"The British don't care about anyone; they just care about the money."
- Thread starter Coiffeur_En_Flame
- Start date
You've never been to Wisconsin, have you?
I'm only allowed the last 3 on special occassions...
Coiff.
At the same time?
Amy
from the Ice Age to the dole age
Is there anything you find strange about British people?
When you go into a shop and someone pushes you or knocks you by accident, we say sorry and then go away - but here you say: 'Sorry, sorry, sorry.'
Hahaha, I've never thought about that before, but it's true
When you go into a shop and someone pushes you or knocks you by accident, we say sorry and then go away - but here you say: 'Sorry, sorry, sorry.'
Hahaha, I've never thought about that before, but it's true
Coiffeur_En_Flame
New Member
D
Dave
Guest
that story reminded me of this pet shop boys song.
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Dave
Guest
in Brooklyn all they care about is money, too
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Dave
Guest
I guess that someone could afford to do it, but they don't because it's too expensive, and it's a shame really that copyright laws put property rights above freedom of expression, a basic human right.
Buzzetta
WOOOOOOOO!!!!!
Disagree... in all fairness someone should not have the ability to profit off of someone else's intellectual property. I actually agree with the majority of the legal mumbo jumbo concerning artistic intellectual property rights.
D
Dave
Guest
Profiting off of "intellectual property" is a pretty new concept. Now it has it's uses. If someone makes duplicates of a current hit CD and sells them on the street they are clearly depriving someone of income that they worked for. You have to respect an artist's right to earn.
However, if someone samples something off of some old record and does so in an artistically valid way, that's different. For example, Puff Daddy used major portions of songs that were previously huge hits, in order to have his own hits, which, aside from the contributions of a few of his famous friends, had little to recommend them on their own.
His version of that Police song is wrong in several ways. It's horrible. He shouldn't have been allowed to do it at all, money or not, but it's not something that you could justify as art is the thing.
But the Dust Brothers were obviously referencing previous art in a way that would be totally acceptable if they were painters or something. Fair use does allow for art. The problem is that it's hard to justify a lot of popular music as being art. It's entertainment at best.
I'd say that Jay-Z's use of "Hello Brooklyn" is squarely and fairly in the tradition of the artform he works in, and that, while he might exploit the music a little bit, he has reason to reference it. He certainly didn't sit down and say "I need a hit. Let's use this old Beastie Boys number!"
What makes me mad is when people like Michael Jackson or U2 won't let their music be used by small time artists that wouldn't even make nay money on it. A band called The Marshmallow Conspiracy was sued by Michael Jackson and had all of their records recalled and destroyed.
Sure, an unknown band could be seen as trying to capitalize on Michael Jackson, but they weren't going to make any money anyway.
Buzzetta
WOOOOOOOO!!!!!
First I would not call it relatively new. Intellectual property rights is as old as and directly stemming from patent law dating back to 1790 in the United States and I believe dating back to the 1400's or 1500's in Europe. In the United States it was created as a means to promote the arts in letting inventors, artists, songwriters, playwrights and novelists create without fear of having their work seized upon and profited upon without their consent.
As far as allowing artists to sample or borrow from others. I can see why they would want their slice of the pie both financially and artistically. Look at Led Zeppelin. Plant and Page stole folk riffs to the point that they settled out of court on a number of them. There are some artists that simply do not even want compensation for usage of their material but simply do not want their material used by another party such as AC/DC. Still others, such as Sting, recognize that it is a business after all and that if his song is going to be reworked he wants to see some money out of it.
On a side note. Did you know that it is cheaper for an artist to completely cover a song on an album instead of sample it?
D
Dave
Guest
A patent is not the same as borrowing a few lines or a melody line for a song, though. I would look for the first time a songwriter sued another songwriter. Still, I'm sure that the first person that ever wrote a song said that the second person stole it.
I'm talking about the difference between using a piece of a person's music, like a bassline, and using the actual recording of that bassline. That's a relatively new concept.
It proves that Sting sort of sucks, too, because he talks about a lot of ideas, and selling a song that once had meaning for him, for money that he definitely doesn't need, doesn't sound like an artistic, intellectual, or spiritual decision, and he has claimed to be all three of those things.
Buzzetta
WOOOOOOOO!!!!!
"Dude" (I believe I can say that since you are American) That argument went down the tubes back when Mozart preformed at the Kings palace because it was at the King's whim. He sold out back then.
Which brings that concept into the light. I look at selling your artistic creations as a matter of artistic right. You made it you do with it as you please. After all it is the rights that the artists fought for for all those years. They wanted control over their material. If you are a musician you are in the business of music.
By the way the only part of the music copyright law that I disagree with right now is the RIAA interpretation of fair use. I mentioned it in the other thread. Apparently they are challenging the copying of a CD on to a computer and then onto an iPod as unfair use under the argument that it reformats the musical construction of the song. An argument that is dubious at best but is slowly gaining merit. Somehow this is not covered under the ruling (proper name escapes me) that allowed the existence of VCRs back in the early 1980's.
Aside from that the artists should have full right to do with their recordings as they choose. It is there work after all.
D
Dave
Guest
In the same way that two musicians can communicate in real time while performing, a recorded piece of music can communicate through a change of context. We all know that this is an artistic truth.
The other side of the coin is the money. Yes the record business is in the business of selling music, but your statement, "If you are a musician you are in the business of music" is not true and I think you can see that.
It depends on your perspective. There was music before there was money. People communicated through rhythm and sound no doubt before there was real language. It's my opinion that language, religion, music and art all appeared in a very short period of time compared to the length of time we have been here, and I think that they are all connected. They all exist as ideals outside of the physical realm. So the money problem has to be looked at for what it is, which is a bunch of people that have always exploited the artists and the fans now controlling the very artform and stopping it's natural evolution.
The other side of the coin is the money. Yes the record business is in the business of selling music, but your statement, "If you are a musician you are in the business of music" is not true and I think you can see that.
It depends on your perspective. There was music before there was money. People communicated through rhythm and sound no doubt before there was real language. It's my opinion that language, religion, music and art all appeared in a very short period of time compared to the length of time we have been here, and I think that they are all connected. They all exist as ideals outside of the physical realm. So the money problem has to be looked at for what it is, which is a bunch of people that have always exploited the artists and the fans now controlling the very artform and stopping it's natural evolution.
Buzzetta
WOOOOOOOO!!!!!
I disagree with that when it concerns today's musical atmosphere. The "art" does not pay the bills. There is a very real business aspect to it. When it comes down to it the money is important. I fell into teaching by accident. It was only supposed to be a one to two year gig in order to raise money for something else. Then I found out I enjoyed doing what I do. I have to be honest though. If for any reason I took a pay cut of substantial proportion denying me the lifestyle that I have grown accustomed to I would seek another line of work. If they told me that the city cannot pay you in the event of another city bankruptcy scare as what almost happened in the 1970's. (Ford to NYC: Drop Dead), I would seek another line of work.
The business of music is geared around money. It still is a billion dollar industry. Music is not being used as language in so much these days as it is used to gain MTV video rotation. The world you speak of has passed. I agree that it did exist. Elvis built a career on the backs of other musicians. However that day has passed.
Similar threads
- Deleted member 31782
- Off-topic archive (read-only)
