Re: Sampling-dilemma (no solution offered here).

[Dizfunkt@aol.com]

In a message dated 98-08-27 00:42:06 EDT, you write:

<< 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.  >>
I have to say that I don't agree with the above definition of copyright
infringement. If you were to take "Funky Drummer" and lay death metal 
guitars,
an acid line and hindu chanting samples over it you would be creating a 
piece
that, hopefully, is greater than the some of it's parts. Therefore it is a
creative step forward which is what copyright law is supposed to be 
fostering.
But it has been basterdized by greedy buinessmen who are useing the 
evolution
and popularzation of sampling as a way to make some bucks on stuff 
collecting
dust in their backcatalogs. They are the ones who are gonna make the cash 
if
you clear the sample, not the drummer (whose name is Bernard Purty, I 
belive.
It'z an absolute sin that he is not in the rock n' roll hall of fame yet.) 
It
would be beautiful if samplists could simply list their sources. It would
generate interest in the originals and stir up some sales. But instead
publishers charge absolutly silly amounts of money to clear shit so people
have to play hide and seek. This crap is hampering the evolution of music. 
I
suggest you all read Chris Griggs excelent article on Fair Use when I find 
the
damn address for it.

 Aaron Zilch
 VicePrezident in charge ov Cerebral Dizcomfort
 Audio Terrorism Corporation/House ov Scof 
 The Makers ov A:P0D.
 www.atomick.com