I agree 100% if you release a record that generates a lot of money, it's only fair to clear the samples. But in most cases, it simply isn't financially feasible to clear everything. As I mentioned, I sometimes use 10+ disparate samples combined into something new, akin to a 'collage'. Maybe a major label would be able to clear so many dozens of samples, but otherwise, there's no way around it.

I think we can also flip the argument on its head. How much music isn’t being made/released because of sample clearance issues? I see where Chris Carter is coming from, but I don’t think this is so binary an issue. If you took Bob James take me to the mardi gras and looped the first few bars and that is your music- then damn that’s a) overused b) not original or especially creative and c) you owe bob money for being your session musician. How much is up for debate but you can’t get blood from a stone in some cases.

Now say you have a song that is some combination of original playing and songwriting and you have a break in there that the Mardi Gras beat will take to the next level. Is that worth 100% of your publishing and 50 grand? Nope that’s just the artist/estate/lawyer being a ****. It’s their right I suppose but they are stifling the artistic community. Should you throw a point or two of royalties to the original artist? Absolutely. Better yet, go find the session musicians who played your sample and hit em up.

Then you have the case where some tiny fragment of music is taken and manipulated beyond recognition. Then you have publishing company trolls scouring songs for bits of uncleared samples that they can sue for. Sorry but I don’t pay Gibson every time I record my guitar. I’m not using your composition but I’m taking something and making a new texture from it. At best I owe you a pennies worth of mechanical royalties.

he just blaze it

I think this is a super complex issue where both sides have valid points. It gets to the point where it's like arguing about abortion or some kind of political/religious ideological issue. I'd like to think that there's some middle ground where everyone can be happy...

I think it's more the outright stealing that just grates on me. If someone sent me an email that was along the lines of, "Listen, I'm working on a song and there's a song of yours I love and I sampled part of it. I'm broke but your sample really makes my song work and I want to use it but I can't afford to pay you at the moment, but how about if I credit your song as the sample source on the link for my song so that if people want to hear the original, they can find you. On top of that, I don't expect to make anything, but if my song blows up, I'd be more than willing to come back to you and negotiate with you to pay you fairly for using it since I'll be making money with it."

That'd be the middle ground where I'd be more open to working with someone and letting them use a sample of my stuff.

Anyone that gets mad about sampling should just have their **** get sampled even more. Have fun suing someone for a track on SoundCloud in 2018. Good luck with that.

Ppl thought accountability w record labels was bad in the 70s, good luck squeezing money out of an independent label these days

You too are making assumptions, in the case of Parliament (George Clinton, Bootsy Collins and Bernie) did the majority of writing and production.. Yes not all Rap/HipHop was using samples but a very large portion was so how was it not built on sampling, Red Alert,PE,Big Daddy Kane, Eric B and Rakim, Gangstarr, Pete Rock and CL, Main Source,NWA,The 45 king,Biz Markie I can go on and on.. I dislike using words like stealing and theft (your words not mine) because that was never the intent more like taking something jazzy or obscure and making it funky and that’s still going on to this day and better yet guys like Kingsway,Adrian Younge,etc making vintage sounding recordings for you to sample for a fee..
PS if you don’t think HipHop was built off sampling well all you have to do is look at the tools they was using to create it,Oh snap it was samplers and drum machines...

Exactly what assumptions was I making? I think you are misunderstanding my use of the words "stealing and theft" with regard to "intent" of early hip-hop records; and my thoughts on sampling in the early days of hip-hop.

I think Parliament is a lousy anecdotal example. For one, you have no idea what kind of deal George Clinton had with Casablanca. And the publishing, which is currently under Bridgeport is mired in controversy. And nobody knows what kind of advance he received on publishing. Back when Parliament was doing their thing there were absolutely ridiculous advances being thrown around that would take centuries to recoup and artists were consequently signing horrible deals (other than the crazy advances). Not to mention that George Clinton was not the best businessman back when he made these deals.

Haha in what world do you think Madlib taking a sustained string note, making it a keygroup, and playing it out, etc. is taking money away from the original artist? Where is the market crossover between him and some 30 year old choiral album or obscure bossa track? If anything he brings new audiences to music they never would have sought out otherwise.
This argument never holds much water. The only real argument for people opposed to sampling is if you don’t want anything you made associated with the particular message or music(a la Tracy Chapman). In that case it’s totally fair to be against it(and to be fair, who would want to be associated with the garbage nicki minaj puts out). Otherwise you’re just condemning an entire musical genre with a 30+ year history.
The other side of this is that hip-hop, being a genre predominantly created by inner city kids and minority groups, comes out of a very diy mentality, and many of these guys had no access to music programs, instruments, studios, etc, so they did what they could with what they had(their dad’s records), and created a brilliant new art form in the process. An album like 3 feet high and rising, just for example, is a sonic masterpiece of innate talent that can’t be denied.

THIS

And don’t get me wrong, I’m definitely against the lazy ass puff daddy version of sampling (“just grab that 4 bar soul loop and slap some drums on it”) but the guys who weave complicated sonic tapestries are doing their own art form that sits at the root of all the greatest hip hop albums.

That's NOT what I was talking about. Please don't obfuscate what I'm saying.

You are confusing copyright law and trademark law. Market crossover is not a consideration. And by definition, they are both sound recordings and compositions so they are in the same exact market space. So by your own argument the law defines them as occupying the same market space (or "market crossover" using your words).

Yes, it does. Every day. This is why labels that don't want to get sued clear samples. If they don't they will have to settle (usually for more money). If they don't settle, they get sued (for even more money, plus legal costs). If it's a sample and a jury can identify it, you WILL lose unless it falls under fair use (ie. Drake's recent suit).

You make it sound like I'm against sampling. I don't know where in the world you got that idea from as I'm not. I'm just in favor of getting permission (which is almost never withheld) and compensating the party you sampled by giving them a share equal to what that sample contributed to your work. Which happens to be the position taken by virtually every musician, attorney, record label, etc. in the country. The only people against that are a small handful of people, largely underground and unprofitable, who largely seem to reside on GS.

“That’s the choice they make”

For some reason carter can’t seem to understand that those white labels had a lot of these artists over a barrel and they had no other choice but to sign whatever deal they got. Priiiiiiivelige

This is probably where we got the idea you were against sampling?

SOMEBODY SHOOT ME NOW!

On WHAT planet is sampling then clearing it ROBBING people!!??!?!?!?!?!?!

Manos Hatzidakis, one of the greatest Greek music composers of all times used to say: "Talented people steal, the untalented imitate". Of course he wasn't using samples, he was from another time but his principle applies here. Nothing is born out of nothing, every idea is based upon other ideas and experiences either we are aware of it or not, so it's smarter to embrace that and do the best you can from your point of view than try to imitate something that doesn't represent you.

If you're talented enough to come up with your own stuff, do so. If you need to use other people's stuff to come up with yours, then pay for it. Why is this such a hard concept for some people to understand?

As always, it's always the people with the least to contribute that think everything should be free.

In the end if you sample anything you MUST clear both the PA copyright (writers) and the SR copyright (recording) or face possible legal action.

It did not start off that way, the original Old School Hip Hop from 79-84 were mostly session musicians with analog drum machines, pull up old Pumpkin and Larry Smith work to hear no samples but there was a small amount of interpolation at times stemming from them being musicians. After 84 we get sampling coming in that next phase of Nu School Hip Hop moving forward.

So while I understand your point you must clarify that the beginnings of Hip Hop music was not about sampling until after 84, so Hip Hop was actually built off musicianship first, then later sampling. To not recognize the contributions of the many talented musicians in early Hip Hop music might come off a bit disrespectful IMHO.

Park Jams and break beats predate Larry Smith and that style of hip hop. Even the early electro stuff either heavily borrowed from in the form of interpolation or sampling of Kraftwerk, etc. **** even rappers delight is a "sample" of good times.

They were not sampling on those, but it was replaying the bass of Good Times (interpolation), but they would only need to clear the PA copyright for the writers. Anything replayed needs a PA clearance but anything actually using a pre-recorded composition has to clear both the PA and SR, so any breakbeats using vinyl had to clear both copyrights.

My point was sampling was actually after 84, it was all musician's or DJ's before 84. Most of the early Hip Hop from 79 to 84 was mostly live musicians and drum machines. We can definitely say Hip Hop borrowed or was inspired from many other music forms before 84, but that is to be expected as all art, literature, and science borrows from what came before it.

SUPREME COURT OPINION FROM 1845
"[In] truth, in literature, in science and in art, there are, and can be, few, if any, things, which in an abstract sense, are strictly new and original throughout. Every book in literature, science and art, borrows, and must necessarily borrow, and use much which was well known and used before." Emerson v. Davies,8 F.Cas. 615, 619 (No. 4,436) (CCD Mass. 1845)

I know rappers delight was a replay/interpolation, the point was that it very much is a sample in broad terms. They took the groove of good times and looped it. I find it weird that there is such pedantry on display in this thread, as I cant see how the anyone could dispute that sampling/borrowing are absolutely part of hiphop. Sure there have been contributions by artists that use live music, and Larry Smith was a huge contributor as well. But its not one thing or the other its both. The reason sampling as we know it now came in 1984+ is largely a factor price of silicone and computer technology. That doesnt mean that you couldnt "sample" before a sampler existed. The beatles sampled in the late 1960s with tape loops, and they certainly werent the first. And while I get there are 2 types of clearances required, an interpolation is still a sample in a case like rappers delight. Sure you could mention details about how its different, but the average person is gonna say something to the effect of "play that song where they rap over the Good Times break".

Didn’t that Girl Talk Night Ripper album use thousands of obvious unlicensed samples? From the Ramones to Bun b? And that was like 10 years ago!!! Not a single lawsuit!

Also, Led Zeppelin...the greatest song stealing pre digital samplers of all time.

All music borrows from that which came before it, thus why I posted the Supreme Court ruling. I'm not disputing the sampling/borrowing influence in Hip Hop, but replaying is NOT the same as sampling in real life or in the courts. Sampling is when you take another recording and use it within your composition, requiring SR and PA copyright clearance. Replaying is just using the written notes from a writer and you play the interpolation.

I responded to another post above as they had left out all the Hip Hop influence before 84 that did not sampling anything as it was actually live musicians making the music then. Some of the most influential music of that period from Run DMC/Whodini, that inspired millions, is all original as Larry was actually a musician. You could argue that Run DMC were the most influential in Hip Hop of that period and all original, but I'm sure even they borrowed from music before them in some way. In the end Hip Hop does borrow as all music does but after 84 it went sample crazy as the live musician was pushed out of the genre until the mid 90's, but that pre 84 Hip Hop was not mostly sample based.

I think we may somewhat agree and somewhat disagree on this. Personally I don’t want to put a box around sampling as you have to use a sampler to “sample”. A dj playing break beats while the mc raps over it? That’s sampling. Tape loops? Sampling. Replaying a song to nearly 100% fidelity? Sampling. Run Dmc and Larry Smith were actually the antithesis of hip hop and sampling in the early 80s and that gave them their sound/lane. I won’t front, I still play whodini and a lot of that Larry Smith produced hip hop. It’s definitely a style but it’s not hip hop as a whole. I would also argue that the best hip hop was made using a combination of sampling and original composition. The point I see is that you don’t have hip hop without sampling.

This is the point, I know Chris Carter and other people had some valuable insight but this is the truth.

I wrote an interesting article on ASCAP daily brief on this. I wish I knew were it was to link. Some artists are seriously concerned about sample clearance, even when not really necessary. Like Eminem will clear any sample he uses, even if the sample is not musical and the owner doesn't care, doesn't want money, he still feels he needs a formal agreement (which if I recall correctly, really has been bothersome in the creative process). I believe he feels he has so much exposure that he wants anything and everything cleared. Some examples were fairly extreme, but lets say I recorded an Amtrak announcement as I walk by it in Oakland, he would clear that with Amtrak, that's the vibe I got.

Other artists do not, but are very aware they will probably get sued. If they don't, they don't, but they expect to, but do not go through the proper channels because they don't want to get denied. They loose a lot of leverage though.

What was clear was that artists who make a bunch of money of records are more likely to clear, and artists who make money off of touring but not much of sales may not. To me, it makes sense but it is risky.

At the end of the day, getting sued is likely not fun as suing people is no fun at at all, been through that.

At the end of the day, you have a choice to follow the law or not. To me, the most important thing you need to know, regardless of your choice, is knowing the law. I said it in a previous post but the biggest misconception about IP and copyright is that you somehow get sued less or the same as the money you made. That is just simply not true. You can get sued for more than you made, and depending on the person, how much you made may play a role, it may not. It's their work, they own it, so it's not based in accounting, it's based in the owners perceived value. Then the courts, mediators, etc, will see if it's viable.

Point being, if you have a little project and think they can only sue you for a little, that is far from true. You can use this in the discovery process but some artists won't care.

Sounds to me like incorporating your group offers protection here. When you get sued, you go bankrupt and start over again. But IANAL

what about all those live riffs on the chronic that were lifted from various jazz/funk 70's songs though...

also, much band based hip-hop was also based on lifted riffs and grooves and (ironically) was often molded after break loops that the djs used to spin on two turntables

also before sampling music was in large part made of people singing other peoples tunes..

also back in the day all that sample based hip-hop made people go out and buy the original recordings and they became part of the tapestry of what we listened to at the time right along with the current hip-hop of the day

some random thoughts

It's called interpolation and requires a PA copyright clearance.

Based on and replaying is different, but using a pre-recorded break for manother song requires both the PA and SR copyright clearance.

If you use the words or melodies from other songs that is a PA clearance.

It's good to own your music's PA copyrights.