Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
Thomas's analysis is very insightful, I think, and points out a real problem: who will determine if a sound is modified enough to be original? If a law is passed to protect artist's rights then some committee will have to be established to render judgements on every case. Sounds like a perscription for slow and inconsistent treatment of individuals, in other words a typical government beaurocracy. I don't think it's "reactionary" just good sense to say create your own samples, license them from the creator or purchase commercially available grooves and sounds. Motley > > The law on sampling is unclear and ambivalent. It states that you can >sample anything given that you create a NEW , INDEPENDENT and ORIGINAL >work. Further it states that if noone can recognize what you`ve sampled , >then you`ve broken no copyright. Pretty vague , huh? > > What can be copyrighted? Noone can the copyright chordprogressions , >meters , grooves , rythmns , keys , riffs , licks etc. etc. You can >copyright a combination of these , as in a song. Pick up a fake book and >check out "All of me". It`s a basic song , with a chord progression and a >melody. That`s all. If you reharmonize the chords and add passing-chords >or substitute on chord for another but keep the melody; you`re still >playing "All of me". If you change the melody but keep the chords you`re > > BUT. But once you record it ? What then? If you play all your Wes or >Benson licks on top of the chords , do you own them? If you record the >voicings of Johhny Smith or the harmonocs of Tal Farlow , do you own >them? No , of course not. But you own the recording. You own the sound. >The writers of "All of me" own the melody you`re playing , but you own >the recording of yourself playing it. > > It seems to me that SOUND is the keyword here. Not just the sound of the >instrument but the groove/feel , the spirit. The orginality of your >playing. If you sample a couple of bars "Funky Drummer" ,the James Brown >tune, you are taking the spirit ,groove and sound of that particular >drummer and using it to boost your own thing. This is , in my opinion , a >copyright infringement. If you add reverb or chorus to the sample you`re >still using HIS thing. > > But if you alter the sound/feel/groove of the sample? If you chop the >beat up , move the bits around and speed it up to make a jungle groove? >Then you`ve moved away from the drummer`s own creation and used it to >make your own. You have simply used his stuff as > starting point , like a soundsource. Just like you might have used a >mdid channel 10 on a GM machine. Only you`re not using individual >drumsounds , you`re using individual pieces of drumgrooves. > > A "sample-ologist" might be able to trace this "jungle-groove" you made >, and tell that it`s from "Funky Drummer" and sue your ass off. But this >means that the sound itself is copyrighted. That the combination of >mic-placement , the room in the studio , the eq`ing , the outboard >effects and the drums that produced the sound are "owned" by James Brown. >If this is true then the drummer who played the beat can never record it >again under the same sircumstances. If he got the same sound he did on Br > > So I think the complex problem of "copyright" should be approached in a >intuitive way. Not with spectral analyses or technical "back tracing" >but with a musical approach. If the samples are merely building blocks , >and not complete structures in the musical piece then I think it`s OK. > > Anyways , I see now that the point I was building up to has eluded me. >I`m not really shure what I`m trying to say here...........Just airing my >thoughts on the subject. > > Yours , Thomas W