De La Soul On The Complications Of Sampling (lyrics, videos, techno)

[Motion]

To any fans of the rap group De la Soul here's an interview with them. They touch on the 30th anniversary of their first album. They also talk about the complications that have come with the samples they've used for getting their music streamed.

It's about 45 minutes long.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqOo8MCljeg

[unfocused]

TLDR summary: They cant make any money, because they used samples which were never cleared.

And this is a good thing. The original artists need to get paid from the technology that allows their music to be easily reused. Back then you needed a studio, now anyone can do this on their PC.

So the videos title is misleading, because De La Soul (and many others) were really robbing other music artists by using their work without consent or compensation.

[dynamicjson]

Originally Posted by unfocused

TLDR summary: They cant make any money, because they used samples which were never cleared.

And this is a good thing. The original artists need to get paid from the technology that allows their music to be easily reused. Back then you needed a studio, now anyone can do this on their PC.

So the videos title is misleading, because De La Soul (and many others) were really robbing other music artists by using their work without consent or compensation.

it wasnt until 1995 that the record industry pushed for the "de minimis" clause to not apply to sampling.

since 2016 courts have tried to push back a bit https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/0...music-sampling

its funny to hear someone say that its more important that "artists get paid" than artists be free to make music, when the primary beneficiaries of all this difficulty are the giant corporations that own most music, rather than the artists themselves.

the whole idea that this is for the artists is a joke, the record labels who do benefit from this "good thing" have always been known for shafting and scamming most artists, while making things good for a few. its more like a lottery, than a just system of compensation.

this ensures the lottery will have more money in it, not that it will help artists.

whats better for artists is that it is easier for them to leave the labels if they choose to do so-- alternatives are a good thing. fair use is a good thing. but fair use hasnt applied much to sampling in 24 years.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/th...gument-1008935 <- THIS is a good thing.

do explain if possible-- why if fair use is good for other mediums, that it is not good for musicians?

What makes Drake's summary judgment victory against the Estate of James Oscar Smith particularly noteworthy is that rulings of copyright "fair use" are rare in the realm of songcraft. When it comes to documentaries and less abstract art forms, judges can parse meaning and figure out whether use of copyrighted material is transformative. But in disputes over song sampling, parties have long tended to wage fights over other issues like ownership records and whether the copying is sufficiently substantial.

that relevant quote from the article is fair use.

however, the music industry (the labels) are so against fair use as a concept, that fair-use quoting of lyrics in a book is enough to keep a publisher from touching the manuscript.

i would argue your "good thing" is not at all. more often than it results in increased royality checks, it just results in less music, fewer consumer rights, and less freedom for authors.

theres no balance of rights, only rent-seeking for corporations and censorship and lock-in for artists.

[unfocused]

Artists are always free to create.

The problem is that with sampling they didn't create their own music.

When they did, they wrote a book by stealing lines and paragraphs from other books.

They made a painting, by cutting out parts of other paintings.

I'm not putting down the music, I supported it. I bought De La Soul and Beastie Boys and other albums back then. I liked that era of music, it was entertaining and fun. So I did my part by buying the record, or tape. Part of that money should go to each artist they sampled.

[dynamicjson]

Originally Posted by unfocused

Artists are always free to create.

your definition of freedom is historically narrow.

The problem is that with sampling they didn't create their own music.

lots of artists dont create their own music. even the record industry refused to pay sheet music composers, similar with radio broadcasts-- every time the primary medium of music distribution changes, there is rent seeking and refusal. whether its artists or industry-- its generally both.

but the rent seeking has gotten out of hand.

When they did, they wrote a book by stealing lines and paragraphs from other books.

lots of books "steal lines and paragraphs" from other books without paying royalties. its only different with music, thats what i was saying before. fair use makes its trivial to "steal lines and paragraphs from other books."

They made a painting, by cutting out parts of other paintings.

are you familiar with l.h.o.o.q. by marcel duchamp?

Part of that money should go to each artist they sampled.

i dont think most people have any idea how hopelessly (prohibitively) complicated that can get.

in the drake example he actually went through a licensing company-- he did everything he was supposed to. it still wasnt enough:

The defendants obtained a license for the recording of "Jimmy Smith Rap," but clearing the composition became problematic. The Estate maintained it would not have granted a license for the composition because Jimmy Smith, a jazz musician, "wasn't a fan of hip hop."

this is ridiculous.

the mythology around your stance on this (im not saying you invented it, any more than id suggest you invented christianity if you go to church) is more of a corporate ideology than the practical matter it pretends to be.

on the side of ideals it seems nice, but in practical terms it just means that artists have less creative freedom than they did for nearly all of human history.

reuse was always endemic in art-- in most mediums it is not hopelessly entrenched in legal difficulty. compared to authors and painters and sculptors, we pick on photographers, musicians and filmmakers. we saddle them with disproportionate responsibility, and its for the benefit of lawyers more than artists almost every time.