Monday, April 19, 2010

Through Hell or High Water

Having spent some time thinking more seriously about the issue, I've grown increasingly disgruntled at the framing certain groups, like the RIAA, set out to make "illegal" music downloaders look like the villains.  In doing so, they make the "legitimate" music industry look like the victims who are simply trying to earn an honest buck.

The following videos and articles merely scratch the surface of and stand as but a small representation of music or creative theft that occurs within the industry itself.  So let us dive in.


Pardon the length of this first video, but it's a real doozy.  (IT WILL BLOW YOUR MIND!!!)


In 2004, Nate Harrison put together this lovely project to narrate the history of a 6 second music clip from the b-side of a funky album from a funky group --The Winstons -- back in 1969.  A sample to be forever known as the "Amen Break".  This one sample was used extensively since the late 80's to the point that it has essentially ascended to the status of a cultural norm in respects to music.  Harrison does a beautiful job discussing the history of the beat, the nature of art and creativity, as well as addressing the timeless issue of creative ownership.  The point here being that similar to math and science, music and other arts are created and furthered only by building off of what has already been created.  That is to say, if we wish to see the creation of new music, we have to stop controlling what has already been made.

Speaking of sampling... GIRL TALK!

In 2004, music mashing sensation Greg Gillis -- aka Girl Talk-- released his fourth album titled: Feed The Animals.  Like most of his works, Girl Talk composed the entire album from music samples taken from previously written songs.  Songs that were written by other artists.  The sample styles ranged as wide as hip-hop sensation Jay-Z to early 90's rock group Huey Lewis and the News.

Now here is the kicker.  Girl Talk's record label, Illegal Art, put up and and is still currently up for sale in a "pay what you want" style.  According to an interview with Girl Talk (as seen on Metrowize), his main goal behind the album was to "make it easier for people to get their hands on the music"  Those who choose to pay nothing for the album have to explain why they are choosing to do so.  The options range anywhere from "I have already purchased this album" to "I can't afford to pay"  There is even an option that explicitly says "I don't value music made from sampling"

 It's in that last option that much of this link speaks to me.  Because the reality is that most of the music that is considered "mainstream" is in fact produced heavily through the use of sampling.  This idea should be nothing new to anyone, but the fact still remains that the the music industry itself has been making use of music theft for quite some time.  Granted the conditions are slightly different, but I can't help but think, "what a load of hypocrisy" when I am being called a thief when the those very same supporters of anti-piracy are doing effectively the same thing as me.  At least some folks like Girl Talk are reasonable and accepting of the facts.

And finally something more for the scholarly...

If you manage to get your hands on this one I would highly recommend it.  It's not an easy find.

"Legends of the Fall: Behind the Music" by Gary Westfahl

Mr. Westfahl put this lovely novel together back in 2000 and it takes a look at a number of cases over the years of sampling, or creative theft, that even date back as far as the 1950's.  One famous example that the book mentions is a blatant theft of the famous bass line from Queen's song, Under Pressure.  For those of you who for some reason fail to know what the hell I'm talking about... allow me to elaborate.



and then this bad boy...



So here again we have yet again another example of creative theft that has occurred within the music industry.  Obviously this one yet again speaks for itself.

But you have to wonder, where does one draw the line?  It is known that Vanilla Ice eventually paid David Bowie and Freddie Mercury for his blatant theft, but the concept of musical sampling has exploded since then.  Sampling regulation has become just as difficult (if not more difficult) than controlling music piracy.  In many cases, as you have learned, samples have been repossessed by the record labels themselves, claiming that their samples are completely original.  (Note - if you didn't watch the whole video I initially posted... watch it NOW)

I guess if there is anything to take away from all of this it's that the music as an industry has changed to the point that regulation is futile.  The creation of newer music production technologies and the internet have unleashed a flood that like all forces of nature, cannot be stopped.  But the beauty is that like all "natural disasters", we are able to adapt to our new surroundings and find the potential in it.  So wake up music industry and head for high ground.

- James






4 comments:

  1. The ethics of sampling are related to the ethics of piracy in the way that ducks are related to boats; they both exist within a broader debate about intellectual property and water respectively but other than superficial, tangential relations there is no compelling reason to talk about these things in the same breath. Piracy engages with intellectual property on the consumption level where as sampling and the like engage with intellectual property on a production level and, really, these discussions do not have implications on one another. It is a completely tenable position to take (one that no one actually is taking, I should note) to allow complete disregard for intellectual property rights on a production end, to the point that there is absolutely nothing one could do on a production end that does not fall within the realm of "fair use," without allowing similar disregard for intellectual property rights on a consumption end.

    ReplyDelete
  2. But they are related. One is intellectual property theft where record companies exploit the intangibility of music in order to make money off of another person's ideas, the other is persecuting people for what they perceive to be potentially lowering their profit by "stealing" this same intangible thing. It is hypocritical. The record company has no real right to assume ownership over anything other than the hard copies of CDs that they chose to produce. The real problem is that the record companies fail to accept that CDs are obsolete and instead of adjusting their flawed business model, they are grasping at straws by slinging unreasonable lawsuits and lobbying for laws that endanger the freedom of the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The fundamental difference between pirating and sampling is one is taking someone's product intended for sale without purchase. While the other is changing someone's product to create something with a new value. These are two very different things.

    Regardless of who we may think owns the song (if anyone at all), the current rule of the land is that the record company technically does. Should that change? Probably. But in the mean time we can address: is sampling stealing?

    Creating a song is nothing more than arranging notes into patterns.

    Sampling is the rearrangement of notes already in specific patterns to create a new song.

    We need to stop pretending rearranging notes to create a song is any more valuable than rearranging songs to creating an entirely different product with a different value. Duchamp might at least think that's a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree about sampling, but a lot of major record labels have a bad history with stealing songs entirely and modifying them slightly if at all. It seriously happens ALL THE TIME.

    ReplyDelete