Live versus sampled...

[Rich Hero]

Hayd made a comment the other day when he played me some stuff from the Kamaal The Abstract that got me wondering - is it more expensive to release music that's composed of samples, or played by actual musicians? Obviously, if you don't clear the samples that makes it pretty cheap (although the sueing problem may tilt the final answer ) but what if you compare both done legitimately???

[bongolia]

i think it's impossible to say, but sampled stuff would in general be cheaper, because you're not really factoring the time spent slaving away in the bedroom studio and digging for records. with live stuff you have the costs of instruments, rehearsing, recording, arranging and session musicians if needed, and the studio hire will be for longer - sample based stuff might only need a quick brush up or vocals added...

err.. am just guessing now though - ought to get back to work!

[ShakeyP]

I imagine hiring a kenny garrett for a session is alot cheaper than a Dr Dre (@ his level you can command a producers royalty!&#33!!

[Palmer_Eldrich]

That's an interesting question you pose Mr Hero...

I would say that if your an independant artist selling anything between 10 & 25k your generally going to be ok using samples (uncleared), as the holders of big catalouges can't with you be arsed & it's under the radar...It's when a track/artist blows up unexpectedly that the sampler gets caught at the mercy of the sampled/copyright holder /publisher. Dealtime, there are precidents set & many sampled artists are becoming reasonable about new modes of music production & the expectation of what they want for use of their materials. Some will hate sampling & will not give permission even if you dangle a big wad of cash under their noses! You never know.
A fairly well known dance act that sampled "Champ" by the Mohawks, went to Pama & only had to pay £150 + a small publishing split...Yet another act I know just got done for a very small uncleared use of Jimmy Castors "It's just Begun" They got licked but were lucky to not have to recall their product. It's really down to luck & a little brains.

To get musicians to play is cool & if they are mates & will play for cheap or even free that's the bomb. Most session peeps usually work for MU rates which are reasonable (good) studio time is pricey & a dope engineer who knows how to get a sound other than 'Rock' is essential (a rareity in my experience). All this usually adds up to a pretty penny. Generally session guys will make a deal with publishing/mechanical splits If you can't pay much up front.

On balance I wouldn't call it either way as there are so many variables both before & after release.

[Rich Hero]

Quote[/b] (Palmer_Eldrich @ Dec. 11 2003,16:53)]A fairly well known dance act that sampled "Champ" by the Mohawks, went to Pama & only had to pay £150 + a small publishing split...Yet another act I know just got done for a very small uncleared use of Jimmy Castors "It's just Begun" They got licked but were lucky to not have to recall their product.

I'm pretty little surprised that Pama didn't charge more for using 'Champ' (how much money could they have made by now... ) but Jimmy Castor is notorious for his 'extreme prejudice' against samplers/bootleggers. Wasn't his ire the reason for UBB 507's (508's?) rapid withdrawal?

Obviously this is a totally unanswerable question but Q Tip's music got me thinking about whether bands like the Roots have an easier life than sampling musicians...

[ShakeyP]

I have heard an interview with Jaydilla whee he mentions he's got ?uest Love & Dangelo replay things so he dosent have to clear the sample....

[Matt Hero]

Quote[/b] (Palmer_Eldrich @ Dec. 11 2003,16:53)]Yet another act I know just got done for a very small uncleared use of Jimmy Castors "It's just Begun" They got licked but were lucky to not have to recall their product.

I can't remember who told me this, but the person who handles the publishing for Jimmy Castor has a reputation for being *very* hard to deal with over sampling and will for no good reason reject useage just because he feels like it.

Didn't The Spice Girls have to edit out a Jimmy Castor Bunch sample of one of their tracks, back in the days where 10% of their publishing return would have been worth having ?

[Mr_Hopkinson]

I saw Kid Koala last night, who was fantastic ( thanks John if your there! ) and I was wondering about how his albums are 'understood' legally in terms of sampling/playing live - are they technically (i.e. in the eyes of the law ) mix albums, or new compositions? They are definitely 'played live' but are also all from existing recordings . . . (?)

[Palmer_Eldrich]

Quote[/b] (ShakeyP @ Dec. 11 2003,18:10)]I have heard an interview with Jaydilla whee he mentions he's got ?uest Love & Dangelo replay things so he dosent have to clear the sample....

Yeah Jay Dee has done some piss takingly long samples (16 bars in one case) no wonder he gets sh*t replayed now...

For bands like the Roots/Q Tip they have major backing & I wouldn't be surprised if all of them had their own personal studios full of nice things to play with! Also the roots had Bob Power on the boards, he's so rated that he gets points to engineer & Master!

Word to Bob.

My personnal opinion about the 'Kamal' LP is that is was too self indulgent to make it much past Tip's own hard drive!

[Palmer_Eldrich]

Quote[/b] (Rich Hero @ Dec. 11 2003,17:02)]

Quote[/b] (Palmer_Eldrich @ Dec. 11 2003,16:53)]A fairly well known dance act that sampled "Champ" by the Mohawks, went to Pama & only had to pay £150 + a small publishing split...Yet another act I know just got done for a very small uncleared use of Jimmy Castors "It's just Begun" They got licked but were lucky to not have to recall their product.

I'm pretty little surprised that Pama didn't charge more for using 'Champ' (how much money could they have made by now... ) but Jimmy Castor is notorious for his 'extreme prejudice' against samplers/bootleggers. Wasn't his ire the reason for UBB 507's (508's?) rapid withdrawal?

Obviously this is a totally unanswerable question but Q Tip's music got me thinking about whether bands like the Roots have an easier life than sampling musicians...

I feel it is in the approach you make to the sampled artist/record company, if you explain that it's a low budget 'for the love type' deal they may be up for it anyhow! If they are down with sampling
sometimes they have nothing to lose, it's kudos for them (especially if the sample is used well) & any licencing or whatnot they might make some pocket change!

After a few years of lamo keyboard beats people are starting to use samples again, often with a level of sophistication not heard before. The blending of Live instruments & samples used to be pretty ugly & obvious, now I hear somethings & really have to listen hard to tell what is what (could be I'm going deaf)

[Lord Thames]

I read recently (can't remember where), that The Verve could have made a saving by re-recording the Andrew Oldham Orchestra sample on 'Bittersweet Symphony', and kept their composers royalties as well. Good ol' Allen Klein!

[rolex baxter]

Quote[/b] (ShakeyP @ Dec. 11 2003,18:10)]I have heard an interview with Jaydilla whee he mentions he's got ?uest Love & Dangelo replay things so he dosent have to clear the sample....

yeah - this is true with a few producers out there these days, they hear something they like but its not 'clean' so they replay it themselves .. leading to the 'hmm, that sounds familiar but its not quite the same as what i though is was' (upon matching them up)

[Benicio Del Toffo]

Isn't there some sort of distinction between a composer's royalty and a performance royalty?

If you look at that Sugababes tune that sampled Gary Numan, the initial release/promo had the original sample, but as it was officially released (and started to sell large amounts) they had session musos performing the sample. I assumed this was so that they'd have to pay Numan a composer royalty, but avoid a further payment of using his original performance?

I remember having a 12" years ago of CJ Bolland's 'Sugar Is Sweeter' (yes, I admit that I was seduced by Big Beat) and it used 'I Am The Walrus' right up in the mix but when officially released, strangely the Lennon/McCartney composition was absent and a re-hash of the strings was all you could hear. Tight as a crab's arse that McCartney fella. He needs to be though cos that stumpy whore's gonna take him to the cleaners.

But I digress. I'm not dead knowledgeable about these publishing matters, but a lad I sat with at Uni did explain it to me once (in our Popular Music Studies module), and I can only vaguely remember now.

Benicio

[ladyboygrimsby]

Regarding cover versions (i.e. someone replaying the sample) and actual sampling, it used to be the case that you didn't need to get permission prior to recording a cover version. You simply credited the composers and the MCPS sorted out the rest. Since the test cases in the late 80s (Roadblock/Pump Up The Volume etc.), you need to seek permission for the use of samples.

However, this got muddied when the the court case for Please Don't Go by KWS and Double You? ended with the original recording (Double You?) winning. What happened here was a label tried to license the Italian Please Don't Go (by Double You?) and when they failed, they sent some musicians into the studio to do a facsimile of the tune. The English version (KWS) ended up at number one and the Double You? version stalled at 41. Since this, I'm not exactly sure what the legal position is, but I seem to remember it has shifted and that original composers may, in some cases, veto cover versions of their songs. Anybody know anything else about the present legal position of this?

[united states of audio]

Quote[/b] (Mr_Hopkinson @ Dec. 11 2003,20:22)]I saw Kid Koala last night, who was fantastic ( thanks John if your there! ) and I was wondering about how his albums are 'understood' legally in terms of sampling/playing live - are they technically (i.e. in the eyes of the law ) mix albums, or new compositions? They are definitely 'played live' but are also all from existing recordings . . . (?)

I was at that gig too! Awesome djs eh?

With the Kid his music is not classified as a 'mix album' but as an original composition, even though his music is made up from other people's records - much in the same way as other sample based artists operate (like DJ Shadow, RJD2 etc etc). I don't know what lengths Ninja Tune go to to clear samples but I'm pretty sure most of the samples in his music aren't cleared. Most of his sounds are just too obscure to even bother with.

A lot of the live show was dj mixes/routines as well as actual performances of his own tracks. The Moon River routine for example is a dj performance, not an actual Kid Koala track but it probably will see an official release as part of his forthcoming Solid Steel mix CD where all the tracks are licensed.

any new S&H material coming soon??