
Let's be clear here. The primary creative work is in the composition. Performance is a secondary issue that can be (and in the case of orchestral works MUST BE outsourced).
There is no special magic in the mechanical process of playing an instrument. Everything and anything that can be done with an instrument can be done by computation on a computer if the end product is a sound recording.
Traditionally the same result was produced by the input of a conductor. The creative aspects of an orchestral performance are regarded as work of the conductor. You listen to the "Toscanini version" of a Beethoven symphony and regard it as his performance in spite of the fact that he produced none of the sounds himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why not?
Open Source Hydrogen advanced drum machine for GNU/Linux.
What Bruce Springsteen did was basically cut and paste the drums from those other music and put on his own, but he had to create the sounds(samples) himself, that is the only extra step he took.
Here is a piano roll screenshot from the LMMS - Linux Multimedia Studio.
http://lmms.sourceforge.net/screenshots/0.4.0/lmms-0.4.0-2.png
What Bruce Springsteen did was to play the notes, on an instrument of his choosing, just like anybody can pick the notes and put on a piano roll in modern software and make it play, then you add up the other piano-rolls with other instruments and you got music, but somehow people who do it in software are thieves and Bruce Springsteen is an artist, when basically both did the exact same thing.
Where is the great difference there?
Quote:
People go out because MIDI cannot offer the atmosphere of a group of people, we are social animals, MIDI is good enough for everything else, so good in fact that theaters no longer have live performers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the last time, deriving a musical idea from a pre-existing work is not the same as sampling someone else's recording.
"What Bruce Springsteen did was to play the notes, on an instrument of his choosing, just like anybody can pick the notes and put on a piano roll in modern software and make it play, then you add up the other piano-rolls with other instruments and you got music, but somehow people who do it in software are thieves and Bruce Springsteen is an artist, when basically both did the exact same thing.
Where is the great difference there?"
Nowhere did I refer to CPU-generated piano rolls, arpeggios and other such things as somehow depreciating the quality of the music. I was discussing the duality between sampling and performance. It's not that sampling is a bad thing, but it's definitely not equivalent to a performance, at least in and of itself. There are some great songs built off of samples, such as 'Too Hot' by Coolio (at least I like it), but I still realize that he didn't compose that groove. So I'd say that Coolio is a good rap artist but not a great composer.
"People go out because MIDI cannot offer the atmosphere of a group of people, we are social animals, MIDI is good enough for everything else, so good in fact that theaters no longer have live performers."
Theatres which eschew live performances are obviously doing so in order to cut back on production costs. Nevetheless, there are still plenty of live performances to be had. On the subject, it's disturbing how ASCAP, BIM and SESAC are allowed to go around extorting money from clubs, bars and shops and get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry - but it is - if we are talking about musical composition.
If we are talking about performance then the sampler can just load the samples into the memory of a synth and play them from the keyboard - so keyboard skills will be required at that point.
Taking your point to the extreme I'm sure that the violin makers would say that merely playing a violin is not on the same level as making one...
On the subject, it's disturbing how ASCAP, BIM and SESAC are allowed to go around extorting money from clubs, bars and shops and get away with it.
I'm with you on that one though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We are talking about musical composition here. Who played the notes is irrelevant.
In terms of composition it is pure copying - since "changing it up" is trivial.
I can do everything he did from the (computer) keyboard with little more effort than it took you to write tyour comment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh my sweet lord!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But if he didn't do that, what on earth would he comment about? Those are the basis of everything he's ever written!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beech
Anyway, it's all well and good for Bruce to encourage everyone to "steal" and build on songs, but that's whats gets people sued. Sure, now that he's rich and famous and got a major label to fight his legal fights for him, but if I wanted to write a song using one of his bass riffs or something his label would probably sue my ass off. And even if Springteen has the pull to get me off the legal hook with his label, who's to say that they won't just sue me after he dies?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pablo Picasso Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Theft
Well it has been a commonplace use of the word to describe this kind of copying - and until recently no-one confused it with the other meaning of theft. Unfortunately the English language is part of the collateral damage of copyright maximalism!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pirate dorks conflating inspiration with ripping someone off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pirate dorks like Bruce Springsteen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
Only the assholes at the RIAA and the musically ignorant (but I repeat myself) think that this happens in a vacuum. EVERYONE that we think of as a brilliant musician, from Beethoven to Ray Charles, has borrowed and reused as much as they could get their hands on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
If your statement is to be believed, then by the illogic constantly repeated here one would expect that every new song published would immediately become the object of a lawsuit for copyright infringement. The fact this is virtually never the case should tell you something, but to understand it you need to open both your eyes and ears.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
There is a tacit "gentleman's agreement" among them that they won't turn each others' businesses into smoking craters for just that reason. But as we've all seen, and continue to see today, there's no such agreement with independent labels, musicians, blogs, web sites, etc. -- which is why the RIAA and the major labels attempt to crush them whenever they have the chance.
The assholes at the RIAA and the major labels don't give a damn about music; they only care about the money. We KNOW this because we've watched them, for decades peddle absolute crap not because it had any musical value, but because it was lucrative. Meanwhile, significant artists who actually had something valuable to contribute to our culture were marginalized, underpromoted, dropped, ripped off and ignored.
(Have you ever talked to someone at a major label? As in one of the executives? Their ignorance is breathtaking -- oh, they know all about contracts and waivers and profit/loss statements, of course they do -- but they couldn't recognize a fugue or explain why Blonde on Blonde matters so much or talk about the influence of bebop if their lives depended on it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
BTW, their music must not be all c***. If this was true, they would have long ago gone bankrupt for selling a portfolio of unwanted products. They obviously sell products people want. What they want in return is to be paid for the products by the consuming public. This hardly seems unreasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm not sure what the point of this article is. Springsteen is most definitely not a "pirate remixer" -- he creates his own music.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hey no shit, when I write stories it's my own story, even though I use/crossover all sorts of different video game/cartoon characters in with new ones it's still MY OWN story.
Sure I didn't technically "invent" some of the characters or ideas but you will NEVER. EVER. find another story with the exact combination, presentation or ideas that I did.
That by definition makes it MY OWN story, where I got my ingredients from doesn't even matter. It's still MY story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I have mixed, I have remixed, used, re-used and ABUSED things.
In the end I was no less "creative", "talented" or "imaginative" than any other artist.
Infact I would say I ended MORE creative than they are, that's because most artists are afraid to break the status quo.
They mostly hang around, learn from the same books the same exact methods to do the same exact styles for the same exact reasons.
They all preach "originality" and all try to stay away as far as possible from each-other idea-wise but how is it that 90% of everything I'm seeing these days looks like it was made by the same 10 artists? (If I didn't know better I'd say it was)
It's all been re-used and abused until someone came along and decided you need to ask to abuse it some more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, copyright/IP laws are ridiculous (borderline insane) in the manner used today. The original intent of copyright was to spur creativity, not to impose a lockdown on intangible ideas and concepts, as so often is the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're more correct than you know. Grab a list of today's most popular songs. Research them to find out who actually wrote the song ( not who performed it ). You'll probably not be surprised to see a lot of the same writers for the different performers. The recording industry has a relatively modest pool of songwriters who's songs get passed to different performers, as the label sees fit. This helps contribute to the bland 'sameness' of pop music.
Never take my word for it, look for yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry chefs, didn't grow/pick/mix every ingredient or spice you use? It's not your dish anymore. Doesn't matter if you are the only person in the world who can make that dish it's not yours cause you didn't make the stuff you used in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I hate to disappoint you but I'm anti-copyright, anti-RIAA/MPAA myself so you're both barking up the wrong tree.
"Sorry chefs, didn't grow/pick/mix every ingredient or spice you use? It's not your dish anymore. Doesn't matter if you are the only person in the world who can make that dish it's not yours cause you didn't make the stuff you used in it."
That's as ludicrous as saying that the pen and paper used to draw something are the property of X copyright holder and therefore the work doesn't belong to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's a question for you:
What do a guitar, a sampler and your good self all have in common?
Answer: You are all tools.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As I said, he used a non-tangible, flexible idea and derived a song from it. That's nowhere near the same thing as taking someone else's recording and passing it off as your own work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Example: You can't possibly understand menopause because you are a man.
Example: "Never done anything even remotly creative in your life have you."
Logical Fallacies are fallacious.
One doesn't necessarily need to have been a 'creator' of something to have an understanding of the creative process.
Please try legitimate debate instead of tired logical fallacies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, nothing besides compose my own music. I also used to draw. I did a great deal of copying, to be sure, but then I never tried to pass it off as my original work, although I'd agree that I should be allowed to showcase it publicly without risking a lawsuit. Michelangelo used to copy frescoes and statues and those copies are now on display at museums and sold in art books. Go figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/456199/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From what I have seen in many forums on this topic, someone says 'I create stuff' .. someone else says .. ''link please' .... supposed creator either vanishes from thread or claims to be afraid to post link for fear that they'll be spammed or 'pirates will steal my stuff'. You're a rare exception in that you 'Put up' and didn't 'shut up'.
It's very respectable and not common. Kudos to you sir ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
From what I have seen in many forums on this topic, someone says 'I create stuff' .. someone else says .. ''link please' .... supposed creator either vanishes from thread or claims to be afraid to post link for fear that they'll be spammed or 'pirates will steal my stuff'. You're a rare exception in that you 'Put up' and didn't 'shut up'.
It's very respectable and not common. Kudos to you sir ;)"
Ah, I see. Thanks for clarifying.
I have no reason to be ashamed for posting my own work. If I compose something, what's the point in *not* allowing people to listen?
I've been saying it since day one: the internet has changed the face of the industry and I've embraced that change. As a matter of fact, I love it because us artists can showcase our work to the entire world without having to go through the middle-man. There are other means for me to make a full-time career out of music besides just selling music on a disc to a customer, such as offering my services to a VG company or whatever. If I hide my work behind a paywall, nobody is going to know who I am.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Michael on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 5:09am
Like I said in my previous comments, it's about CONTEXT. The implied part missing from the title is "by IP Maximalist logic". If we were to take the arguments proliferated by and the actions of the IP maximalists and apply them to Springsteen's comments, then the logical conclusion would be that he would be a pirate remixer. However, he is obviously not and isn't even considered to be one by the IP maximalists within the industry thereby exposing the fallacy of the logic and the hypocrisy of those in the industry who argue it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Michael on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 5:09am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Michael on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 5:09am
I am a commercial photographer and in the 90s I did a lot of portfolio work for models. Often times I would start the planning for these shoots by going through the current fashion magazines looking for ideas. I would find concepts from various images that I liked from different places and incorporate them with other ideas of my own to create new images that were uniquely my own yet paid homage to the ones that I purposely used for inspiration. This is no different.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Steal Away
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Steal Away
Of course. It's not as if the 80's were ancient history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The first example he gives, "We Gotta Get Out Of This Place", isn't an example of musical likeness between songs, it's an example of thematic likeness: class consciousness, struggle, need to escape etc.
And the song he quotes next, "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" isn't remotely similar to "Badlands" in the chords or the melody, only in the rhythm. I think someone (who doesn't know much about music) took his joking a bit too seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The problem is that the modern interpretations, and contortions, of copyright law is making the range of what can be taken as fair use rather narrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A good point.
If I remember correctly ( I might be wrong but I don't have time to look it up right now ) The first Witcher game was built extensively on a modified 'Aurora' game engine, the one used to build 'Neverwinter Nights'. I could be wrong though. I'm sure someone will correct me if i'm off base.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh, Lots.
Those are the 'Rocky' of games.
Eagerly awaiting 'Rocky XV' sometime in 2025.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marcus, grow up. You cannot excuse your own lack of talent by pointing at anyone else. You are a talentless schmuck, always have been, always will be. I suspect most of your photoshop work depends on pre-defined filters too, because you are too simple minded to figure anything out yourself.
These sorts of posts are just proof that Techdirt has truly lost it's way, unable to justify the piracy agenda anymore through normal means, now down to calling a great song writer a "remixer". How low end are you?
Oh, are you ever planning to move out of Mom's basement, or are you there for life?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 8:29am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 8:29am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Look, your entire post is pretty much a " random, baseless, and totally incorrect accusations" of Springsteen as a pirate remixer. Don't you get it? If you want to apply rules, apply them to yourself first. Your entire post is pretty much a lie end to end, and as others have shown here, your lack of musical knowledge is clearly showing.
You are talentless in the field of music, and considering that, I am assuming that you are equally talentless in other areas you claim to master.
I would suggest you (a) go back to school and get some talent, and (b) save up enough money to move away from mom. You might actually grow up and understand how making baseless posts like this are hateful and misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
And you know this how?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dThOHbmp9eY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
Or this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kffacxfA7G4
You know what's funny? The first link is absolutely better than the second because they manage (somehow) to be entertaining to watch, whereas Bieber is intolerable, as is all the other garbage being mass produced by the major labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
It's not just that it's rap, it's that it's horrible lyrics, a cheesy simple set of basic loops the guy is working from, and Marcus has all the stage presence of a turnip.
That's his musical talent, but he feels that he is justified to call out Springsteen. That's just classic!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're an Anonymous Coward who flings shit at others' talent while not having to reveal your own, so we can't compare and come to the likely conclusion that you're a hypocrite.
"Look, your entire post is pretty much a " random, baseless, and totally incorrect accusations" of Springsteen as a pirate remixer."
Way to completely miss the starkly obvious sarcasm in the title and completely miss the point of the post. Your insulting attitude only makes you look even stupider than your false conclusion already do.
"You might actually grow up and understand how making baseless posts like this are hateful and misleading."
Total reading comprehension fail. I too assume that you are equally talentless in other areas you claim to master.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you read sarcasm into it, you may want to go back and read a few most posts on Techdirt, because clearly you aren't getting it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nowhere. This particular asshole is incapable of making any point without building strawmen and attacking people for imagined flaws. He wouldn't be able to justify his obsessive posting and incessant attacks if he had to stick to reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you fucking kidding me?! You! PaulT, accusing someone else of posting obsessively?
Calling someone else an "asshole" and then in the very next sentence you accuse him of incessant attacks. This is almost surreal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I literally yawned when I read this tired old line. Way to go, TAM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copying, aka Inspiration
1) There are only 12 notes to work from in Western music. There's going to be overlap and similarities.
2) The idea of "stealing a riff" is really about having a jumping off point. At the end of the day the work can't help be become its own (unless the writer is truly an untalented plagiarist).
3) This is a substantively separate issue from sampling existing recorded music which has no part in the discussion of Springsteen or MJ lifting riffs they like.
I've written hundreds of songs over 30 years. Nearly every one I can tell you what the "canvas" was - a "T. Rex feel" or "that awesome mellow drum sound on Synchronicity," "something Weezeresq." It's called inspiration, and often referred to as copying by those who are confident enough to admit they were inspired by someone else.
Case in point - This newish instrumental is called "Beastly," named specifically so I could remember it is "the tune I ripped from a Beastie Boys song." If you figure out which, great. Otherwise, nobody would ever know unless told.
http://youtu.be/3hhwEv7Gh2Q
(Disclosure: the video is an ad for the song itself, royalty-free, but used here to illustrate the point.)
Finally, there are only 12 notes to work with here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
However, no matter the deal, you took inspiraction (heck even a cord progression) and played something new because you used different techniques, different instruments, different paying style, different tempo, and so on. With a limited number of notes, what else will you do?
The point is that nobody would listen to it and say "it's this or that" because it is original enough.
Now, playing a looping sample of the same song... not original. That's Marcus music... not original.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Musically, collage (aka sampling) is pretty much the simplest way to create a "song". Little real musical knowledge is required, except perhaps how to count to 4. It should be noticed that the samples used generally need to be cleared to avoid copyright violations.
Rap is basically the rhythmic recital of poetry. It generally doesn't require musical skill (because you don't really have to be in tune when you rap), and appears often to be used to cover up poetry that nobody would want to listen to or read in normal circumstances.
Now, in each category, there are exceptional cases of artists who have taken what are rudimentary ideas and used them to create what many consider art. I don't dismiss any of them as not being art. But I will say that each is pretty much on par with my young son using wooden spoons to bang on pots and pans. It's a glorious noise (to him) and pretty much just noise to the rest of us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Labeling it all as "art" and suggesting that, as an example, that Marcus's out of tune ramblings are somehow as great as a Springsteen song is laughable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
As an example, I am not a huge fan of Skrillix. I can understand the music, but for me it's not really appealing. But I can also understand the effort put into making it. Is it art? That is all in the eye (or ear) of the beholder.
In the end, my point is only that untalented people like Marcus just don't have the position to talk shit about someone who is an actual musician and an artist. It is clear that Marcus doesn't have a clue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Can I ask where it is you believe that Leigh is "talking down" to Bruce Springsteen?
It seems most people who actually read the post recognize he's doing exactly the opposite. Maybe you should try reading the posts before criticizing them, like you used to do, back before you promised to leave the site forever last December.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
I have a great objection to morons like yourself who not only obsessively attack people, but can't even read the damn article they're commenting on, and end up accusing the author of the exact opposite of what he actually said. Yet, here you remain...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Collage is rarely original - https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=collage&hl=en&safe=active&client=firefox-a&hs= Cg1&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnsa&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=Q2VnT7XHB eLX0QH7oOnACA&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&ved=0CB0Q_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bi h=1071
"Rap is basically the rhythmic recital of poetry."
That's true of all music.
"It generally doesn't require musical skill"
Stated as fact, pure opinion.
"and appears often to be used to cover up poetry that nobody would want to listen to or read in normal circumstances." - Again purely opinion.
"Now, in each category, there are exceptional cases of artists who have taken what are rudimentary ideas and used them to create what many consider art." - I will continue to dismiss them in the rest of my paragraph.
"I don't dismiss any of them as not being art." - Here it comes:
But I will say that each is pretty much on par with my young son using wooden spoons to bang on pots and pans. It's a glorious noise (to him) and pretty much just noise to the rest of us.
So much fail in one post its astounding.
So because you deem it noise, it cannot be music. K. Got it. Consult AC when determining what is music and what is not. Check.
GET OFF MY LAWN, DAMN KIDS!!!!
Now I rock a house party at the drop of a hat
I beat a biter down with an aluminum bat
a lot of people they be Jonesin' just to hear me rock the mic
they'll be staring at the radio
staying up all night
so like a pimp I'm pimpin'
I got a boat to eat shrimp in
Nothing wrong with my leg just B-boy limpin'
Got arrested at the Mardi Gras for jumping on a float
My man MCA's got a beard like a billy goat
oowah oowah is my disco call
MCA hu-huh I'm gettin' rope y'all
Routines I bust rhymes I write
And I'll be busting routines and rhymes all night
Like eating burgers or chicken or you'll be picking your nose
I'm on time homie that's how it goes
YOU HEARD MY STYLE I THINK YOU MISSED THE POINT
it's the joint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are the bass line parts of a composition actually covered by copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are the bass line parts of a composition actually covered by copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bruce Springsteen, Another Pirate Remixer!
Thankfully music cannot be patented. If it was we would have to build a city of courts just to handle the law suits.
Then I'm told the software industry may well do exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ugh
A ground-breaking piece of digitally engineered film that takes as its subject a painting by the Dutch Golden Age master Ambrosius Bosschaert the Elder (1573–1621). Working with one of the world’s leading companies for digital visual effects, The Moving Picture Company the Carters directed an animated version of Bosschaert’s Vase With Flowers in a Window.
Every aspect of Bosschaert’s painting has been brought to life including each flower stem, insect and background scenery. The film lasts three hours and takes the painted scene from early morning darkness through to noon (where the film exactly resembles the original painting) into dusk and late night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ugh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ugh
Probably you end up crazy or feral like others is not that easy to come up with something entirely new, I even go so far as to say impossible there is very few people who came up with totally new ideas on their own and even then they had the work of others to stand on.
So hogwash is the assertion that people don't steal ideas from others, they do it all the time and it is the base of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Ain't Theft
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something fun to do
You will be surprised at how many songs sound alike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First, I find the joke title of the post a little lacking. I've never heard of someone who culls a riff being referred to as either a pirate or a remix artist. Over the last few years I've noticed a swell of groupthinkers whose goal it seems, to me at least, is conflating the issues of piracy with infringement with remix with inspiration with fair use with whatever else weakens the concept of individual expression. This attempt to oversimplify issues will not lead to greater understanding or goodwill.
To begin with, even among sample-based artists there are myriad stylistic variations; and there are heated arguments between the practitioners about what's "real music." Loopers are a different breed than Choppers. There are Screw artists. Chop and screw artists. There are producers and "producahs." That's without even delving into the styles of turntablism that exist outside of the use of samplers. And I haven't even left the field of hip hop. There's musique concrete, collage artists, there are found sound artists, field recordists. And for the unimaginative: Mash-ups [I kid! I kid! But seriously...]. To try to corral all these stylistic forms under some imagined banner, tying them together because they share a single characteristic, i.e. that they are technically illegal to publish in many cases, is to grossly oversimplify the rich musical history that led us to where we are now.
Is playing with a sampler different from writing a tune on your piano? I would say so. I'm not sure they even activate the same brain regions. They definitely don't require the same kind of knowledge. Sample-based art requires much more post-production know-how than it requires knowledge of music theory. And I would be hard pressed to equate the heart of sample-culture, "digging," with the heart of musicianship: "jamming." They're extremely different endeavors. One looks inward through the appropriation of outside influence, while the other projects outwards from the appropriation of inner influences. (Side note: I once wrote Daniel Levitin, of This is Your Brain on Music fame, to find out if there has ever been any research as to whether a person chopping samples utilizes similar regions to a person playing guitar. I received no answer, but as far as I can tell no research has been done.)
Is sampling harder than playing an instrument? Not at all. Anyone can "play" any instrument they can get their hands on. The hard part of music is coming up with something good. That's not an easy task in any creative field.
Now, if the question is "Is creating something listenable/releasable easier with a sampler or a piano?" then the answer is yes, sampling previously released, professionally recorded sources is an easier route to a "professional" sounding final product. But, and this is where I'm sure people around here will fume, that's because the samplist is not tasked with the hard work or costs of actually capturing the sounds he's releasing. Anyone who has spent any time in a professional studio knows that making great recordings is several layers of arts unto themselves. Don't even get me started on the "Dark Arts of Mastering." Samplists benefit immensely from this leg up on their songwriting peers. I know, because frustration with meager recording budgets is one of the reasons I got into sampling in the first place. But that's just me...
Now, I find turntables to be an interesting anomaly in this discussion. Are they instruments? I think so, but with one caveat: they are "inverted" instruments. What I mean by this is that a turntable makes sound without your input, the technique of a turntablist is knowing how to creatively stop the sound, and how to "break" it in intriguing ways. That's why I find the artform so fascinating. Turntables are the only instrument where the musician's job is to stop the instrument from making the sounds it is "programmed" to make.
Ultimately, whether musician, producer, beatmaker, writer, painter, etc, the entire point of the endeavor is to communicate something with somebody. Even if that person is yourself. I know that I write music for the 13-year-old inside of me all the time. Getting hung up on labels, and degrees of difficulty is to miss the point. I might not consider all the sample-based art I enjoy to be music--lord knows groups in the vein of Negativland strain my tolerance for what I'd consider music--at least not in the traditional sense, but it does communicate with me. That's as much as any artist can reasonably hope for when they lock themselves away to create something new.
To close out my overly long novellette of a comment, I wanted to post this quote that has resonated with me for a while now. It's just something some older producer said reference to the abundance of kids trying to copy [latest producer X]'s sound, and the proliferation of hipsters who think that replacing the bass with a tuba is original or unique. I printed it out and it hangs right above my turntables:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]