8 ms·
The shady one-man corporation that's destroying hip-hop (2006)
- noonespecial 13y agoIt seems to be becoming the central theme of the early 21st century. How do we keep the institutions that are supposedly created for our benefit from doing the opposite?
- voidz 13y agoWe don't. We choose alternatives instead.
- beedogs 13y agoThis is why artists release "mixtapes" all the time for free instead; can't sue someone who's released their tracks free of charge. I mean, I guess you could try, but you won't make much doing it.
- kzrdude 13y agoReactive legislature. Preferably backed by visionaries.
- samplonius 13y agoExcept that record companies were never created for anyone's benefit except their own. But also this article was written in 2006. It is now 2014, and hiphop has not been killed. In fact, this particular issue became a big nothing. Record company's are really just banks now. They finance the artists, and perform marketing. And once the music is for sale, they take a portion of the profits. And to do so, they have some rights over the work, just like a bank has over a property under a mortgage. Ideally, you wouldn't need outside financing to take your music to market. But if you do, you need to get the best deal. And if you are a nobody, that deal isn't going to include much for you. So bootstrap with small investors first and short term deals. Banks, errr... record company's need a big portion of the profits, because half of their investments will fail. Well, half is probably generous. But if the rate of return for being a record company was so great, there would be more people doing it. Actually that happened, and there are lots more record company's now than ever, because you no longer need to be big to fight for shelf space in HMV, as HMV is almost bankrupt.
- chrismcb 13y agoSo, if you need outside financing, record companies benefit you? Most companies were created to benefit themselves. That is sort of the whole point of for profit organizations, to make a profit. As you pointed out, record companies do provide a benefit, financing and marketing.
- rjtavares 13y agoIt's a shame that albums like "It takes a Nation of Millions..." or "Paul's Boutique" couldn't be made today. I wonder what amazing albums we could have got had copyright law taken another route...
- enneff 13y agoWhat do you mean? People are still writing sample-based music.
- rjtavares 13y agoThose were particularly sample heavy albums (Paul's boutique samples more than 100 songs), which are impossible to do today unless you're Kanye West or too underground to matter. After Biz Markie was sued, sampling changed completely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._Warner_Bros._Records_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Upright_Music,_Ltd._v._Wa....
- objclxt 13y ago...except the internet means that bootleg albums and unauthorized samples are used more than ever.
- rjtavares 13y agoIt also means that once an artist gets big, he loses some of his creative freedom. Kendrick Lamar couldn't clear Cartoon and Cereal for GKMC. Danny Brown couldn't clear ODB for Old. In both cases, they would be among the best songs in the album. It's a shame...
- eddieroger 13y agoThe "Paul's Boutique" example is always my favorite, because it's one of my favorite albums, and the astronomical amount it'd take to release today. Although it could just be that the Beastie's are one of my favorite groups, and I happened to be listening to them as I read this comment.
- 13y ago
- aet 13y agoThis is shady, but artists should get paid if their work is heavily sampled.
- uvTwitch 13y agoIf by "artists" you mean "people who buy the rights to the work created by artists for a pittance, and then use it to extort others attempting to create something worthwhile from it", then sure.
- shock-value 13y agoYes, and it's just as true in that case. >attempting to create something worthwhile from it You say that as though the sample itself is not worthwhile or valuable. There are plenty of modern songs for which the only reason they are popular or sound good is that they sample older tunes. And it's simply not easy to create a good-sounding, catchy sample. So whoever owns it deserves to get paid, and it's no one's fault but the original artist if he or she sold off the rights to it for a pittance.
- codeddesign 13y agoI'm sorry...but are you kidding me? This article is nothing more then some guy whining about how jay-z of someone else's lyrics. Regardless if it's a patent troll or not, he didn't own the rights to it and yet still made a fortune. The music industry spends millions every year prosecuting people in favor of the musicians...but now when the tables are turned, people start crying about it.
- enneff 13y agoYou seem to be missing the point. The point is that sample-based music can (and should) still be an original work. This "sample troll" (nothing to do with patents, btw) is unethically stifling creativity in the music industry. That's bad for everyone.
- nav1 13y agoNot to mention that the original authors of the sampled music will not receive any money from this. This is simply an abuse of the copyright system.
- shock-value 13y agoNo it isn't. The fact that the original authors sold off the rights for (perhaps) a pittance is regrettable, and depending on the circumstances possibly illegal. But that's a separate issue. Samples are still valuable and whoever their rightful owners are, they deserve to be in control of their use.
- nav1 13y agoBut why should that be? How does this encourage creativity? If anything it turns sample-based music into a legal minefield.
- shock-value 13y agoIt encourages artists to come up with great new samples, either for use in their own songs, to license for use in others' songs, or both! How does it not encourage creativity? As an example, just listen to Kanye West's "Stronger" and compare that to the original source of the sample, Daft Punk's "Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger", which itself prominently samples Edwin Birdsong's "Cola Bottle Baby". Now imagine neither Daft Punk nor Edwin Birdsong was ever compensated or asked permission for Kanye's work, and neither was Edwin Birdsong compensated or asked permission for Daft Punk's usage. Is that in any way fair? Both the newer songs essentially owe their popularity to that single iconic sample! If you don't want to go the legal route by getting permission to reuse others' music, then make an entirely original song. Plenty of people still do that, you know. Sampling others' work is a privilege, not a right.
- sheetjs 13y ago> However, in at least a few cases, Boladian assigned the copyrights to Bridgeport by writing a contract and then faking Clinton's signature (as described here). If that is what happened, couldn't Clinton sue Boladian and Bridgeport for signature forgery? Otherwise, what would stop someone from faking Boladian's signature on an agreement to transfer ownership to another entity?
- jbigelow76 13y agoI wish more would have been written about that aspect too. If "sample trolls" are as big a nuisance as the article made them out to be it would have made sense for the labels to bring out the big legal guns.
- macspoofing 13y agoHi Kettle, meet Pot.
- S_A_P 13y agoThis is touched on in the article, but the problem is that the artists dont benefit from this. It reveals a fundamental problem with the music industry. The creative people are often taken advantage of and have their royalty rights stripped from them when they are "young and naive" about the music business. The top 5-10% of artists usually find a way to renegotiate once they are a proven profit center, but the artists that do just well enough to keep a deal and dont have their publishing rights end up bankrupt and screwed should their work prove to be "classic".
- acjohnson55 13y agoI think top 5-10% is a huge overestimate of how many artists ever see a lucrative contract.
- jamesbrownuhh 13y agoThis article is rather spectacularly missing the point. It suggests that it's the movie equivalent of prosecuting filmmakers for using the standard idea of an establishing shot, as seen in The Magnificient Seven. That's quite obviously not the same thing - no-one prevents filmmakers using an idea. But sampling is the equivalent of a filmmaker using the ACTUAL FOOTAGE from The Magnificent Seven and putting it in their own movie and selling it as if it were their own. That is quite obviously not going to fly. The article suggests that Jay Z raps over a break from a Madonna song and is then surprised when the bill comes? The reality is that if Madonna released a track with chunks of a Jay Z record in the background, he'd be the first at the door wanting to be paid in full. The fact that record companies want to be paid when their products are sampled is not remotely new, it has been understood and established since the 1980s. For anyone, even in the dim and distant dark ages of 2006, to be surprised by that state of affairs is baffling.
- beedogs 13y agoThe funny thing is that that Madonna song samples a Public Enemy track for its beat. The sample was obtained without consent. (The lyrics were also stolen from Ingrid Chavez, also without consent. She sued and won.)
- camus2 13y agoThe funniest is Madonna stole the beat of "Justify my love" from My Bloody Valentine,an indie rock band. They sued Madonna and won.
- mynameishere 13y agoWhatever. The continued existence of rap, which reached its peak with the album "Toys in the Attic" is something really mystifying. I suspect it has a lot to do with the ability of completely untrained, possibly even tone-deaf, "musicians" making albums whose appeal seems mostly about attitude. It's obnoxious, it's hyper-masculine, it can't be listened to quietly, etc--and everyone can do it, if they, personally, have those same attitudes. There's appeal in that. So, what? Maybe if sampling was completely illegal, they'd have to start over by renting a clarinet and playing scales. That's a bad thing? http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-rap-song-samples-billie-jean-in-its-entirety-a,4389/ http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-rap-song-samples-billie...
- GuiA 13y ago"I don't get it and I don't get why other people would enjoy it so it must all be terrible."
- benched 13y agoOk, this is the most idiotic Internet comment I've ever responded to, but here goes. Rappers are more akin to poets than musicians, the way you are using the word musician. The musicians in rap are called producers - they make the backing tracks. The appeal includes: complex technical rhyming, nuanced delivery ('flow'), vignette painting, storytelling, wordplay including numerous puns, double-entendre, and punchlines, some backing tracks are actually epic, or especially funky, i.e. they have merit as music. You apparently disapprove of the subject matter. Would you level the same criticism at movies like Scarface, Goodfellas, or The Godfather for the same reasons?
- stan_rogers 13y agoYou're arguing that the poetry is legitimate. Fine. Let it stand on its own. If it needs music to make it work, then make the music as well. If it needs somebody else's hit music to make it work, then maybe -- just maybe -- it can't quite stand on its own. That's not questioning the merit of the genre, but the merit of individual pieces.
- qq66 13y agoInterestingly, the Grammy for Best Rap Album of 2013 went to Macklemore and Ryan Lewis' "The Heist," which didn't use any samples expressly to avoid legal issues, but ended up sounding much fresher and original as a result.
- te_chris 13y agoI guess, but it seems pretty univerally accepted that Kendrick Lamar's good kid mAAD city should have won that, so I'm not sure what using the grammys as a barometer proves.
- qq66 13y agoRight, the only point is that The Heist is, commercially and critically, a very successful album that doesn't have any samples not for artistic but for legal reasons.
- flycaliguy 13y agoPersonally I thought the synth sounds were a bit cheesy on that record, thrift shop sounds more like a genre parody. I think the album would have sounded better if the two were not prevented from even basic sampling. In a lot of cases not using samples often just means taking a sample which you have already roughly arranged into a song and spending a lot of time and money recreating it with live musicians.
- taylorlb 13y agoArmen Boladian isn't quite just a "former record producer". He founded and ran Westbound records who put out the majority of George Clinton's music and many other groups.