Whatcha'll listening to?

The0bamessiah said:
Indeed a burned-out house, or a dying tree can be a beautiful sight in its own way
Click to expand...

Big time oof. Man just called half my musical library a dying tree.

I will never emotionally recover from this.



Seriously though, you make some valid points that I cant argue against. I do have some intimate experience with intellectual property theft or misappropriation a few years ago and it pissed me the hell off. I still wanna power-smack that shithead in the face.

You sound more tuned in to this industry than I am, but I was under the impression that the vast vast vast majority of sampled artists receive royalties. There is a new (to me) service out that makes the royalty payment thing even easier for the hip hop sampling world. I forget what it's called, but I saw it on YouTube. This service that streamlines the sample and royalty process alluded to me that everyone was getting paid, but again I'm not tuned in and looks like I might be very wrong.

What if the origin of hip hop sampling is a socio-economic thing? Would it be a little more acceptable then? Being poor and living in the 'hood, it's not easy to come by instruments or lessons or musical training, but regardless of income and cultural history we all have language. What if these ghetto kids have a lot to say, some important things to say musically, but cant afford the instruments or even the time to learn the instruments and musical theory? Should art only be open to those who can afford to do it? Should artistry be gate-kept? Are their messages less valid then? Of course I am talking about the thoughtful deep-hop, the conscious rap, (which is the minority these days) not the garbage majority that exists today.
 
Sabretooth-Ninja said:
Big time oof. Man just called half my musical library a dying tree.

I will never emotionally recover from this.



Seriously though, you make some valid points that I cant argue against. I do have some intimate experience with intellectual property theft or misappropriation a few years ago and it pissed me the hell off. I still wanna power-smack that shithead in the face.

You sound more tuned in to this industry than I am, but I was under the impression that the vast vast vast majority of sampled artists receive royalties. There is a new (to me) service out that makes the royalty payment thing even easier for the hip hop sampling world. I forget what it's called, but I saw it on YouTube. This service that streamlines the sample and royalty process alluded to me that everyone was getting paid, but again I'm not tuned in and looks like I might be very wrong.

What if the origin of hip hop sampling is a socio-economic thing? Would it be a little more acceptable then? Being poor and living in the 'hood, it's not easy to come by instruments or lessons or musical training, but regardless of income and cultural history we all have language. What if these ghetto kids have a lot to say, some important things to say musically, but cant afford the instruments or even the time to learn the instruments and musical theory? Should art only be open to those who can afford to do it? Should artistry be gate-kept? Are their messages less valid then? Of course I am talking about the thoughtful deep-hop, the conscious rap, (which is the minority these days) not the garbage majority that exists today.
Click to expand...
Don't despair about the tree. There is beauty in all things, however they come to be.


How many samples today are used with permission versus how many in the past were used without permission is unclear to me. The practice has benefited from hip hop's rise in popularity I'd imagine. Where previously artists may have been unwilling to authorize the use of their work in "gangsta rap" that was only a popular subset of the music industry they may now be more willing to allow their use - even uncompensated - because hip hop has become the dominant force in the music industry. A hip hop artist, even a relatively humble one, using your work as one of their samples might now be seen as a badge of honor rather than a mark of your own obscurity.

Sampling can be done with permission, including with compensation to the copyright holder(s). Many big-time artists do actually pay for their samples. In fact being able to sample certain tracks legally has become a kind of conspicuous consumption ( something very common in hip hop culture ) where wealthiest artists "show-off" their ability to compensate other artists for their sampled tracks. Ironically, despite hip hop's humble origins, this creates a cycle where only the rich artists can use the "best" samples and the poorer artists either must go without, or resort to the theft of copyright to satisfy their artistic intentions.

Hip hop's origins are ones of humble, socio-economically disadvantaged people living in a not-so-great time and place in America, specifically 1970s New York City. Poor guys in New York with something to say began to express themselves through the use of spoken-word poetry. In order to accompany their kind of spoken-word poetry ( now called rap ) with music some of these guys played recordings they liked in the background, over which they would rap. Because it could be difficult to distinguish the rapper's lyrics from those of the recording being played instrumental breaks, frequently those of percussion instruments, would be the most commonly used recordings.

However I disagree that their decision to use others' works was due solely to being unable to afford their own musical instruments. People far poorer than them were able to make or acquire instruments of their own in America ( and elsewhere ) in the past. The blues is filled with amazing musicians from abject poverty making or acquiring their own instruments in spite of their lack of financial stability. Likewise many country and bluegrass musicians also came from poor backgrounds and either found some cheap instruments to use or they made their own. Bluegrass even still sometime utilizes a lot of these homemade instruments like the jug, washboard, and spoons.

Even in rock and roll music you would find people making their own instruments, or buying the cheapest ones they could find ; not all of the rock music greats ( or not-so-greats ) were from cushy middle-class backgrounds. The Beatles' Ringo Starr was from a particularly poor background in Liverpool, itself a very working-class city in England. Roger Daltrey of The Who made his first guitar from a block of wood, and during The Who's very early years he would make guitars for them. A particularly extreme example of a homemade guitar can be seen here in this video :


where Jack White of The White Stripes makes an electric guitar. Now admittedly the amplifier and other equipment is not particularly cheap but the principle of making your own instrument is still demonstrated. Needless to say, poverty is not an excuse for being unwilling to create music on your own.

Furthermore, theft is not excused solely by a person's inability to afford the goods or services they are stealing. Would you say that a person ought to be excused from stealing a loaf of bread simply because they could not pay for it? What about a power drill? Or perhaps a car? Or a gold watch? The circumstances of the thief's inability to afford their stolen item remains the same in all of these examples. Arguments can be made for the loaf of bread ( the person is starving ) , the power drill ( the person needs to fix a leaky roof ) , or the car ( the person needs to get to their job ) but what about the gold watch? Is that kind of an extravagant timepiece really a necessity? Similarly, is artistic expression a necessity? I would say no. While art is an invaluable part of human culture, and an important part of our psyche it is not a prerequisite for life or survival, even in our modern world. A limit must be drawn, and that limit is private ownership : you can not take what is not yours even if your intentions for it are good.



If you like hip hop that's fine. You should like what you like. I can even admit that many of hip hop's artists are fantastic lyricists, even if I do not like the lyrics themselves or their delivery I can acknowledge the skill and talent it takes to create them. But it is still a genre of music founded upon the unpermitted taking of others' work.
 
The0bamessiah said:
Don't despair about the tree. There is beauty in all things, however they come to be.


How many samples today are used with permission versus how many in the past were used without permission is unclear to me. The practice has benefited from hip hop's rise in popularity I'd imagine. Where previously artists may have been unwilling to authorize the use of their work in "gangsta rap" that was only a popular subset of the music industry they may now be more willing to allow their use - even uncompensated - because hip hop has become the dominant force in the music industry. A hip hop artist, even a relatively humble one, using your work as one of their samples might now be seen as a badge of honor rather than a mark of your own obscurity.

Sampling can be done with permission, including with compensation to the copyright holder(s). Many big-time artists do actually pay for their samples. In fact being able to sample certain tracks legally has become a kind of conspicuous consumption ( something very common in hip hop culture ) where wealthiest artists "show-off" their ability to compensate other artists for their sampled tracks. Ironically, despite hip hop's humble origins, this creates a cycle where only the rich artists can use the "best" samples and the poorer artists either must go without, or resort to the theft of copyright to satisfy their artistic intentions.

Hip hop's origins are ones of humble, socio-economically disadvantaged people living in a not-so-great time and place in America, specifically 1970s New York City. Poor guys in New York with something to say began to express themselves through the use of spoken-word poetry. In order to accompany their kind of spoken-word poetry ( now called rap ) with music some of these guys played recordings they liked in the background, over which they would rap. Because it could be difficult to distinguish the rapper's lyrics from those of the recording being played instrumental breaks, frequently those of percussion instruments, would be the most commonly used recordings.

However I disagree that their decision to use others' works was due solely to being unable to afford their own musical instruments. People far poorer than them were able to make or acquire instruments of their own in America ( and elsewhere ) in the past. The blues is filled with amazing musicians from abject poverty making or acquiring their own instruments in spite of their lack of financial stability. Likewise many country and bluegrass musicians also came from poor backgrounds and either found some cheap instruments to use or they made their own. Bluegrass even still sometime utilizes a lot of these homemade instruments like the jug, washboard, and spoons.

Even in rock and roll music you would find people making their own instruments, or buying the cheapest ones they could find ; not all of the rock music greats ( or not-so-greats ) were from cushy middle-class backgrounds. The Beatles' Ringo Starr was from a particularly poor background in Liverpool, itself a very working-class city in England. Roger Daltrey of The Who made his first guitar from a block of wood, and during The Who's very early years he would make guitars for them. A particularly extreme example of a homemade guitar can be seen here in this video :


where Jack White of The White Stripes makes an electric guitar. Now admittedly the amplifier and other equipment is not particularly cheap but the principle of making your own instrument is still demonstrated. Needless to say, poverty is not an excuse for being unwilling to create music on your own.

Furthermore, theft is not excused solely by a person's inability to afford the goods or services they are stealing. Would you say that a person ought to be excused from stealing a loaf of bread simply because they could not pay for it? What about a power drill? Or perhaps a car? Or a gold watch? The circumstances of the thief's inability to afford their stolen item remains the same in all of these examples. Arguments can be made for the loaf of bread ( the person is starving ) , the power drill ( the person needs to fix a leaky roof ) , or the car ( the person needs to get to their job ) but what about the gold watch? Is that kind of an extravagant timepiece really a necessity? Similarly, is artistic expression a necessity? I would say no. While art is an invaluable part of human culture, and an important part of our psyche it is not a prerequisite for life or survival, even in our modern world. A limit must be drawn, and that limit is private ownership : you can not take what is not yours even if your intentions for it are good.



If you like hip hop that's fine. You should like what you like. I can even admit that many of hip hop's artists are fantastic lyricists, even if I do not like the lyrics themselves or their delivery I can acknowledge the skill and talent it takes to create them. But it is still a genre of music founded upon the unpermitted taking of others' work.
Click to expand...
we got mfers out here with all this knowledge and we bout to get destroyed. this is fun stuff to read bc it feels like lost knowledge. my job is about to experience a wave of lost knowledge and ppl are gonna be like 'uhhh wtf do we do now?' and there is no plan for 'what's next'. it's over. doompoasting, enabled.
 
The0bamessiah said:
Don't despair about the tree. There is beauty in all things, however they come to be.


How many samples today are used with permission versus how many in the past were used without permission is unclear to me. The practice has benefited from hip hop's rise in popularity I'd imagine. Where previously artists may have been unwilling to authorize the use of their work in "gangsta rap" that was only a popular subset of the music industry they may now be more willing to allow their use - even uncompensated - because hip hop has become the dominant force in the music industry. A hip hop artist, even a relatively humble one, using your work as one of their samples might now be seen as a badge of honor rather than a mark of your own obscurity.

Sampling can be done with permission, including with compensation to the copyright holder(s). Many big-time artists do actually pay for their samples. In fact being able to sample certain tracks legally has become a kind of conspicuous consumption ( something very common in hip hop culture ) where wealthiest artists "show-off" their ability to compensate other artists for their sampled tracks. Ironically, despite hip hop's humble origins, this creates a cycle where only the rich artists can use the "best" samples and the poorer artists either must go without, or resort to the theft of copyright to satisfy their artistic intentions.

Hip hop's origins are ones of humble, socio-economically disadvantaged people living in a not-so-great time and place in America, specifically 1970s New York City. Poor guys in New York with something to say began to express themselves through the use of spoken-word poetry. In order to accompany their kind of spoken-word poetry ( now called rap ) with music some of these guys played recordings they liked in the background, over which they would rap. Because it could be difficult to distinguish the rapper's lyrics from those of the recording being played instrumental breaks, frequently those of percussion instruments, would be the most commonly used recordings.

However I disagree that their decision to use others' works was due solely to being unable to afford their own musical instruments. People far poorer than them were able to make or acquire instruments of their own in America ( and elsewhere ) in the past. The blues is filled with amazing musicians from abject poverty making or acquiring their own instruments in spite of their lack of financial stability. Likewise many country and bluegrass musicians also came from poor backgrounds and either found some cheap instruments to use or they made their own. Bluegrass even still sometime utilizes a lot of these homemade instruments like the jug, washboard, and spoons.

Even in rock and roll music you would find people making their own instruments, or buying the cheapest ones they could find ; not all of the rock music greats ( or not-so-greats ) were from cushy middle-class backgrounds. The Beatles' Ringo Starr was from a particularly poor background in Liverpool, itself a very working-class city in England. Roger Daltrey of The Who made his first guitar from a block of wood, and during The Who's very early years he would make guitars for them. A particularly extreme example of a homemade guitar can be seen here in this video :


where Jack White of The White Stripes makes an electric guitar. Now admittedly the amplifier and other equipment is not particularly cheap but the principle of making your own instrument is still demonstrated. Needless to say, poverty is not an excuse for being unwilling to create music on your own.

Furthermore, theft is not excused solely by a person's inability to afford the goods or services they are stealing. Would you say that a person ought to be excused from stealing a loaf of bread simply because they could not pay for it? What about a power drill? Or perhaps a car? Or a gold watch? The circumstances of the thief's inability to afford their stolen item remains the same in all of these examples. Arguments can be made for the loaf of bread ( the person is starving ) , the power drill ( the person needs to fix a leaky roof ) , or the car ( the person needs to get to their job ) but what about the gold watch? Is that kind of an extravagant timepiece really a necessity? Similarly, is artistic expression a necessity? I would say no. While art is an invaluable part of human culture, and an important part of our psyche it is not a prerequisite for life or survival, even in our modern world. A limit must be drawn, and that limit is private ownership : you can not take what is not yours even if your intentions for it are good.



If you like hip hop that's fine. You should like what you like. I can even admit that many of hip hop's artists are fantastic lyricists, even if I do not like the lyrics themselves or their delivery I can acknowledge the skill and talent it takes to create them. But it is still a genre of music founded upon the unpermitted taking of others' work.
Click to expand...
Okay you win. Very well put together sir.
 
The0bamessiah said:
Don't despair about the tree. There is beauty in all things, however they come to be.


How many samples today are used with permission versus how many in the past were used without permission is unclear to me. The practice has benefited from hip hop's rise in popularity I'd imagine. Where previously artists may have been unwilling to authorize the use of their work in "gangsta rap" that was only a popular subset of the music industry they may now be more willing to allow their use - even uncompensated - because hip hop has become the dominant force in the music industry. A hip hop artist, even a relatively humble one, using your work as one of their samples might now be seen as a badge of honor rather than a mark of your own obscurity.

Sampling can be done with permission, including with compensation to the copyright holder(s). Many big-time artists do actually pay for their samples. In fact being able to sample certain tracks legally has become a kind of conspicuous consumption ( something very common in hip hop culture ) where wealthiest artists "show-off" their ability to compensate other artists for their sampled tracks. Ironically, despite hip hop's humble origins, this creates a cycle where only the rich artists can use the "best" samples and the poorer artists either must go without, or resort to the theft of copyright to satisfy their artistic intentions.

Hip hop's origins are ones of humble, socio-economically disadvantaged people living in a not-so-great time and place in America, specifically 1970s New York City. Poor guys in New York with something to say began to express themselves through the use of spoken-word poetry. In order to accompany their kind of spoken-word poetry ( now called rap ) with music some of these guys played recordings they liked in the background, over which they would rap. Because it could be difficult to distinguish the rapper's lyrics from those of the recording being played instrumental breaks, frequently those of percussion instruments, would be the most commonly used recordings.

However I disagree that their decision to use others' works was due solely to being unable to afford their own musical instruments. People far poorer than them were able to make or acquire instruments of their own in America ( and elsewhere ) in the past. The blues is filled with amazing musicians from abject poverty making or acquiring their own instruments in spite of their lack of financial stability. Likewise many country and bluegrass musicians also came from poor backgrounds and either found some cheap instruments to use or they made their own. Bluegrass even still sometime utilizes a lot of these homemade instruments like the jug, washboard, and spoons.

Even in rock and roll music you would find people making their own instruments, or buying the cheapest ones they could find ; not all of the rock music greats ( or not-so-greats ) were from cushy middle-class backgrounds. The Beatles' Ringo Starr was from a particularly poor background in Liverpool, itself a very working-class city in England. Roger Daltrey of The Who made his first guitar from a block of wood, and during The Who's very early years he would make guitars for them. A particularly extreme example of a homemade guitar can be seen here in this video :


where Jack White of The White Stripes makes an electric guitar. Now admittedly the amplifier and other equipment is not particularly cheap but the principle of making your own instrument is still demonstrated. Needless to say, poverty is not an excuse for being unwilling to create music on your own.

Furthermore, theft is not excused solely by a person's inability to afford the goods or services they are stealing. Would you say that a person ought to be excused from stealing a loaf of bread simply because they could not pay for it? What about a power drill? Or perhaps a car? Or a gold watch? The circumstances of the thief's inability to afford their stolen item remains the same in all of these examples. Arguments can be made for the loaf of bread ( the person is starving ) , the power drill ( the person needs to fix a leaky roof ) , or the car ( the person needs to get to their job ) but what about the gold watch? Is that kind of an extravagant timepiece really a necessity? Similarly, is artistic expression a necessity? I would say no. While art is an invaluable part of human culture, and an important part of our psyche it is not a prerequisite for life or survival, even in our modern world. A limit must be drawn, and that limit is private ownership : you can not take what is not yours even if your intentions for it are good.



If you like hip hop that's fine. You should like what you like. I can even admit that many of hip hop's artists are fantastic lyricists, even if I do not like the lyrics themselves or their delivery I can acknowledge the skill and talent it takes to create them. But it is still a genre of music founded upon the unpermitted taking of others' work.
Click to expand...
Ok, I read all that and whatever, but doesn't/didn't Kanye use/steal/improve his beats? they were catchy like Kid Cudi's.
 
Sabretooth-Ninja said:
Okay you win. Very well put together sir.
Click to expand...
I'm not looking to win. Just looking to inform. As I said, if you like hip hop that's fine. You should enjoy the things which bring you joy. You aren't the one doing the stealing or plagiarism, and you can absolutely appreciate the artistry used in hip hop outside of sampling. It's not my thing but art is all about subjectivity.
 
LordTomBrady said:
Ok, I read all that and whatever, but doesn't/didn't Kanye use/steal/improve his beats? they were catchy like Kid Cudi's.
Click to expand...
What do you mean? Kanye West I am sure has sampled music others have made. Some - or even all, I do not know - of those samples were probably used with the permission of their owner(s). Have the efforts he and his producer(s) made to add to, or manipulate these recordings "improved" them? That's not for me to say. I do not like hip hop as I have said so I doubt I will find his alterations to be preferable to the original. I am not sure who Kid Cudi is.
 
The0bamessiah said:
I'm not looking to win. Just looking to inform. As I said, if you like hip hop that's fine. You should enjoy the things which bring you joy. You aren't the one doing the stealing or plagiarism, and you can absolutely appreciate the artistry used in hip hop outside of sampling. It's not my thing but art is all about subjectivity.
Click to expand...

So where would this land? The entire album is made up from audio samples. Some from songs, tv, movies, etc
 
FunkyForReal said:

So where would this land? The entire album is made up from audio samples. Some from songs, tv, movies, etc
Click to expand...
The same place as hip hop. Sampling is theft and plagiarism if it is not permitted by the copyright holder(s). Or were you asking for my opinion on the music itself? If so, then crap mostly, from what I listened to when I skimmed through it. It's too electronic for my tastes.
 
The0bamessiah said:
The same place as hip hop. Sampling is theft and plagiarism if it is not permitted by the copyright holder(s). Or were you asking for my opinion on the music itself? If so, then crap mostly, from what I listened to when I skimmed through it. It's too electronic for my tastes.
Click to expand...
I agree to an extent. Sampling can be theft if you can identify the sample that has been stolen. If the sample length is so tiny no one would be able to identify it then it’s free game. That’s how this album is set up.

I am Not a huge fan of justice either. I always thought that the Cross album was interesting because it was mostly made up of tiny samples
 
FunkyForReal said:
I agree to an extent. Sampling can be theft if you can identify the sample that has been stolen. If the sample length is so tiny no one would be able to identify it then it’s free game. That’s how this album is set up.

I am Not a huge fan of justice either. I always thought that the Cross album was interesting because it was mostly made up of tiny samples
Click to expand...
There is definitely a limit to how far a copyright goes. You can't sue someone for stealing your writing simply because they use the same words you have used. If that were the case then no wiriting would ever be original. If, as you say, this is made up of myriad samples of tiny length then it probably does not meet the standard of copyright violation.
 
The thievery involved in sampling music is made clear when you apply it to other things.

Like when some guy with the moniker "Sniff Doggy Doo" wants to build a car.

He samples some rims and tires from someone. Then samples a body from somebody else. Yet another person has their drive train sampled. And then Sniff Doggy Doo samples a killer stereo system from some other ghetto rat.

Some people will praise Sniff Doggy Doo for his resourcefulness and creativity.

Others will just call him out for stealing shit from other people.
 
-bZ-LongTrang1 said:
The thievery involved in sampling music is made clear when you apply it to other things.

Like when some guy with the moniker "Sniff Doggy Doo" wants to build a car.

He samples some rims and tires from someone. Then samples a body from somebody else. Yet another person has their drive train sampled. And then Sniff Doggy Doo samples a killer stereo system from some other ghetto rat.

Some people will praise Sniff Doggy Doo for his resourcefulness and creativity.

Others will just call him out for stealing shit from other people.
Click to expand...
The OG is William Shakespeare. Everyone has been copying him since.

Oh and the X Files. Dana Scully is hot and I like hot babes that look like hot librarians.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top