Dubstepforum.com

^ Hahaha.

Man sampling is what is making these artists so good. If you reflip a piece of music into another piece of music it's controversial to whether or not that is actually theft, it's an art in itself. You could say the same about artists who gather different pieces of art to make mosaics and collages.

EVERYBODY WHO USES THE AMEN BREAK IS A THEIF!!!

Seriously...

JFK wrote:

Depone wrote:Your all gay...

Says the guy with the penis shaped tune in his sig..... Dont pretend you didnt do that on purpose Dep!

this made my day

gnome wrote: Thats not true. When DH posted a track he made in the production forum it got locked and flamed. Plus Noobs are annoying they teach us nothing. But DH always has good advie

Advie (Scottish Gaelic: Àbhaidh): is a village in the Highland Council Area in Scotland. It lies between the A95 road and the River Spey roughly half-way between Grantown-on-Spey and Aberlour.

Hmmmmmm. Really?

Seriously, its all love. Fuck it.

@ the OP; check out these links;
http://www.whosampled.com/producer/Timbaland/
http://www.whosampled.com/artist/Timbaland/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxZuq57_bYM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI

You write electronic music, stop complaining about sampling.

wirez wrote:^ Hahaha.

Man sampling is what is making these artists so good. If you reflip a piece of music into another piece of music it's controversial to whether or not that is actually theft, it's an art in itself. You could say the same about artists who gather different pieces of art to make mosaics and collages.

EVERYBODY WHO USES THE AMEN BREAK IS A THEIF!!!

Seriously...

It'd be worth it to look into the story behind these tunes in particular before pursuing this kind of argument. The issue isn't Timbaland sampling, it's the fact that he took music from other people, stamped his own name on it, never contacted them, and never credited them. More importantly, the music wasn't officially released or formally copyrighted, so the artist had almost no resources to pursue royalties when going up against a label.

So for your analogy, a more appropriate one would be if the Winstons never released Amen, Brother (or anything for that matter), I found it, made almost no changes at all, called it a Cloak and Dagger tune, and purposefully never informed them. In my book, that WOULD make me a thief.

vulvavibration wrote:you're a homophobe

How do you know im not gay???

JFK wrote:

Depone wrote:Your all gay...

Says the guy with the penis shaped tune in his sig..... Dont pretend you didnt do that on purpose Dep!

Its true, that was my intentions in making this track, to create a clip that looks phallic

http://www.b3ta.com/features/phalliclogoawards/

wirez wrote:^ Hahaha.

Man sampling is what is making these artists so good. If you reflip a piece of music into another piece of music it's controversial to whether or not that is actually theft, it's an art in itself. You could say the same about artists who gather different pieces of art to make mosaics and collages.

EVERYBODY WHO USES THE AMEN BREAK IS A THEIF!!!

Seriously...

cloak and dagger wrote: It'd be worth it to look into the story behind these tunes in particular before pursuing this kind of argument. The issue isn't Timbaland sampling, it's the fact that he took music from other people, stamped his own name on it, never contacted them, and never credited them. More importantly, the music wasn't officially released or formally copyrighted, so the artist had almost no resources to pursue royalties when going up against a label.

Hip Hop producers and House producers alike have been doing this since the creation of both of the genres. (And therefor, EDM itself). So the foundation of Electronic Dance Music sits on the use of uncredited sample use. When sampling originally began, there was no firm copyright law and what these producers were doing wasn't able to be classed as theft, therefore in reality -

cloak and dagger wrote: The issue isn't Timbaland sampling, it's the fact that he took music from other people, stamped his own name on it, never contacted them, and never credited them.

This is what sampling (in EDM context) began as and exactly what sampling (in EDM context) IS.

cloak and dagger wrote:So for your analogy, a more appropriate one would be if the Winstons never released Amen, Brother (or anything for that matter), I found it, made almost no changes at all, called it a Cloak and Dagger tune, and purposefully never informed them. In my book, that WOULD make me a thief.

This is pretty much how the break was originally used, other than a tempo change, the break was barely edited. Sampling/creative theft... Call it whatever you like, fact is if it hadn't have happened EDM would have been a flop.

my bad was blackout drunk when i posted this and i think did the orig thread like this. just irks me when i come across it since it's not sampling but blatantly stealing

wirez wrote: When sampling originally began, there was no firm copyright law and what these producers were doing wasn't able to be classed as theft

setspeed wrote:

wirez wrote: When sampling originally began, there was no firm copyright law and what these producers were doing wasn't able to be classed as theft

I don't know why you're laughing if it's in disbelief mate...

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... yright_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

"Before the 1976 Act, the last major revision to statutory copyright law in the United States occurred in 1909." - Do you think that sampling was around in 1909? The law did not cover reusing recorded music until the copyright act was amended after a huge increase in popularity for sampling other peoples records.

It was at a later date that the UK amended their act, which is how so many earlier EDM producers were able to get away with sampling.

gnome wrote:
Plus Noobs are annoying they teach us nothing

So you were born with Production knowledge? Good on ya. Please appreciate that a lot of people aren't as lucky as yourself.

AnalGangstaHo wrote:

gnome wrote:
Plus Noobs are annoying they teach us nothing

So you were born with Production knowledge? Good on ya. Please appreciate that a lot of people aren't as lucky as yourself.

What? I thought everyone in here was born with two turntables and a microphone.

wirez wrote:

setspeed wrote:

wirez wrote: When sampling originally began, there was no firm copyright law and what these producers were doing wasn't able to be classed as theft

I don't know why you're laughing if it's in disbelief mate...

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyr ... yright_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Act_of_1976

"Before the 1976 Act, the last major revision to statutory copyright law in the United States occurred in 1909." - Do you think that sampling was around in 1909? The law did not cover reusing recorded music until the copyright act was amended after a huge increase in popularity for sampling other peoples records.

It was at a later date that the UK amended their act, which is how so many earlier EDM producers were able to get away with sampling.

What amendments were these? Genuine question, if I'm wrong I'll hold my hand up. But as far as I can see, sampling was basically covered and illegal under the US 1909 copyright act:

1909 Copyright Act, Chapter 1, Section 1, subsection (e): Any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this title, shall have the exclusive right: To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical composition; and for the purpose of public performance for profit, and for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) hereof, to make any arrangement or setting of it or of the melody of it in any system of notation or any form of record

everybody in this thread is a tnuc and i challenge you all to a boxing match.

ps i am going to start stealing wobblez from peoples choons.

JFK wrote:

nowaysj wrote:I don't understand this thread, we've had this exact thread before...

+1

Its a bit weak that we tear into noobs for starting threads about the same old shit and then one of our oldest heads starts one like this.......

there's definetly some tight assness up in this bitch about what's post worthy and what's not, which is kinda funny considering the majority of posts on here are questions that have been answered a million times anyway, so god forbid somebody post something different and off topic once in a while!

there's a video showing alot of the samples kanye used, and i was suprised to see that he sampled the krautrock group Can for his song 'drunk and hot girls'. its kinda funny to hear the two side by side.

wayoftheworld wrote:

JFK wrote:

nowaysj wrote:I don't understand this thread, we've had this exact thread before...

+1

Its a bit weak that we tear into noobs for starting threads about the same old shit and then one of our oldest heads starts one like this.......

there's definetly some tight assness up in this bitch about what's post worthy and what's not, which is kinda funny considering the majority of posts on here are questions that have been answered a million times anyway, so god forbid somebody post something different and off topic once in a while!

back to the thread, i think the timbaland issue is interesting cos on the one hand, yeah he blatantly ripped those samples off. on the other hand, a lot of other producers have also blatantly ripped samples and made great songs from just layerying 808's and percussion on top of them.

there's a video showing alot of the samples kanye has used, and i was quite suprised to see that he sampled the krautrock group Can for his song 'drunk and hot girls' which is completely structured around the original melody from the Can song.

yeah Kanye constantly surprises with his a) appreciation of various modernist forms of art and b) being a complete tool

haha i ain't gonna argue that one.

setspeed wrote: What amendments were these? Genuine question, if I'm wrong I'll hold my hand up. But as far as I can see, sampling was basically covered and illegal under the US 1909 copyright act:

1909 Copyright Act, Chapter 1, Section 1, subsection (e): Any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this title, shall have the exclusive right: To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical composition; and for the purpose of public performance for profit, and for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) hereof, to make any arrangement or setting of it or of the melody of it in any system of notation or any form of record

Thats for performance, its a different part of music industry in the way copy-write is enforced.

wirez wrote:

wirez wrote:^ Hahaha.

Man sampling is what is making these artists so good. If you reflip a piece of music into another piece of music it's controversial to whether or not that is actually theft, it's an art in itself. You could say the same about artists who gather different pieces of art to make mosaics and collages.

EVERYBODY WHO USES THE AMEN BREAK IS A THEIF!!!

Seriously...

cloak and dagger wrote: It'd be worth it to look into the story behind these tunes in particular before pursuing this kind of argument. The issue isn't Timbaland sampling, it's the fact that he took music from other people, stamped his own name on it, never contacted them, and never credited them. More importantly, the music wasn't officially released or formally copyrighted, so the artist had almost no resources to pursue royalties when going up against a label.

Hip Hop producers and House producers alike have been doing this since the creation of both of the genres. (And therefor, EDM itself). So the foundation of Electronic Dance Music sits on the use of uncredited sample use. When sampling originally began, there was no firm copyright law and what these producers were doing wasn't able to be classed as theft, therefore in reality -

cloak and dagger wrote: The issue isn't Timbaland sampling, it's the fact that he took music from other people, stamped his own name on it, never contacted them, and never credited them.

This is what sampling (in EDM context) began as and exactly what sampling (in EDM context) IS.

cloak and dagger wrote:So for your analogy, a more appropriate one would be if the Winstons never released Amen, Brother (or anything for that matter), I found it, made almost no changes at all, called it a Cloak and Dagger tune, and purposefully never informed them. In my book, that WOULD make me a thief.

This is pretty much how the break was originally used, other than a tempo change, the break was barely edited. Sampling/creative theft... Call it whatever you like, fact is if it hadn't have happened EDM would have been a flop.

Again, sampling and what Timbaland did are two COMPLETELY different things. Name one tune that is "Amen, Brother" with somebody else's name on it instead of just looping 4 seconds of it.

And again, I can't think of a lot of hip hop that is taking full, unreleased music without recontextualizing it and stamping their own name on it. The closest thing is really the stuff Dr. Dre did on The Chronic, but at the same time, it's looped, recontextualized, and the artists were paid (for interpolations of their song).


One more time, I'm not talking about sampling. I somehow doubt that if I took one of your tunes and distributed it under my name, you wouldn't be like "ah well, sampling is part of the genre." Especially if the tune made that much money and was owned by a record label with the resources and capacity to properly credit you without difficulty.