Help: Paul's Boutique and sampling laws

[candeo]

I'm giving a speech for class about the use of sampling in rap music, and for part of the speech, I'm using Paul's Boutique as a refernce. I want to show how the free use of samples from previous soul and funk works allowed this album to become its own entity. Due to sampling laws, this album could not be created today. At least not for retail release, it would be simply impossible to get them all cleared.

I could use some help from you guys.

First: What's the best source to get a list of all the samples used in Paul's Boutique? I'm thinking about using this page, but wanted to know if there's a better source.
http://www.moire.com/beastieboys/samples/index.php

Second: could anybody point me towards some concrete information regarding the law suit that The Turtles brought against against De La Soul for the plagurism of samples used in 3 Feet High and Rising, or any other interesting information regarding the sampling laws that came about in the early 1990's.

I want to wrap up talking about the pros and cons of sampling laws. I think sampling is a great way for people to express their creativity while giving a shout out to artists that came before, but I need to cover the topic comprehensively to allow the audience to decide for themselves.

Any help would be appreciated.

-Kyle

[candeo]

To give you an idea with where I'm going with my in class presentation, here's my rough draft for how I'm going to start out.


*queue Pump Up the Volume*
This record was made in 1987 by MARRS. It was a snapshot into what was evolving in the underground dance and hip hop scenes, and it had a huge influence on the moderm music culture both locally and overseas.

It's most recognizable sample, "Pump up the volume" is taken from an Eric B and Rakim rap song (* queue this track section. is it You Got Soul? I think so*). Eric B and Rakim and other rap artists in the 80s relied on samples from older soul and funk records to fuel the beats behind their records. Then later, they they frequently sampled other rap records.

This is just an example of how dance and hip hop records both feed off and perpetuate themselves. The whole culture is filled with self-refferential 'shout outs.'

[Weezman]

I'm giving a speech for class about the use of sampling in rap music, and for part of the speech, I'm using Paul's Boutique as a refernce. I want to show how the free use of samples from previous soul and funk works allowed this album to become its own entity. Due to sampling laws, this album could not be created today. At least not for retail release, it would be simply impossible to get them all cleared.

I could use some help from you guys.
Any help would be appreciated.

-Kyle


Just play the ENTIRE LP!!! :D

[Sir SkratchaLot]

I'm giving a speech for class about the use of sampling in rap music, and for part of the speech, I'm using Paul's Boutique as a refernce. I want to show how the free use of samples from previous soul and funk works allowed this album to become its own entity. Due to sampling laws, this album could not be created today. At least not for retail release, it would be simply impossible to get them all cleared.

I could use some help from you guys.

First: What's the best source to get a list of all the samples used in Paul's Boutique? I'm thinking about using this page, but wanted to know if there's a better source.
http://www.moire.com/beastieboys/samples/index.php

Second: could anybody point me towards some concrete information regarding the law suit that The Turtles brought against against De La Soul for the plagurism of samples used in 3 Feet High and Rising, or any other interesting information regarding the sampling laws that came about in the early 1990's.

I want to wrap up talking about the pros and cons of sampling laws. I think sampling is a great way for people to express their creativity while giving a shout out to artists that came before, but I need to cover the topic comprehensively to allow the audience to decide for themselves.

Any help would be appreciated.

-Kyle

The key thing you have to remember is that all music, and art, is derivitive. It builds on what came before it. So, even when a musician isn't sampling, they are borrowing from other muscians. Think about all those rock riffs you hear that sound just like other rock riffs. Almost every song out is derivitive of other songs. Those who say they are being completely originial are not being honest. One of hip hop's strengths is that it's honest about the fact that it borrows from music that came before it. It borrows from the old to make new music, just like all other types of music and art. The only difference is that hip hop is more direct because it samples the actual recording rather than trying to recreate the original recording.

I'd play sound of science and see how many people can pick out the Bass line as the Beatles "When I'm 64". I bet nobody can pick it out until you tell them.

Also, remember that not all sampling is obvious. A sample can be chopped up and rearranged, scratched, and filtered, and have effects added. The result is a sound that does not always resemble the original sample. So, just because you're sampling, does not mean you can't obtain a more original and creative result than someone playing a guitar or piano.

Its important for the general public to understand these things because you're average person has the assumption that sampling is just taking the popular part of a song and looping it. That's not often the case, and as the music evolves the sampling is becoming less obvious and more creative. There was way more chopping and rearranging going on in Hello Nasty than in Paul's Boutique. The music is new and quickly evolving. People shouldn't discount it before giving it a chance to thrive.

[Lipper]

I'm giving a speech for class about the use of sampling in rap music, and for part of the speech, I'm using Paul's Boutique as a refernce. I want to show how the free use of samples from previous soul and funk works allowed this album to become its own entity. Due to sampling laws, this album could not be created today. At least not for retail release, it would be simply impossible to get them all cleared.

I could use some help from you guys.

First: What's the best source to get a list of all the samples used in Paul's Boutique? I'm thinking about using this page, but wanted to know if there's a better source.
http://www.moire.com/beastieboys/samples/index.php

Second: could anybody point me towards some concrete information regarding the law suit that The Turtles brought against against De La Soul for the plagurism of samples used in 3 Feet High and Rising, or any other interesting information regarding the sampling laws that came about in the early 1990's.

I want to wrap up talking about the pros and cons of sampling laws. I think sampling is a great way for people to express their creativity while giving a shout out to artists that came before, but I need to cover the topic comprehensively to allow the audience to decide for themselves.

Any help would be appreciated.

-Kyle

when is your presentation due? I am taking a class on copyright law, i could point you in a right direction, but dont have time now.

[timmie]

Rap is the culture, Hip Hop is the music!! to release an album like "Pauls Boutique" in this day & age would cost millions, there lucky, right time!! but jsut till a couple of years ago they were getting sued over a "Pass the mic" sample!? for $250,000 the sample was just a couple of seconds which looped! but hey!

[Weezman]

Rap is the culture, Hip Hop is the music!! to release an album like "Pauls Boutique" in this day & age would cost millions, there lucky, right time!! but jsut till a couple of years ago they were getting sued over a "Pass the mic" sample!? for $250,000 the sample was just a couple of seconds which looped! but hey!


Would that make the boys the sample "KINGS" ...in all of hip-hop history! :D

Considering how many albums they have? Anyone else hold the tilte?

[Buck Buck]

I thought Hip Hop was the culture and Rap was the music...

[kleptomaniac]

I thought Hip Hop was the culture and Rap was the music...

yup (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=60175) (y)

[Weezman]

I thought Hip Hop was the culture and Rap was the music...


WERD!! :cool: Good catch!

[Weezman]

Rap is the culture, Hip Hop is the music!! to release an album like "Pauls Boutique" in this day & age would cost millions, there lucky, right time!! but jsut till a couple of years ago they were getting sued over a "Pass the mic" sample!? for $250,000 the sample was just a couple of seconds which looped! but hey!


im sure you meant the other way around timmie, i thought i seen you state it on an earlier post! :D

[candeo]

Thanks a lot, Sir Scratch A Lot. I'm definitely going to include some of your points in my presentation. I wanted a way to compare creative sample usage to playing an instrument like a piano or guitar. I really like how you worded it. I'm going to use that as my closer after I go into Copyright laws.

Rather than listing all the samples used in Paul's Boutique, I'm just going to paraphrase that I counted over 150 samples used in the album and then list some of the band used in producing Hey Ladies.

[brmanuk]

Did they get the rights for any of the samples on the album? I know non are credited, but the samples on Check Your Head aren't either but I'm pretty sure they payed for some of the samples on that album.

The reason I'm asking is becasue it's often noted taht PB cost a lot to make, but surely if the samples were 'free' there would have only been minimum recording costs for vocals and the odd guitar track.

Also, have they been sue'd (how do you spell that, I should know after doing law for a year lol) for any of the samples? On the MTV's Beastieography Mario C says they have had to pay out 1000's for the samples on PB over the years, but I've never read anything about it...
Edit: Heres (http://www.beastieboysannotated.com/) a GREAT Paul's Boutique sample site.

[Sir SkratchaLot]

I wanted a way to compare creative sample usage to playing an instrument like a piano or guitar.

I've studied this subject for years (extensively in law school as it applies to copyright law), and the best way to prove your point is by using the turntable as an example of a live sampler.

Think of it this way, the turntable IS a musical instrument, just like a piano or guitar. In fact Mixmaster Mike, the Beastie's DJ, was in a crew called the Invisibl Skratch Piklz. That crew was at the forefront of a number of DJs in the mid 90s who were trying to have the turntable recognized as an instrument. Mike helped come up with the concept of the DJ band, where you have 3 or 4 DJs, each playing a seperate sample. All combined, they can create songs. A simplified example of this is on 3 MCs and 1 DJ. Mike plays the drums on that song using his turntable. He has two sounds, a kick and a snare. He just manually reorganizes the sounds to create a drum track that sounds different than the drum pattern on the record he's using. You can take that cocept and apply it to any sample (piano, bass, bells, etc.) So, an accomplished turntablist can take a sample and rearrange it in real time so that it barely resembles the original sample you'd hear on the record if you just played it in the normal manner.

Here, check this out http://oishi.com.tw/articlecontent.php?message_id=153

Go down to the bottom of the page and check out "Louie Lopez" or just click this: http://oishi.com.tw/records/sounds/03.rm

This song is entirely composed of live manipulation of samples on turntables. Everything is scratched, the drums, the cymbols, the bass, the horns, the leads, everything. It can be played live with 4 DJs. Its the same concept of 3 MCs and 1 DJ, except instead of just drums, its other instruments as well.

There's other songs on that page as well. All of them are made entirely from scratching using the turntable as an instrument. Check it out.

Ricci Rucker (who is one of the most innovative Scratch DJs) explains the turntable/instrument connection like this--> He says that an instrument is merely a device that triggers a sound. That's it. For example, if you pluck a guitar string it plays a sound. If you hit a piano key, it plays a sound. Just as a piano triggers a sound, so does a turntable. The main difference being that with a turntable, you can pick which sound you trigger by choosing a sample. Its really no different than an electronic keyboard that has preset sounds in it. If an electronic keyboard is an instrument, then so is a turntable. Period.

The main difference between the turntable and the sampler is that the turntable is typically played live, like an instrument, and the sampler is pre-programmed, like a player piano or something. Some samplers (like the MPC) can be played live by pressing pads which hold the samples. Whether its live or programmed, the turntable/sample is merely triggering sounds just like any other instrument.

Another way to look at sampling is Ricci Rucker's analogy of sampling to cooking. A master chef can take ingredients; tomatoes, basil, salt and pepper, etc. These ingredients are all made by other people. The chef plays no role in the quality of the ingredients except for the fact that he knows which ingedients to pick. For instance, he knows how to spot a good tomato. Now, when the cook starts combining those ingredients to make a sauce, that's where you get good food. Part of the food is in the ingredients, but most of the goodness is in the combination of ingredients. Nobody says "wow this is good salt!" Instead, they compliment the chef. The same logic applies to sampling. The art is in the selection, alteration, and combination of sample ingredients. A master sampler is like a master chef. They know what to use and how to combine and prepare everything. If a person doesn't know how to pick, alter, and combine the right samples, they can't make good music. So, in this sense, the sampler is more like a composer than a master pianist. He's composing and combining the musicians playing the samples. The turntablist, on the other hand, is like the master pianist, he's triggering the samples live with the use of master dexterity, timing, and technical skill.

Of couse, you have to realize that some sampling is not very inventive. Its more like making a poptart than making chicken parmesan. But that's not to say that all chef's should be discredited because some just make poptarts and TV dinners. Paul's Boutique is like a 4 course meal made from scratch. If people can't see value in that then they have no tastebuds.

Peace

[timmie]

I thought Hip Hop was the culture and Rap was the music...

You are right!! I got abit tongue tied, sorry about that!!!.....

[timmie]

Sir Skatchalot!!!
Can you be my lawer!!!?!!! (y)

[Weezman]

I thought Hip Hop was the culture and Rap was the music...

You are right!! I got abit tongue tied, sorry about that!!!.....


(y) :D

[Sir SkratchaLot]

Sir Skatchalot!!!
Can you be my lawer!!!?!!! (y)

Sure, you can send my retainer via paypal. Its $2500. (y)

[JohnnyChavello]

OK, I wrote a paper on this exact subject for a copyright litigation class in law school. Essentially, there are a bunch of different opinions on when sampling becomes copyright infringement. Copyright is all federal law, there are no state copyright laws. But, because the supreme court hasn't decided this issue, different federal circuits have resolved the issue differently. One circuit, the Fifth, I think, recently held that any sample is an infringement, even when the sample is completely unrecognizable. The case is Bridgeport v. Dimension Music. This case was pretty poorly reasoned, however. Other circuits, the Ninth Circuit, for example, have held that a sample is not an infringement if it is too small to be recognizable. The Beasties own case regarding Pass the Mic, is an example of some of the court's reasoning. The complicated issue is that music involves two separate copyrights. One copyright governs the musical composition, and the other governs the sound recording. When you sample, you potentially infringe both of them. Musical compositions can be sampled without infringing because there is a long line of cases in US copyright law holding that de minimis appropriation of copyrighted material is OK. But the copyright for a sound recording is a little bit different. Because it is a mechanixal reproduction, some courts take a view of the material from a more property based perspective.

Either way, even if one were to be found to have infringed through use of a sample. A defendant could defend the infringement on the basis that the use was what's called a fair use. I don't think sampling has been defended on these grounds, yet. The problem with fair use is that its a fairly vague standard and its difficult to determine when a court will find fair use. Because its so expensive to litigate these issues, many artists just pay to use samples through licensing agreements. There is one problem with that in the case of sampling, however. Unlike musical compositions, which impose a mandatory licensing scheme allowing people to simply pay for the use of the composition without having to first obtain an artsist, or company's consent, samples do not have compulsory licensing, and the artist who owns the sound recording copyright, or the company who owns it, do not have to give permission for the use of the sample.

If you want to read any of the cases involved, or look at law review articles that discuss the issue more clearly than I have in this post. Try and find a way to get into the Lexis Nexis legal database. You can find anything there with a subscription. You might be able to use it at a local university that has a law school.

[DJ_Skrilla]

Check out "Louie Lopez" or just click this: http://oishi.com.tw/records/sounds/03.rm


Frigiddy Frigiddy FRESH!!!!! Another great scratch composition is the from Beat Junkies Volume 2 - track named "you call dis a song" all ill scratching from the World Famous Beat Junkies crew... I wish I had more talented DJs in my area so I could start a scratch possee but everyone I know sucks or is into jiggy Jiggy shit.