Bruce Springsteen, Another Pirate Remixer!

from the it's-almost-as-if-this-is-totally-normal-or-something dept

Fri, Mar 16th 2012 7:39pm — Leigh Beadon

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

152 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 8:05pm

I am shocked, when will the thieving stop?!

Hopefully never because if it ever stops, there will be no artists.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 8:17pm

Yeah, some thief... he actually had the balls to (a) change it up, and (b) play it himself.

Sorry Marcus, but it isn't a justification for the shit you make.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Really? (profile), 16 Mar 2012 @ 8:21pm

Re:
Did you even read the article or check the by-line?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RD, 16 Mar 2012 @ 8:29pm

Re:
"Yeah, some thief... he actually had the balls to (a) change it up, and (b) play it himself."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 8:44pm

Oh my sweet lord!
George Harrison would be rolling in his grave if he knew about all this. He never would have stooped to copying others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 9:31pm

Re: Re:
He took a line, played it differently, combined it with different lyrics, a different sound, and so on. Without him saying so, you would have never known.

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 thread ]
RD, 16 Mar 2012 @ 9:37pm

Re: Re: Re:
"He took a line, played it differently, combined it with different lyrics, a different sound, and so on. Without him saying so, you would have never known.

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 thread ]
memphisslim.ru, 16 Mar 2012 @ 9:52pm

Sampling done correctly can transcend the source material. Don't hate based on bias and ignorance TAM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2012 @ 11:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"the music industry considers this THEFT"

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 thread ]
Prisoner 201, 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Appeals Court Says Down Under Infringes Decades OLd Folk Song (more here)
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 thread ]
Beech, 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:16am

Beech
Isn't there another case of how someone got his name on a song because he wrote one song that was sampled that was sampled that was sampled? And he get a cut of all of them even though the music he actually wrote never appeared in the latest generation of songs. I remember reading about that here.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:46am

Re: Re: Re:
Basically he stole it and now is telling everybody about it.

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 thread ]
Lawrence D'Oliveiro, 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:52am

Pablo Picasso Quote
�Good artists copy, great artists steal.�
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 2:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The supremes didn't until the 90's that is.

Quote:
"[In] truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." Emerson v. Davies,8 F.Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845)

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 2:08am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Amen Brother

Quote:
How a short burst of drumming changed the face of music

The Economist: Seven seconds of fire
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 2:14am

Re: Re:
"Yeah, some thief... he actually had the balls to (a) change it up, and (b) play it himself."

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 2:19am

Theft
Okay, so he calls it "theft" which it really isn't

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 3:29am

These articles are priceless.

Pirate dorks conflating inspiration with ripping someone off.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 3:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quit apologizing to these bozos.

Stockholm Syndrome is so 2004.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beech, 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:07am

"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."

pirate dorks like Bruce Springsteen?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:05am

Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
Every competent musician knows that the best writing and composition comes after you've studied as much of your predecessors' work as you possibly can. Springsteen listened to those bands, he listened to Dylan, he listened to Guthrie, he listened to Leadbelly -- and because he listened well and learned, he has created music worthy of standing beside theirs.

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:09am

Bruce Springsteen didn't reveal some huge secret -- he described where he derived his artistic inspiration from. There's a fine line between inspiration and plagarism, the former often obfuscates its source material whereas the latter is more obvious (e.g. What A Fool Believes > Steal Away). In no way was Springsteen conflating copying a non-tangible, flexible idea with lifting a sample from someone else's recording and then passing it off as your own work. If you'd like to verify this for yourself, try sampling one of his songs without permission.

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 thread ]
Suja (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:39am

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)

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 thread ]
Ambrose Chapel, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:46am

The examples here aren't remotely like the Michael Jackson bassline thing.

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:49am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
Suja (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:52am

Re:
he creates his own music.

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:58am

Re: Re:
What in the world are you trying to say?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:58am

Re:
No, he just lifted a guitar riff and passed it off as his own work.

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 thread ]
Suja (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:01am

Re: Re:
Going by the "greedtard usage" logic, if I used something that I didn't make or invent in MY project, it's suddenly not mine anymore.

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:03am

Re: Re:
"No, he just lifted a guitar riff and passed it off as his own work."

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 thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:06am

Re:
I certainly agree with the observation that there are thematic similarities, but disagree with the statement that they aren't musically similar as well. (Granted, "Badlands" doesn't have the descending progression that "Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood" uses in the first two verses. But...did you notice that the introductory bars to "Badlands" have nearly the exact same chord progression as the verses to the Velvet Underground's "Sweet Jane", and in nearly the same rhythm?"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:07am

Re: Re: Re:
"Going by the "greedtard usage" logic, if I used something that I didn't make or invent in MY project, it's suddenly not mine anymore."

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 thread ]
Suja (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:12am

Re: Re: Re:
I have ripped, copied and been inspired by damn near everything I can find and not be turned off by.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:14am

Re: Re: Re:
Never done anything even remotly creative in your life have you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is nothing new under the sun. People everywhere borrow ideas from others, be it consciously or unconsciously. A perfect example: anime. How many variations on the big-eyed characters with blue hair can there be? It's become so well-engrained into the psyche of the Japanese people that they naturally gravitate towards it, much like how us Americans gravitate towards round-eyed animals that spew wisecracks, cause mischief, dance and sing.

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 thread ]
Dreddsnik (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:35am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Special Pleading (double standard) - Applying a standard to another that is different from a standard applied to oneself.

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:37am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Never done anything even remotly creative in your life have you."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:39am

Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
It's pretty widely regarded by scholars that the attribution of the quote to Picasso is a mistake. However, the point is still valid. It's about context. In the quote the word "steal" refers to taking something and making it your own by reworking it into something different than the original even the though the connection to the original still exists. As opposed to mere plagiarism which is what the word "copy" in the quote refers to. This context mirrors what Springsteen was referring to when he used the word "theft" which has nothing to do with the legal definition of the word.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suja (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Really?

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 thread ]
Dreddsnik (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:47am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
" 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)"

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:54am

Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
Futhermore it's the sue happy IP maximalists that are the ones that conflate the issue by misunderstanding the difference and file lawsuit after lawsuit claiming that an artist "stole" this work or that work from another. Advocates for ending abuses of IP are merely using the same sort of logic to point out the silliness and hypocrisy of this. But then again they fail miserably at basic math and logic so why should anyone think their abilities in language comprehension be any different?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Suja (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides I've been able to make some pretty unique stuff just using 100% existing content, such as in the case of youtube poops.

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:55am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, there is TONS of modified software, most especially Super Mario Bros. It's definitely easier to recycle pre-existing game engines, hence why so many developers have: Unreal, Quake, NeoAxis, Cipher, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGmAzYW6-Yk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dreddsnik (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:02am

" Um, there is TONS of modified software, most especially Super Mario Bros. It's definitely easier to recycle pre-existing game engines, hence why so many developers have: Unreal, Quake, NeoAxis, Cipher, etc. "

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:05am

Re:
I don't know but it's possible. Another good illustration would be game companies such as Nintendo or Capcom recycling their pre-existing engines. How many Street Fighter titles are there?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dreddsnik (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:08am

" How many Street Fighter titles are there? "

Heh, Lots.
Those are the 'Rocky' of games.

Eagerly awaiting 'Rocky XV' sometime in 2025.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:08am

Re: Re:
Yet you realize (unlike Marcus, it seems) that each one of them is unique and different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
With but a few exceptions, this being one, copyright law cases are generally confined to US law. Here the relevant law is that of Australia. Relying upon this case to level criticism at US law lacks merit. It would be akin to criticizing Australian law for not having a verbatim transcription of the 13th Amendment in its constitution.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:13am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
De minimis is still a part of our jurisprudence, contrary to what you state.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:18am

Re: Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
I mean context in language comprehension is an elementary school level concept. How the yell did these people get out of school without getting that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:20am

Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
To say the major labels are ignorant that these are means employed in the creative process of a new song is so wrong that that your comment must be characterized as an example of ignorance.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Should read "copyright law cases discussed on this site are generally confined to US law."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Links to music please!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:30am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sure.

http://www.motifator.com/index.php/forum/viewthread/456199/
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:31am

Re: Re:
I don't agree with a single thing he say, but I the it worth pointing the Leigh Beadon and Marcus Crab are the same person. It even says so in his avatar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Kulawiec, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:32am

Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
I suppose it's never occurred to you that the only reason those lawsuits don't happen is that it would result in mutually assured destruction?

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:49am

Response to: Michael on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 5:09am
I'll explain it...

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:55am

Re: Steal Away
OMG! Somebody else actually remembers Robbie Dupree!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:56am

Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
Yes, they care about money because they are investors and would like, just as is the case with all investors, to receive a positive return on their investment. Of course, to do this they have to be concerned that the product in which they are investing is a good candidate for finding acceptance in the marketplace in an amount sufficient to achieve there investment objectives. Hence, they must be heavily invested in evaluating the music in the pipeline.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 7:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Fair play. You've got balls for posting. I'll listen to these when I get home. (steelyfan right?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:00am

Re: Response to: Michael on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 5:09am
In short, they protect their own, to which I'm already well aware. Nevertheless, there's a distinct difference between recycling ideas and sampling recorded music which is what I was illustrating. Springsteen isn't a remixer -- he's a musician who borrows ideas, just like every other.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Correct. And what do you mean 'I've got balls for posting?' Is there something wrong with people hearing my music?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:04am

Re: Re: Steal Away
"OMG! Somebody else actually remembers Robbie Dupree!"

Of course. It's not as if the 80's were ancient history.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prisoner 201, 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love that one :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:20am

Re: Re: Response to: Michael on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 5:09am
I agree. My response was to your comment about not understanding the point of the article. Leigh isn't actually arguing that he is a pirate remixer, but rather that by their logic they would have to consider him one.

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 thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:29am

What I think is really funny in all of this is that it is easy to see that Marcus is trying very hard to excuse his own lack of talent. Calling Springsteen a "pirate remixer" is pure bullshit, end to end, and especially galling coming from a guy who has a hissy fit any time someone suggests that piracy is stealing. He is more than willing to be very liberal with interpretations of words when the wants to try to score points, and ultra conservative (aka, prissy bitch) when he doesn't like what is said.

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 thread ]
GMacGuffin (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 9:10am

Copying, aka Inspiration
Love this comment thread. Couple of points:

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Copyright law is pretty much the same worldwide - because these days it is predicated on international treaties such as the Berne Convention.

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 9:15am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You misunderstand - he said de minimis is still in the law - but judgements keep ignoring it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 9:27am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 8:29am
Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly about context and language comprehension.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bergman (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 9:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

If you're not a paid shill, why are you working for free?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 17 Mar 2012 @ 10:21am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
Right, and the crappy "dime novels" back in the day didn't make some publishers quite rich. Except, actually they did. Those publishers knew they were crap, but that if they were cheap enough, people would buy without much concern about quality. The RIAA labels want the same sort of cheap mass-produced content, but wants everyone to believe that their artist are grand masters that command such a price.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 17 Mar 2012 @ 10:26am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
And in case you haven't noticed, they are going bankrupt. The masses got used to the crap that labels where selling, because the labels manged to lock down just about every major avenue for promoting music. People rarely got to hear anything else. Now that they can find and fund artist directly, the masses are coming to see the labels for what they truly are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 10:44am

Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Mar 17th, 2012 @ 8:29am
Because OBVIOUSLY the sarcasm in the title escapes you. Sarcasm must be too advanced of a language concept for you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 10:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think he means that at all.
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 thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 10:56am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm going to disagree with you here. Adaptation or a new arrangement, if you prefer is almost as difficult as coming up with something "new".

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 thread ]
TtfnJohn (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 10:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
The same way most members of Congress did? ;-)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Torg (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 11:01am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Game engines are less like songs and more like instruments. I can't begin to count how many songs I've heard that use guitars and drums, but I wouldn't consider them remixes any more than Portal 2 is a remake of Team Fortress. Remixes would be more along the lines of graphics mods, or maybe something in the vein of Mari0. Possibly even Red Vs Blue. I can't say for sure which is harder, but just about everything I've read except Suja's post would lead me to believe that original creation takes more effort.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 11:12am

Re:
TAM, grow up. You cannot excuse your own lack of any value whatsoever by throwing random, baseless, and totally incorrect accusations at others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 12:31pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
around as music while the creativity of music starts to entropy.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:25pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because they are what they hate; a silly freetard.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:28pm

Re: Re: Re:
http://www.robandnick.com/detail.php?thing_id=465&show_id=&show_type=&x=4&y=4
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 17 Mar 2012 @ 1:40pm

Re: Re: Re:
The whole point is about fair use, that you can take from someone's song, without permission, and make something unique and different without diminishing the original work. Of course, if you even tried to read it, or understand it, you would have already known that. And that Marcus didn't write either.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re:
First off, who is TAM? I am only an anonymous poster. If you are suggesting that you know who I am, I would suggest that you may be abusing your "admin" priviledges on the site, and still drawing the wrong conclusion.

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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 3:55pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't think he means that at all.
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 thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:00pm

Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
"You are talentless in the field of music..."

And you know this how?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:12pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
If you can make it through half of this, you have a stronger stomach than I do...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dThOHbmp9eY
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
Well, it's rap. Not really my speed, although there were a select few memorable rap songs such as some of Coolio's stuff from the 90's, but whatever. At least he doesn't sound like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYk3lEb_fe4

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 thread ]
JMT (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:33pm

Re: Re: Re:
"I am only an anonymous poster."

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 thread ]
Ophelia Millais (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:39pm

Are the bass line parts of a composition actually covered by copyright?
I once read an interview with someone... George Clinton or Bootsy... saying you generally "can't copyright a bass line" or rhythm/drum part, as it's usually not the "melodic" element of the song.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:41pm

Re: Are the bass line parts of a composition actually covered by copyright?
Queen seems to disagree with that, as Vanilla Ice found out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leigh Beadon (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 4:59pm

Re: Re: Re:
Oh TAM... didn't you swear you were leaving the site forever? I really think you should - it'd be good for your health. At this rate you're going to give yourself a stroke.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 5:50pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
That might be some other anonymous poster. There are so many of them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:34pm

Re:
Wow! Damage controll kicks in hard. You are quite a piece of work! Thanks for the lolz
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 6:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
What is funny is that Marcus has all of about 50 views, the other lamers have 200,000 plus. Marcus's version of bad is bad...

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 8:29pm

Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Probably fight for the right to party... but that is just me.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 9:47pm

Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collage
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 10:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does it take 10x more creativity!? If you came up with riff, then came up with the sound, context, lyrics, then isn't that more difficult then adding a sound, context, etc to pre-existing idea. You clearly are not a musician because something you create from scratch that is as good as something already established is 10x HARDER to do. That's why people sample, its easier. Most hip-hop samples are just song clips with extra drums on top. And that does make for awesome songs with completely different contexts, but try and find a producer that makes it from scratch and ask him what takes more creativity.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Mar 2012 @ 11:36pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pablo Picasso Quote
Personally, I think we should leave some7 children behind... the ones that fail to get the basic concepts.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 11:43pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am not a paid shill.

Wow, so the industry does not only not pay their artists but also not their shills? Bummer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws.org (profile), 17 Mar 2012 @ 11:54pm

Re:
Oh, are you ever planning to move out of Mom's basement, or are you there for life?

I literally yawned when I read this tired old line. Way to go, TAM.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 2:03am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Reimagine is code for cut and paste now?

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 18 Mar 2012 @ 4:00am

Re:
"Don't hate based on bias and ignorance TAM."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 5:29am

Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Collage is rarely original, and seeks it's message in the works of others. It's mostly a wonderful game for grade school students. The content of the collage is still subject to copyright laws, so each item used would have to be cleared.

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 thread ]
Michael, 18 Mar 2012 @ 6:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 7:27am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course he remixed and reused: he's a genius
Popular != Good
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 18 Mar 2012 @ 7:33am

Bruce Springsteen, Another Pirate Remixer!
I doubt if any song written has not some riffs, notes and something that has been used before, especially when it comes to blues, country and jazz.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 9:07am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
So your argument is one based in subjective critique? Which is fine except for the fact that subjective arguments about art have to be removed from legal discussions otherwise we end up allowing people to censor any art they simply don't like and the first amendment is then basically pointless.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 10:49am

ugh
This isn't piracy, please stop trying to legitimize piracy with these idiotic claims. And this isn't how art works. In most cases, people do not start off with a bit that someone else has made. And despite what non-artists believe, you can create something completely original, out of nothing, that isn't a direct ripoff from someone else. Completely original and new stuff happens all the time, more than ever. Some people have this small minded philosophy that somehow it's impossible for a person to create something unless it's launched off of someone else's idea first, which is hogwash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 11:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Oh, I get it, you suck at evaluating art.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 11:58am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
No, I am not making any subjective judgement on art (except for Marcus's crap... and sorry, it's crap... friend who love rap think he is clueless white boy). My idea only is that while you can find exceptional cases in even the most derivative works, for the most part they aren't adding much to the collective pool of "art" as it were.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 11:59am

Re: ugh
http://www.robandnick.com/detail.php?thing_id=465&show_id=&show_type=&x=4&y=4

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 12:01pm

Re: ugh
You miss the point. Go back and read my previous comments then maybe you will understand. And where exactly did he make any reference in the article to piracy? He used the word "infringement" but there is more than one form of infringement. Piracy is but one. Plagiarism (to which he was specifically referring) is another.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 12:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Yes you are. You comment about rap being noise to you is a perfect example. Personally I'm not fond of much of it either, but I realize that is my personal subjective opinion and that opinion doesn't belong in a discussion about legal issues. If you want to have a subjective discussion about art, fine. But that is not what this is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Karl (profile), 18 Mar 2012 @ 1:13pm

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 1:22pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I love living in a world that has great art, bad art, good art, mediocre art, basically any kind of art that runs the entire subjective spectrum. To say that some art is not "allowed" because a small percentage of people don't like it or it isn't as good as this other kind of art? Now that's hogwash.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 1:51pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
Speaking of rap and copying, my gosh, how many "M.C."s and "D.J."s are out there?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 3:10pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You don't get it. Marcus isn't using " starkly obvious sarcasm", he is trying to justify his own piracy, sampling, and total lack of talent to actually play music. The point is to try to paint mainstream performers as some sort of pirates, and thus making piracy "okay".

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 3:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you honestly think he is criticizing Springsteen for drawing utilizing portions of former works by other artists when he clearly states, "It's not being unoriginal". And again where does he make any reference to piracy in the article?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles William - Thomas Consaul, 18 Mar 2012 @ 4:15pm

That Ain't Theft
In the Jazz idiom this is called a quote, and it is considered a compliment, a tip of the hat, to anyone except a lawyer or an accountant! There are only twelve notes in several octaves, and we are bound to run into the same combinations now and then. If your intent is to compliment rather than copy, and you are within the law (less than eight measures) there is nothing to worry about. If you need more than that, make it funny and call it a parody! (LOL)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 4:26pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You, just like all of those that support the position, have "hammer and nail syndrome". You're a "hammer", and anything that you don't agree with is a "nail" which means anything statement contrary to your position is obviously a justification of piracy (put forth by Google of course).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Richard (profile), 18 Mar 2012 @ 4:59pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.

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 thread ]
Michael, 18 Mar 2012 @ 6:14pm

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
Michael, 18 Mar 2012 @ 6:30pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The person working with a musical score is simply editing someone else's musical score."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 7:57pm

Re: ugh
Please go live in the mountains and try to create anything.
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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 9:18pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
No, you confuse the issue. I actually like some of it (I am a bit old school, old Jay-Z or maybe Dre would be fine for me most days). I have a great objection to the talentless shmoos like Marcus who try to pass themselves off as artists, and then have the guts to talk down to real musicians.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 9:19pm

Re: Re: ugh
Pirate Remixer. I don't have to go any further.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Mar 2012 @ 10:39pm

Re: Re: Re: ugh
In the title which is clearly sarcasm as he directly states the opposite in his final analysis as I previously demonstrated. Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
I have a great objection to the talentless shmoos like Marcus who try to pass themselves off as artists, and then have the guts to talk down to real musicians.

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:49am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"And again where does he make any reference to piracy in the article?"

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:51am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
"I have a great objection to the talentless shmoos like Marcus who try to pass themselves off as artists, and then have the guts to talk down to real musicians."

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 3:02am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The person working with a musical score is simply editing someone else's musical score."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 3:45am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
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

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:11am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Quote:
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.

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:
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.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:42am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point exactly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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."

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 thread ]
Michael, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:18am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:25am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Both represent pre-existing ideas but the latter is utilizing a recording, i.e. someone else already did the work."

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 thread ]
Michael, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:36am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"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."

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 thread ]
Michael, 19 Mar 2012 @ 5:51am

Re: 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."

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 thread ]
PaulT (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:09am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"A performance requires manual skill on an instrument whereas DJing and the like requires skill on a turntable/DAW."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:24am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Different skill sets yes, but its an subjective argument to say one is better or harder. Youtube some footage of "Cut Chemist" preforming live and tell me that is easy.

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Mar 2012 @ 7:57am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: AC, speaking to Leigh Beadon
wow you have watched that video almost 50 times already? Get over your obsession.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 9:27am

Re: Re: Re:
"Leigh Beadon and Marcus Crab are the same person."
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 thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:05am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Copying, aka Inspiration
"It's a glorious noise (to him) and pretty much just noise to the rest of us."

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 thread ]
weneedhelp (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 10:08am

Something fun to do
Here is a little experiment you all can try on the way home today. Put the radio volume just around wind noise level and play name that tune.

You will be surprised at how many songs sound alike.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Lurker, 19 Mar 2012 @ 1:17pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He wouldn't be able to justify his obsessive posting and incessant attacks if he had to stick to reality.

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:44pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There's a clear distinction between recycling a thematic idea or motif/leitmotif for usage in a song and sampling.

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 thread ]
Richard (profile), 19 Mar 2012 @ 2:52pm

Re: 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.

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 thread ]
It Doesn't Even Have Bacon On It..., 19 Mar 2012 @ 4:53pm

I'm late to the conversation, so this will probably go unnoticed but I feel compelled to throw in my deuce pennies. There seems to be a lot of confusion around here.

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.

Full disclosure: I'm a musician. I've toured as a turntablist, a button-pusher for MCs, a back up musician (bass and guitar), a songwriter, a singer (I prefer "vocalist" since I don't sing all that well)... I've written and released my own music, as well as performed as a session musician. I've made strictly sample-based music, and I've made original recordings. I'm not trying to say my opinion is more valid than anyone else's, I just want y'all to know from where I come.

Since it seems important to some people here, here's a link to some of my sample-based work from several years ago:
hosey.bandcamp.com/track/tesseract

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:

I know I am going to upset some people for daring to tell the truth, but here goes.

The problem is that far too many people lack any genuine musical talent, and aren't inclined to work - at all - to gain musical ability. As such, most of the work being produced in some genres relies 100% upon "having a unique sound signature" rather than having strong original ideas and solid songwriting or musicianship.

If all you can do is play one-finger lead lines over TR808 drum loops, that one-finger better playing a damned-interesting unique noise ... 'cuz there really isn't anything else about the song that would/could keep the interest of anyone over 10 years old otherwise.

In that environment, sounds get "played out".

When you write quality material it doesn't need gimmickry to succeed. It's no accident that some of the top-selling albums every year are things that were produced over 20 years ago, when none of this currently available technology existed.

If you want your artform to grow, count the cost and act accordingly.

[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2012 @ 5:39pm

Brown and dim eco-friendly pieces might be donned only inexpensive Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses contacts function the colour is saying there is not significantly romantic relationship among the UV400 generally additional a layer of membrane. As for what colour to put on contacts which are generally aesthetic and every person�s pores and skin color, inexpensive replica oakley sunglasses clothes donned through the problem, Cheap Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses is incredibly fundamental with the summer，because it safeguards the eye balls loads of pals with the Oakley sunglasses of choice, generally far more interest could be the product or service price, good quality and design and so, in fact, the option of sunglasses lens colours are also incredibly important. So, what colour is generally a very good inexpensive Oakley sunglasses Statistics display that most folks commonly select dark font size="+2.415">Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses Outlet frame shade mainly because of fake Oakley sunglasses can withstand the path to keep away from the expression of mild reflected back again from your drinking water or light, or other conditions arising from your reflection, inexpensive Oakley sunglasses to provide the driver a obvious visual experience.Believe this could be the greatest question. Indeed, now for the industry sunglasses lens colours multi-colored and dazzling, colour will not harm inexpensive Oakley Frogskin Sunglasses Sale you to definitely carry a diverse feel. Brown University: Brown college recognized Oakley Outlet low cost as the most effective sunglasses contacts in color.Cheap Oakley Sunglasses far more designer. oakley sunglasses outlet far more artist new Oakley sunglasses.
[ link to this | view in thread ]