Bob James/Madlib

[Vekked]

As a legal/thought experiment I'd really like to see someone sample a bunch of like... classical music, blues, jazz and chop it to create covers of well known songs and sell the music and have people try to prove that they own the rights to it. It seems like record labels avoid the stickier sampling and intellectual copyright situations and go for the more obvious/low hanging fruit cases, because they're on thin ice.

[Steve]

Who's copyrighting 2 notes in a row?

 

I know what you're saying here, but there's an extent to which that's like saying that destitute factory workers don't get paid a reasonable wage, but that's their choice.

A session musician could join a band or they could write their own music, but perhaps they don't have the talent to do the latter and that's why they're a session musician in the first place. Not everyone makes it in the music biz and it's not like they're working 12 hour shifts sewing Nikes together for 50p a day. Session musicians can earn 6 figure salaries depending on how in demand they are.

[Guest Symatic]

 

I'm not buying this type of argument. It's like saying that if you create a painting and sell it, some of the money should go to the guy that made the paint and the guy that made the machine used to create the paint. Which part do you own exactly? The light being absorbed by your eyes and processed by your brain to create the image? Pfffffft.

 

Heinz apparently copyrighted the shade of turquoise they use because it's the perfect complimentary colour to make their beans look more orangy....

 

but that's exactly what i read from that argument - NO you shouldn't pay the paintbrush maker because without them the mona lisa couldn't have been painted. why would you? but likewise if someone puts a spliff and an alien face on the mona lisa, do they have to pay royalties?

 

 

as for the session musicians getting paid flat fee's - yeah they sign up for it but that doesn't make it any more fair than teenage models walking catwalks for no fee - only the potential of getting spotted and being the next supermodel....

 

there's some cases of that coming back to bite the copyright holders - for example Clare Torrey managed to get some money years later for her performance on Great Gig In The Sky by Pink Floyd. now that one's really messy because on one hand her singing made the track what it is, and on the other, she apparently did a few takes, and they spliced it all together on tape to get the final thing.

She was originally paid £30 or something, about £100 in todays money maybe, and managed to sue.

 

For another perspective, look at engineers like Steve Albini, he charges a (presumably hefty) flat fee for his sessions, like he was a plumber or a mechanic (to paraphrase the man himself) because of his firm belief that his job is part of a process that he can't claim to own.

 

 

to get back to the Bob James/Madlib thing though, Madlib's tune uses a piece of Nautilus, yes, but it's not NAUTILUS. it's not the whole thing, or even a part that anyone who's not a sample nerd would sit up and go "hey! that's BOB's tune!".

 

also, did bob james pay to cover Farendole? or Night On Bald Mountain?

 

sure, without bob james we'd be missing some amazing hip hop tunes, but without the sampling of his stuff, we'd also probably not know about him.

 

this makes it sound like i hate the guy, i don't, he has some interesting views on music in general, and he seems like a respectable guy. but going after one tune that takes a tiny bit of one of yours and puts it into a completely different context (a tune about smoking weed) that's just not worth it in my opinion.

Jazzy jeff and Fresh prince... maybe, cos theirs is so obvious and hasn't really been re-interpreted much and they did indeed make lots of money and it helped their careers massively. madlib's already madlib, im surprised bob didnt want him to flip his samples, rather than working with rob swift who decided to play 5 fingers of death's piano chords OVER bob's keys..... eh?

 

[Vekked]

That Tom Petty/Sam Smith one is just 3 chords, the Verve/Rolling Stones one is 4, the Pharrell/Marvin Gaye one is 3 chords that aren't even the same notes or the same key lol. These are just the ones in this thread, there are no doubt more examples of people suing over super simple progressions. And it's not like the chords are playing super funky and in some weird way, all of these are like a chord on the 1 of each bar. It's ridiculous when combinatorially there's the chances of someone else trying that is so likely, especially in the context of 4/4 pop music using the same instruments to compose the tracks. Just think how we have multiple songs hitting top 40 with the same simple chord progressions and that's not even taking into account the 100s or 1000s of other songs that have been written that didn't get popular.

 

If a song was written in someone's basement and they made sold 100 copies in the 70s and it has the same chord progression Tom Petty used in I Won't Back Down, they have no intellectual property/copyright grounds, yet if a song becomes popular all of the sudden that chord progression is yours? The laws just heavily favour labels/big artists/people with money and people who have been marketed well, it's not actually "fair" and there's an extreme lack of understanding about how music is made... there are limitations in instruments used, song structure, timing, and guidelines that are the result of how music history has developed. It's not like you just invent chords and put any possible notes and chords together with any rhythm and it sounds good because of magic, there's like math and science and history behind it that people are effectively copyrighting like they laws of the musical universe.

[Steve]

The Heinz thing is a specific, limited trademark, so no other manufacturer of beans can use the same colour label for their beans. They haven't copyrighted a shade of turquoise.

 

Mussorgsky and Bizet died in the 19th century. Copyright lasts for 70 years after a composer's death.

 

As for models working for nothing, that's their choice. If every model said "fuck this, we're not working for nothing" then that would be the end of that. There's lots of DJs that play gigs for free too. Blame them for dragging DJ's wages down, because if you say to a bar/club owner "I want £200" there will be some clown that'll say "I'll do it for £50" and there'll be some other clown after that saying "I'll do it for £20 and some free beers".

 

The Tom Petty case has nothing to do with sampling. Neither does the Pharrell one. I think the Verve case is bullshit, as I said already, but they sampled more of the song than they'd licensed and that's what screwed them up. The judgement was fucking nonsense though.

 

If a song was written in someone's basement and they made sold 100 copies in the 70s and it has the same chord progression Tom Petty used in I Won't Back Down, they have no intellectual property/copyright grounds....

The process of taking someone to court favours people with money, that much is true, but that's true full stop. The actual law applies to the guy who sells 100 copies of a song just as much as it does to anyone else.

[Vekked]

The Tom Petty case has nothing to do with sampling. Neither does the Pharrell one. I think the Verve case is bullshit, as I said already, but they sampled more of the song than they'd licensed and that's what screwed them up. The judgement was fucking nonsense though.

You asked for people who are copywriting chords/notes in a row.

 

The process of taking someone to court favours people with money, that much is true, but that's true full stop. The actual law applies to the guy who sells 100 copies of a song just as much as it does to anyone else.

That's the thing though, it doesn't ACTUALLY apply because of the dude who sells 100 copies of a song tried to prove that a popular artist stole his chord progression it'd be impossible because those are just elements of music that exist naturally in music, but people who are popular are claiming them on their own. It becomes "their" melody or "their" chord progression or "their" groove ONLY because it became popular. The actual people who could have some justified/legitimate stake in claiming these elements of music were dead before the laws were created for the most part. There could be people now who could stake a claim on certain musical elements but most of them don't exist in the sphere of pop music. Which it to imply that pop music is inferior or anything, but it is objectively much more structured with many more rules and it gets highlighted all the time when people do those 20 song medley/mashups that all work together perfectly.

 

I think the *idea* of these intellectual law are legit and should exist for cases where people jack like 10 elements of a single song and effectively create a sliiight twist on the same song kinda thing, but it's being abused and people are using it to make money off of other people using the fundamental building blocks of music that they themselves used.

[Steve]

I asked who's trying to copyright 2 notes in a row.

 

The Tom Petty/Sam Smith case didn't even go to court as the writers of the Smith song agreed that elements of it were so similar to Petty's song that they settled.

 

It's odd that people are knocking Bob James, when he has been FAR more hip-hop/sampling friendly than most, and has only (AFAIK) sued 2 people and that was because they didn't ask for permission to sample his music and their albums were commercially successful. It's some bullshit hypocritical starving artist mentality.

 

Maybe some of the people criticising Bob James would honestly say "if someone sampled a tune I made and made a large chunk of money from it, I wouldn't care if they didn't credit me and didn't pay me a penny", but if they can say that then they don't have an atom of business sense. I don't believe that most people criticising him would say that anyway. I think people are just being hypocrites.

[Vekked]

I asked who's trying to copyright 2 notes in a row.

 

The Tom Petty/Sam Smith case didn't even go to court as the writers of the Smith song agreed that elements of it were so similar to Petty's song that they settled.

People are claiming copyright infringement on a handful of chords played in a very obvious way, like all of the examples I listed.

 

It doesn't matter if it was settled out of court, that just means that they felt [% they lose case x cost of losing] > cost of settling out of court. It's not an admission of guilt, it's an admission of how fucked copyright infringement on music is and their lack of confidence that courts would see it their way given the terrible precedents.

[Steve]

The only example you gave that involves sampling - which is what this thread is about - is The Verve example. They paid to license the sample, but then the Rolling Stones' ex-manager claimed that they'd sampled more of the song than was agreed upon.

 

You said above that people are copyrighting "2 or 3 chords in a row". Nobody has done that. The Tom Petty example isn't 3 chords in a row. There are huge similarities between the choruses of both songs.

 

Of the four phrases, three are virtually identical. The pitches are the same; the rhythms are the same; the chords are pretty much the same, with Petty’s D subbed out for Smith’s C (a change that doesn’t really affect the harmony). Even the structure of the lyrics is similar — the songs’ titles both arrive on the same notes in the first full bar and are repeated in the last phrase.

https://medium.com/world-of-music/did-sam-smith-steal-stay-with-me-from-tom-petty-d660968268df

 

You can still say "well, that still shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit" if you like of course.

[Guest petesasqwax]

I knew this would be a thread I'd need to bring popcorn to

[Vekked]

The only example you gave that involves sampling - which is what this thread is about - is The Verve example. They paid to license the sample, but then the Rolling Stones' ex-manager claimed that they'd sampled more of the song than was agreed upon.

The only difference between sampling and interpolating is the actual recording. I already covered that in my initial post, as did Si.

 

You said above that people are copyrighting "2 or 3 chords in a row". Nobody has done that. The Tom Petty example isn't 3 chords in a row. There are huge similarities between the choruses of both songs.

 

Of the four phrases, three are virtually identical. The pitches are the same; the rhythms are the same; the chords are pretty much the same, with Petty’s D subbed out for Smith’s C (a change that doesn’t really affect the harmony). Even the structure of the lyrics is similar — the songs’ titles both arrive on the same notes in the first full bar and are repeated in the last phrase.

https://medium.com/world-of-music/did-sam-smith-steal-stay-with-me-from-tom-petty-d660968268df

 

You can still say "well, that still shouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit" if you like of course.

 

Your conclusion seems to be "2 songs sound the same, therefore one must have copied the other!", my conclusion is "2 pop songs sound the same, therefore it's likely both people just made the same obvious choices because pop music is so formulaic". If 2 people decide happened to choose the same 3 chords where the chords fall on the 1st beat of the 1st 3 bars in a super basic structure, the song is going to end up having a lot of similarities just because that's what they based the song on. Obviously the songs are going to "arrive" on the same notes if they're in the same key with the same 3 chords and have the same root note. You can't just choose any note at any time if you're following a pop song formula.

 

There are so many genres like blues, reggae, punk where different time periods a lot of the music all sounded the same because the genre entailed using "X rhythm", "X scale", "X groove". That's just how music and genres and styles work in contemporary music. The difference is now people are trying to put their stamp on those things and claim them as their's, and it just fucks up people's abilities to make the best music they can without worrying about getting sued.

[DJ Rock Well]

Agree with your last statement Vekked. Music has perpetuated itself from the very beginning with a degree of recycling. Usually, in each instance what the outcome is, is down to how much money is involved - hence Punk, Blues and Reggae were very good genre examples. To that end I can sort of see how and why Bob freaked out over the Fresh Prince & Jazzy Jeff original incident (and agree with him in that instance) but then mellowed with smaller incidents in subsequent years. I'm not so sure what he's up to now but a lot of people get mean, bitter and unreasonable as they age...

 

I agree that there is a creative future in sampling and that it could be wrongly stifled by too many lawsuits, where as is so often the case with big lawsuits, the richest person with the best lawyers turns out to be "right".

 

I'm not against musicians being paid for having there work sampled by any means, but it needs to be fair amount in relation to what has been used, how important it is in the samples work and how much money is being made from the track containing the sample. Plus as I said before, I don't really like money for what was clearly the work of session player going to the bandleader/main recording artist. It's like a company CEO taking all the profits for a genius idea struck upon by the lad in the mail room - legally right as rain, but morally askew IMO (just ask Idris Muhammad what he thinks of saxophonist Lou Donaldson after 'justice' was served over Tribe sampled "Lou's" drums).

 

Still with any luck, by 2020 recorded music will be moneytarily valueless and we can all sample whatever we like...

 

Actually, scrap that idea. That would just result in millions of Americans who were born to late, sampling the fucking Beatles. That or a comeback from Jive Bunny.

[Guest petesasqwax]

That would just result in millions of Americans who were born to late, sampling the fucking Beatles. That or a comeback from Jive Bunny.

http://mfi.re/listen/bjhj3pxeb8t6b70/MistaEd-Ed'sJive.mp3

[Guest Symatic]

Yeah i dont disagree with artists getting paid for samples if its done proportionately, and thats why i dont get this particular case. Madlibs tune isnt that nautilus-y. Its not very melodic the part he took.

 

Sure bob is a legend, i only said "fuck off bob" cos i was reeeealy condensing a very long reply and decided on a joke response after i lost my text...

 

I guess the only thing that makes sense here is that madlib is a big artist so the percentage bobs missing out on may add up to a lot...

 

I still think its a bit wack though.

[DJ Rock Well]

Bob's one of many jazz artists of his era and style that I believe have had at least some extra career success as a direct result of getting sampled so hard.

 

Over the years of dealing with Jazz fans, I've noticed that out of the people buying CTI albums, most are of the generation that grew up surrounded by the music that sampled them. I'm not saying everyone who buys them does it just because they discovered them from listening to Run DMC's Peter Piper or Adam F's Circles, etc... In fact many will say that they don't like the samples, just the originals (fucking hipsters!), but wether they were influenced directly or subconsciously, those classic CTI albums have a sound that is familiar and appealing to people who grew up surrounded by music that was full of CTI samples. At the other end of the scale trad jazzers hate all that's not trad, be-boppers will accept a bit of modern but draw the line there, the modern fans just thinks it's sub-standard shit (compared to Coltrane or Davis in their prime, I can see there point)... even fans of a lot of the other 70s Jazz, like Free Jazz or ECM sort of stuff find the CTI albums a bit mainstream, a bit pop. Bob's career wained throughout 80s as like a lot of 70s musicians he struggled with fitting into the changing technology and shifting musical landscape. It's hard to predict what would have been in an alternate reality, but I don't think back catalogue sales would have been what they were without the advent of the sampler.

 

On another note "Fuck Bob" is catchy as hell... Bumper stickers for MPCs perhaps?

[djdiggla]

That's a bummer but it's his right.

 

I personally feel like this should be treated like a trademark--Bob has not vigorously defended his property rights and as a result the strength of his case is weak. He should have protected his property via litigation throughout history regardless and because he's not his copyright is almost unenforceable because of the precedent he has set.

 

 

My personal thoughts are that samples in general is that they should be treated as P-Funk does where you are required to provide written notice of the sample use. Then and IF it makes any money you pay a flat 15%(?) royalty. Seems fair. Doesn't put anyone out from the start altho if you sample a lot of stuff in one beat you can get screwed. Maybe allow for up to 15% which is proportionally reduced by the other samples you use (if any). Seems like a win-win to me.

[djdiggla]

 

the person who used a piano and Shure microphone to play a G chord gets to claim ownership but the person who made the piano and microphone have no right to it. Like which part of a recording do you own exactly?

I'm not buying this type of argument. It's like saying that if you create a painting and sell it, some of the money should go to the guy that made the paint and the guy that made the machine used to create the paint. Which part do you own exactly? The light being absorbed by your eyes and processed by your brain to create the image? Pfffffft.

 

Session musicians don't get paid royalties normally, at least not for primary use, but that's their choice. It's like if I asked you to cut on a track for a flat fee of £100. If that track blows up and I make a chunk of money on it, you have no right to say that I owe you any money.

 

The law is certainly problematic at times. In UK law, you have to take a substantial piece of the recording before it's considered infringement, but it's up to the judge to decide what "substantial" means and sometimes that amounts to "not very much". Also, there have been occasions where the decision is clearly fucking bullshit, such as the example with The Verve, which is possibly the worst case I've heard of. As for Tom Petty, I think his court case against Smith Smith was bullshit too, but that's not related to sampling. With sampling, it's not a matter of "A sounds a little bit like B". It's "A wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for B, as elements of B were used to make it".

 

 

I agree with Vekked but I think that argument or way of looking at samples is only valid if you are flipping a sample beyond recognition in which case you probably wouldn't be in the position of being sued anyways.

[djdiggla]

Bob's one of many jazz artists of his era and style that I believe have had at least some extra career success as a direct result of getting sampled so hard.

 

 

On another note "Fuck Bob" is catchy as hell... Bumper stickers for MPCs perhaps?

 

Agree. Nobody would know him aside from jazz heads if it wasn't for sampling.

 

That would be an awesome sticker. Just out of the randomness of it. I'd take one.

[Chris]

HOW'S ANNIE?

 

Fucking Bob, ruining things for everyone.

[Phology]

http://www.waxpoetics.com/features/articles/bob-james-interview-cti-records-hip-hop-samples/

 

“I’m flattered to be a part of hip-hop’s history”

 

What has the sample clearance process been like throughout the years for you?

 

I’ll listen to the track that is sampling my tune. That way I can make an intelligent decision on whether or not I’m going to allow it. I still get requests for sample clearances all the time. It’s lessened through the years to a certain degree, but I still get requests to this day and it still surprises me. The coordination of the requests has become more well-organized, and simplified, than it used to be. We have a basic formula now for how we treat requests. Record companies are better about the approach nowadays because there have been too many lawsuits and they’d lose money if they did it the wrong way. Fortunately, almost all the records where there have been sample requests, I am the record company. [laughs] I am the artist, record company, and composer by law. So I control all the publishing rights and fortunately, make a lot of the decisions.

[Guest petesasqwax]

I read that and heard: "make no mistake about it, I'm going to fuck up Madlib's shit personally" but maybe it's too early in the morning and I've had too little coffee to reasonably converse with civilised folk

[DJ Rock Well]

I've had too little coffee to reasonably converse with civilised folk

 

What time are they getting here? I'll make myself scarce.

[Mike-L]

I think the law for sampling should be more like the law for doing cover versions, in that there's set rates that apply & that there's nothing stopping you from doing it even if it's crap. I.e permission is assumed. At the moment upfront costs are punitive especially for small labels. Stones throw is a case in point as if they're small enough for it be impossible for them to pay upfront for everything but every so often they're big enough to get caught.

 

Also I think some of the argument so far are confusing the two types of copyright - the song & the recording. If you take loads of sounds but everything is pitched and timed differently how us it the same "song" even if it is using the same "recording"? As it currently stands in law you can't sample the recording without also sampling the song...,hence the mess with the Verve/Rolling Stones thing already mentioned.

[Guest petesasqwax]

 

I've had too little coffee to reasonably converse with civilised folk

 

What time are they getting here? I'll make myself scarce.

 

I tend to view it as more like a catch-all excuse for being always inappropriate. Therefofre in my lifetime I will never have had enough coffee to reasonably converse with civilised folk

[Guest broke]

Bob James must have been dusted

Disgusted

Now he can't be trusted