Double standards in sampling or music journalism?

[Unfolding]

Not sure if anyone else cares but I'm gonna point this out anyway. If you're good at sampling then critics & blogs love you. If you aren't you're gonna get some free publicity and maybe look like an idiot.

Noticed 2 articles, here and here, about some upstart EDM DJs grabbing a single note that sounds a lot like Mr Oizo and using it in their song. Someone tells Oizo about it and he calls them out on Twitter. The then idiots claim it came from a commercial sample pack & they claim other people used the same generic sample.

Fine, whatever. So someone used a stock sound, used it in a really obvious way and pretended like they didn't plagiarise. Everyone agrees that the original's better than the imitiation, nothing new there. I call the DJs idiots not because I dislike their work, but rather how they handled the situation.

My issue isn't with who sampled what, it's about a double standard in music journalism: If you're good at what you do, then you get a free pass. The Pitchfork writer didn't call out Burial or Andy Stott for their sampling in dance music. Rather than point out ethical issues in what the writer likes he'd rather praise or ignore the samples. FACT rarely shows a direct bias on sampling unless shit stirs up then they allow someone like Machinedrum to get a few paragraphs in & offer a more-or-less identical explanation ('it was in a sample pack') with no further comment.

It's a weird deal, huh? So rather than focus on the sample pack's creators for potentially selling Oizo's copywrited work, big websites like Pitchfork & FACT would rather comment on a pair of idiots as a soft target. It also helps when the offender puts out something that's lame to the writer's ears.

'Spose if there's a lesson in this, it's to get so damn good at sampling that nobody can pick what you've taken or do it so confidently that nobody even thinks to question it. Which is bullshit 'cause at the end of the day the idiots did the same thing as what we and our idols do everyday: make music from music. Almost nobody's above sampling these days, especially not Mr Oizo and his own uncredited sample.

Don't get me wrong, I love sampling and all the different approaches to it. But I also appreciate a consistent message and treating each case fairly.[/rant]

[Wal Martian]

It seems like they sampled something else from oizo, the telephone filtered sound right before the drop in their tune sounds just like oizo's flat eric puppet talking on the phone.

[hseiken]

Timbaland set the mood...

If you're unaware, UF, there was a plagerism complaint brought up to Timbaland by a chiptune artist who wrote a song that Timbaland ripped for a nelly furtado song from the High Voltage SID Pack. That particular song had been debut'd in the mid 2000's in front of thousands in a song compo for a demoscene event which if I recall was also locally broadcast, along with all the credits present.

When confronted about it, Timbaland's response wasn't even 'thanks for making a dope tune for me to sample, my bad'. It was that of complete entitlement. "Im popular, you're not. I can get away with shit because of that, so eat a dick," seems to be what he was saying, but here's the original defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTvY3wZrHrQ

The thing here was that he both didn't give credit, when credit was asked for, he snubbed them then acted like he's just a better human because he's got a record deal or whatever.
I think this is where critics and writers and even dj's and musicians agree this is some fucked up shit.

[Wal Martian]

The mood was set long before the Timbaland case. De La Soul was sued by The Turtles for use of their song You Showed Me on the interlude Transmitting Live From Mars. Later, Gillbert O'Sullivan famously sued Biz Markee for using a piano riff for his song Alone Again. The judge found Biz Markee guilty and ordered him to pay $250 000. This set a major precedent in copyright law.

[ritchrd]

It's a weird deal, huh? So rather than focus on the sample pack's creators for potentially selling Oizo's copywrited work, big websites like Pitchfork & FACT would rather comment on a pair of idiots as a soft target. It also helps when the offender puts out something that's lame to the writer's ears.

the main focus for these blogs is to generate revenue through page clicks, and an easy way to do this is to stir up some controversy by writing about someone 'ripping off' an artist that everyone likes. whats gonna pull in more of their target audience, 'Sample Pack Distributors Need to be Held Accountable' or ' KIDS STEAL MR OIZO TRACK!' ?

[PlebMan]

These scrubs have like 300k likes on Facebook and look like the dudes I get at work that come in for "dj headphones" at a freakin Radioshack. Just goes to show how bad off "edm" is right now. I think that the blame falls equally on both the sample pack creator and the artist themselves. If you're making enough money just off "DJing", I expect them to know who Mr. Oizo is and Flat Beat. The sample creators shouldn't of have made it in the first place and these scrubs should be smarter knowing that there song is going to reach a large audience.

[hseiken]

Most of the time, too, it's the record companies throwing a stink about the copyrights too, generally. They're the ones who stand to lose the most. The artists themselves really, at least back in the day with the old industry of records and tapes and CDs, artists really only made any scratch from shows. They'd get a flat rate usually with their contract and such a small percentage from sales so as to really be like a minimum wage living even for a huge success. But the record companies can't control anything really about the artist's shows, so the companies just accept that the artist is benefiting from the advertisement and plays of the recording that they're basically not having to pay jack shit for over the life of the song compared to what they make, even if a minor hit.

This is why you see lots of record companies suing for sampling and the like...you're making money off their specific recording they're already trying hard as hell to milk dry. Even if you recontextualize it and chop it up, they consider to be no different than piracy...which is completely absurd.

However, the 10% rule of plagerism in intellectual property...does anyone know if that's been invoked in the states?

Also @Wal, I was speaking towards the tone being set for mainstream guys and their entitlement to disregard those without the power they have, despite the fact that people like Timbaland can't get away from...if this happened before he blew up and someone famous his shit and made a lot of money off it, he'd throw a shit fit too, presume.

Again, I'd not even say anything about Timbaland being careless sampling shit without clearing it if he wasn't such a fucking asshole about it...he talks about it like, 'you make it sound like i stole your protools'. Naw, what it really sounds like is he stole this dude's shit, and when he called the cops, he called him a punk bitch for doing so. That's fucked up.

[OL'SAMA]

Most of the time, too, it's the record companies throwing a stink about the copyrights too, generally. They're the ones who stand to lose the most. The artists themselves really, at least back in the day with the old industry of records and tapes and CDs, artists really only made any scratch from shows. They'd get a flat rate usually with their contract and such a small percentage from sales so as to really be like a minimum wage living even for a huge success. But the record companies can't control anything really about the artist's shows, so the companies just accept that the artist is benefiting from the advertisement and plays of the recording that they're basically not having to pay jack shit for over the life of the song compared to what they make, even if a minor hit.

I may be a bit clumsy because of the language, so please no offense.
The way you sum up things is somewhat simplistic. i ll try to be a bit more precise but still can't explain everything on a single post..
There s been a abrupt change in record's companies income during 80's and 90's.
Initially, records companies controlled 100% of the business wich can be divided in three segments - Production, Publishing, Tour. During the 80's,thanks to or because of Specialized stores such as tower records, virgin, mass marketing retailing and mass marketing investments, Records companies income was 80% made from selling records so they stopped focusing on Tour and Publishing.
Nowadays, because of the crisis and new consomption patterns, record companies go back to the basics. when a new artists is signed (does not include huge stars and artists with big hype) Tour and Publishing are also dealt -> 360° contracts.
Even indie label do that now. Not only major labels.

Regarding artists revenues here's the set :

Production

Advance Fee : When an artist signs, record company gives him an advance fee.

Royalties : Artists earn from 7% to 25% of the Price Per Dealer & sometime more (depending on the type of contract - Artist, License, Distribution, and the "fame")
Once and if the advance has been paid back from record sales, the artist then begins to see royalty payments for additional sales. Moreover, There can be deductions on royalty rate when there is Radio investment, Tv investment blablabla.

Publishing

Artist can be his own publisher or he can sell his publishing rights to a company.
If he does so , he gets an advance fee. Same process as above.

Publishing rights are divided in 4 : Author, Composer, Producer & Publisher

Publishing incomes come from Performance, record sales, airplay, concert rates, synchronization and mechanical rights. Almost forgot new media rights too.

So when De La Soul or Dr Dre been sued in the 90's Publishers sued them not Labels. Label has 25 % of the publishing revenue if he s the producer. Publisher has from 25% to 75% of the revenue. Few artists were both signed for Record & Publishing from the 80's to 10's.

Tour

Artist got fees at each concert and then deal with the Tour agents bonus fees. Artist does not control everything. the one that controls is the tour agent and then it s a negociation between him and artist. Same process as Labels/Artists.

More & more , Record companies open Tour firms and Tour agents tend to become record companies (Live Nation for exemple). Just because as record company, you don t want to promote and develop and artist and let a third company earning money thanks to your investments...


For 3 decades, artists paid their bills thx to record sales and advances. But as the record sales dropped (-60% since 2002), and it s even worse for "smaller" artists.
Then Tour revenues share is now more and more important for artists.

To sum up, If an artists does a minor hit he ll earn money from all sides. But the major problem is to develop new artists and alternative artists. A record company acts like a bank and takes risks on investing on artists. The less they earn money the less risks they ll take and the less investments are made. They now focus on mainstream artists. They d rather have a smaller roster but will only invest on bankable artists because of the moving market. In the 90's major record companies made so much money from their biggest artists (80/20 rule)that they could sign and invest money on new artists and pay them well. Now it s way harder...

This is why you see lots of record companies suing for sampling and the like...you're making money off their specific recording they're already trying hard as hell to milk dry. Even if you recontextualize it and chop it up, they consider to be no different than piracy...which is completely absurd.

However, the 10% rule of plagerism in intellectual property...does anyone know if that's been invoked in the states?

If you chop up the sample like Preemo note by note and if you change the melody, then you can t be sued.
If you replay a melody with an orchestra you won t need to ask for an agreement of the Author but you ll have to pay a fee - Dr Dre did this on "what s the difference " when he sampled Aznavour.

If you copy paste a melody and don t asks for an agreement, then it is illegal, there are rules and you have to face it and it becomes a lawyer business.. You won t pay the same price to clear a sample before and after the commercial release of your track. Madlib had issues with van peebles. GFK with sonny carson. Who bought Sonny carson ost before GFK sample ? Sometimes, being sampled helps some artists to pay their bills and do gigs again.

Also @Wal, I was speaking towards the tone being set for mainstream guys and their entitlement to disregard those without the power they have, despite the fact that people like Timbaland can't get away from...if this happened before he blew up and someone famous his shit and made a lot of money off it, he'd throw a shit fit too, presume.

Again, I'd not even say anything about Timbaland being careless sampling shit without clearing it if he wasn't such a fucking asshole about it...he talks about it like, 'you make it sound like i stole your protools'. Naw, what it really sounds like is he stole this dude's shit, and when he called the cops, he called him a punk bitch for doing so. That's fucked up.

I think it s a posture Timbaland adopts. Don t know if it s the right word. This is "Hip Hop", you got to be cocky and he may never produced that track.. He bought the rights from a Ghost Producer who hid that (this is science fiction but...)
Dr Dre was the biggest and most influent producer when his company aftermath been sued and he lost a lot of money..
In Timbaland's case, It might be harder to proove there's been a copy paste done as it has been replayed, rearranged (have not checked to be true). But I think that Timbaland's publisher and Finish composer's publisher found a deal to avoid a legal proceeding.

Sorry for that roman-fleuve and apologies for language difficulties, but in my opinion, there's no good guys and bad guys.
''We got to chill because it's Strictly Business". Artists, Artist entourage, agents, record companies, medias everybody has it s own interest.

C.R.E.A.M

[Unfolding]

Paralax: I agree with what you're saying, it's easy to ignore complexities in business. Music or otherwise. Plus when there's less money to be made, the lack of income is more noticable. Which makes paying for music even more important.

But I'm not totally sympathetic because the nature of the music industry is/was/will remain too conservative with their markets. As good as the Beatles and Led Zepellin might be, do we really need to keep those albums continually updated so one person may buy the same thing 4 times over? People like you who get out & curate places of easily accessed new/rare music are more important to the progression of music than Paul McCartney's accountants and laywers.

That's not just a major label complaint, there's plenty of small/indie labels riding the coat tales of past glories too. Sub Pop, anyone?

____________

HS: I don't think that Oizo wants any cash for the idiots (potentially) sampling Flat Beat, he appears to be telling them that they're on thin ice with such pissweak sampling. Nothing in Oizo's words suggests he saw dollar signs.

Remember the shitty sample pack makers- Wouldn't you be pissed if you used a royalty free sound then some random told you that they made the sound first, published it years ago & made you look like a fool before the whole world? Here's a similar dick move from back in '97 involving The Prodigy, The Jedi Knights, The Incredible Bongo Band and George Lucas. Couldn't make that up, you wouldn't be dead for quids!

____________

Ritchrd: So in other words I fell for the clickbait bullshit. Bugger. Now I feel cheap for including those links & keeping the cycle alive.

[Jade Badger]

Paralax: I agree with what you're saying, it's easy to ignore complexities in business. Music or otherwise. Plus when there's less money to be made, the lack of income is more noticable. Which makes paying for music even more important.

But I'm not totally sympathetic because the nature of the music industry is/was/will remain too conservative with their markets. As good as the Beatles and Led Zepellin might be, do we really need to keep those albums continually updated so one person may buy the same thing 4 times over? People like you who get out & curate places of easily accessed new/rare music are more important to the progression of music than Paul McCartney's accountants and laywers.

That's not just a major label complaint, there's plenty of small/indie labels riding the coat tales of past glories too. Sub Pop, anyone?

____________

HS: I don't think that Oizo wants any cash for the idiots (potentially) sampling Flat Beat, he appears to be telling them that they're on thin ice with such pissweak sampling. Nothing in Oizo's words suggests he saw dollar signs.

Remember the shitty sample pack makers- Wouldn't you be pissed if you used a royalty free sound then some random told you that they made the sound first, published it years ago & made you look like a fool before the whole world? Here's a similar dick move from back in '97 involving The Prodigy, The Jedi Knights, The Incredible Bongo Band and George Lucas. Couldn't make that up, you wouldn't be dead for quids!

____________

Ritchrd: So in other words I fell for the clickbait bullshit. Bugger. Now I feel cheap for including those links & keeping the cycle alive.

Unfolding: this is a good topic really enjoyed the read. I will continue to SAMPLE and try my best to disguise the sample or find very obscure. However on that note... I made a video of one of your tracks. PLEASE. DONT SUE
ME. NAH but check your PM box or Music thread. Sorry I couldn't figure how to get in touch with you. Peace

[hseiken]

Hah, never knew that shit about The Jedi Knights/Prodigy/George Lucas.

Even still, the idea is that it's preventing someone from making money to some degree if it's a new track and there's a remix/sample/rework involved so in these cases I think paying forward some money or at the very least, acknowledging in some way that you did indeed flip someone else's track for your own is just common sense. That was what I meant by setting the tone of sampling. For the most part, no one really does anything about remixes being distributed freely as that falls under fair use as it's a reinterpritation/critique. Which is weird that sampling in the mainstream when not dealing with artists who just released the track being flipped is hoping to make a buck for a year or two before accepting selling 1 or copies a year until they die, would be considered stealing.

But overall, I think copyright laws in the states are almost designed to curb innovation and allow monopolies on vague concepts that can umbrella many other things....either way, I think for any song, movie, invention, etc...if you haven't made your millions off it after 10 years, you're not gonna and it's public domain...however, if you've made millions, you've made millions for 10 years. So it's time to retire or come up with something new cause i'd throw that shit into public domain after 10 years ANYWAY.

I think that's pretty fair. A decade is more than enough time to prove the value of your work and make money off it...but when it comes to ideas and such, they should be released after 10 years to be free to mingle inside of new minds and situations arising while it was closed source...

[Unfolding]

Yeah I hear you there, HS. Those kinda of laws don't just apply to folks in the states 'cause if you're a copyright/publishing holder there's all kinds of international agreements to make sure I'm not jacking your songs on the other side of the Pacific like the bizarro-world Zomby.

It'd be cool if more folks looked at their work like that, if the album's been out of print for a decade and nobody's gonna re-release it then why not share it for free? You're not gonna make cash off it (really, who buys MP3s?) and best case is reaching a new audience. But then again, if nobody's talking to you about those past glories how you gonna know you're not just flooding the interwebs with more crap nobody listened to the first time? Full circle references at 1:22 & 2:18.

That's one of the reasons why most of my old shit's off-line now. Emphasis on the shit part, I know what it is.

But that said I'm glad I kicked the thread off addressing the issue of sampling in dance music & getting called out by bad journalists. Reason why is I just remembered this article about beat jacking & response raps in hip hop cutlure that was published by The Fucking Guardian. Gee it's good to read a considered discussion in mainstream media about sampling/copyright abuse.

^Short story is Old mate Jalil Beats played it smart: get his beat published & registered with ASCAP so when the song's broadcast he gets paid. Then let everyone at it for sampling, remixing and freestyling over 'cause that's fundamental to his culture. Also I'd never considered how many ways the royalties of songwriting/publishing credits can get split... 'Spose a lot of people won't be fussed if it's not worth it the cash.

Jade: True story! The people who made the Triangle tune are sampling lightweights, white belts acting like black belts. No wonder the sifu smacked 'em down.

Stoked with that clip too, you're a xué zhě and a zhèng rén jūn zi! Fú dòng de shì jiè needs to visit the Jade Palace more often.