Gentle Giant HAS BEEN HIP-HOP SAMPLED!!!

I remember debates like this raging in the UK music press over whether the sythesiser was a 'real' instrument or not back in the 70s. If anybody has a vinyl copy of any Queen album up to 'A Day At The Races'  you'll find the words 'and nobody played synthesiser' somewhere in the credits. Then there were the legal problems ELP ran into with the estates of some of the composers whose work they - errmmm - 'incorporated' into their music without crediting it.

Ditto sampling.

Klaus Schulze has used samplers extensively since the late 80s - anybody want to get rid of him from the site? Brian Eno is a self confessed non musician - maybe he should be next to go? What about Steve Hillage's work with System 7? Very unsound. And we've even got Fripp collaborating with The Orb (FFWD). Holger Czukay practically invented sampling - that's him and Can gone as well. Let's purge the archive of this non musical garbage right now!

Also, given Derek Shulman's position in the music industry, don't you think he'd be capable of dealing with this himself? He may even have given his approval.

There are times when I find the narrow mindedness of some people on this forum extremely depressing.

 

BaldJean wrote: Syzygy wrote: I remember debates like this raging in the UK music press over whether the sythesiser was a 'real' instrument or not back in the 70s. If anybody has a vinyl copy of any Queen album up to 'A Day At The Races'  you'll find the words 'and nobody played synthesiser' somewhere in the credits. Then there were the legal problems ELP ran into with the estates of some of the composers whose work they - errmmm - 'incorporated' into their music without crediting it. Ditto sampling. Klaus Schulze has used samplers extensively since the late 80s - anybody want to get rid of him from the site? Brian Eno is a self confessed non musician - maybe he should be next to go? What about Steve Hillage's work with System 7? Very unsound. And we've even got Fripp collaborating with The Orb (FFWD). Holger Czukay practically invented sampling - that's him and Can gone as well. Let's purge the archive of this non musical garbage right now! Also, given Derek Shulman's position in the music industry, don't you think he'd be capable of dealing with this himself? He may even have given his approval. There are times when I find the narrow mindedness of some people on this forum extremely depressing. I have the feeling it is not the sampling but the hip-hop which annoys most people.

Friede's right, Syz. I've got nothing against sampling whatsoever, but hearing a fragment of one of my favourite songs by such a glorious band as GG used as the backdrop for a rap track just turns my stomach. I wish I could say "c'est la vie" in this case, but it's just too personal for me - it's assaulting my ears.

I wouldn't, however, bandy about words like "rip-off". I'm sure the artist knows what he's doing, and perhaps even enjoys a spot of GG once in a while. We just don't see eye to eye on rap, s'all.

Sampling music is stealing, and is not composing. Thus any artists who sample other people's music into their songs is not a musician, but a common theif. I get pissed off whenever I hear any band putting other musicians' music into their songs. I have to admit, it occurs most often in the rap/hip hop industry, but a great deal of rock artists do it as well. It enrages me when ever anyone steals a beat or a riff from another musician. For example, when MC hammer stole the music from Rick James' Super Freak to put into the song Cant Touch This, it pissed me off just as much as this article does. If an artist wants to make music, it should be origional. I dont even care about permission. Get your own musical voice before you dare call yourself a musician.

 

It's not so much the informed responses I was getting at there as the kneejerk reactions coming from some quarters. I'm not the world's biggest rap fan myself, but I think that the GG sample was an intersting variation on the formula and was used effectively, although I can't say that I actually like it.

erlenst wrote: alan_pfeifer wrote: GoldenSpiral wrote: hey_timj wrote: MF doom is dope. What does it say about him that he's sampling GG instead of some jazz record or something? It shows that he is a true artist with an open mind and I don't think rappers get portrayed in that type of light enough. I don't know if (certain) prog people here want to acknowledge the fact that there are intelligent and innovative artists outside of prog music. SECONDED. MF Doom is, in fact, a damn good hip-hop artist.  Just because it's not prog rock doesn't mean it's not good.  Honestly, if I were GG, I'd be happy that someone liked my song enough to sample it. \ Agreed.  Hip-Hop's alot less about talent and more about feel, so I think he picked that GG sample because he thought that it would create a good feel from it. It feels alot better than most prog. uhm... what ? "It feels alot better than most prog." <-- WHAT?? seriously, why are you on a progrock forum if you really mean this ?

I mean it because I'm not talking about emotions here.  There's a certain vibe, or feel, that I tend to have when I listen to the music (maybe I didn't state this very well.)  Prog, for all of it's emotional feel and such, gives me a more clinical vibe, whereas hip-hop is alot more organic (IMO), in that it's just the beat and the lyrics.  Can and some of the canterbury bands are good examples of some of the more vibe-y prog out there.

I heard it said that "imitation is the highest form of flattery"  but thats only if its done by somebody better than you !

Manunkind wrote: Ask an admin to change your nick, then. Also stop listening to ELP. Why would you want to be associated with a bunch of common thieves?

I don't know what you mean, ELP is one of the most respectful bands in the world in relation with Copyright ownership.

Keith Emerson not only asked permission to Ginastera to use Tocatta, but he went to his houise in Geneva with a copy of his final version to recieve the approval of the Argentinian musician who was delighted.

If you are talking about musicians like Mussorgski, well, the Russian composer died in 1869 so in 1944 or at the latest in 1964 his works were for public domain (And free to use by anybody), because all the copýrights (If ever existed) had expired.

If we check all the works with arrangements of  the musicians we will notice that the original author is quoted in each and every case, if the copyright author rights were still valid, ELP would have to pay to the RIAA or the British version of this institution the royalties for the use of the musical pieces.

ELP are so careful and respectful, that they don't just use a phrase lost in the album sleeve as required, to credit the author (Like Rick Wakeman who said something like thanks to Grieg for a couple of sections borrowed from Peer Gynt on Journey to the Centre of the Earth what is already legal) but they quote the author in the songs name:

1. "Jerusalem" (William Blake, C. Hubert H. Parry) - 2:44
2. "Toccata (An Adaptation of Ginastera's 1st Piano Concerto, 4th Movement)" (Emerson)- 7:22
3. "Canario (From Fantasia Para Un Gentilhombre)" (J. Rodrigo) (4:00)
4. "Hoedown" (Taken from Rodeo) (Aaron Copland, arr. Emerson Lake & Palmer) (04:27)
5. "Fanfare for the Common Man" (Aaron Copland) (10:55)
6. "Peter Gunn" (Henry Mancini) (03:33)
7. "Knife Edge" (Janacek, arr. by Emerson, Lake & Fraser) (05:03)
8. "The Enemy God" (Prokofiev) (02:46)

As you can see ELP clearly credits the original songwritter, if the author is alive or dead for less than 70 years, they have to pay royalties, if the author is dead for more than 70 years (General rule) it's a public domain work and anybody is free to use it.

This is the kind of respect an author deserves, and this is the right way to use the music from another author.

Iván

Edited by ivan_2068

erlenst wrote: Hierophant wrote: Can anyone verify that this is in fact Gentle Giant?!!??! And about the sampling argument - what about the mellotron, used by tons of prog bands that use SAMPLED sounds of strings and vocals Are you kidding me ? Of course it's Gentle Giant, it is one of their most well-known songs, Funny Ways. And come on, do you really think that you can compare sampling music with the mellotron ?

It's a fairly reasonable comparison, but an odd argument.

Think of what early samplers did - it was pretty much the same as what the Mellotron did.

Sampling can be a very creative way of making music - you don't have to sample other people's music!

For instance, as a formally trained composer myself, I have used sampling technology to dig into lengthy improvisations that I myself have made, and then use the samples to create collages of sound - indeed, new riffs that "feel" more "right" than some of the improvs.

However, sampling other people can be profitable - Stockhausen made a career out of it...

Edited by Certif1ed

NetsNJFan wrote: ^ but its important to remember that on their first album, they didn't credit the composers they borrowed music from (janacek and bartok), and were sued by their estates (since those were rather contemporary composers). only after those problems did they begin giving full credit to the composer.

 Beat me to it, Nets - and they admit it themselves in the sleevenotes to the CD reissue of the first album.

Certif1ed wrote: erlenst wrote: Hierophant wrote: Can anyone verify that this is in fact Gentle Giant?!!??! And about the sampling argument - what about the mellotron, used by tons of prog bands that use SAMPLED sounds of strings and vocals Are you kidding me ? Of course it's Gentle Giant, it is one of their most well-known songs, Funny Ways. And come on, do you really think that you can compare sampling music with the mellotron ? It's a bit of an odd comparison, I'd agree... But sampling can be a very creative way of making music - you don't have to sample other people's music! For instance, as a formally trained composer myself, I have used sampling technology to dig into lengthy improvisations that I myself have made, and then use the samples to create collages of sound - indeed, new riffs that "feel" more "right" than some of the improvs. However, sampling other people can be profitable - Stockhausen made a career out of it...

Cert, sampling any other author is ok, even Wagner did that in Lohengrin (1850) with the Wedding March by Mendelssohn (1843) seven years after he used it in Midsummer's Night Dream.

But according to today's law and respect for intellectual property you have to:

1. Ask permission to the owner (Can be the author and/or publisher)
2. Pay the royalties
3. Quote the author's name.
4. Quote the original work from which is sampled.
5. Pay rights each time you play it on a concert (There's a general payment befoire any concert depending in the country).

None of the rap/hip hop samplers I seen act according to law.

Manunkind wrote:

Ivan, look: Karn Evil 9 wrote: Sampling music is stealing, and is not composing. Thus any artists who sample other people's music into their songs is not a musician, but a common theif. I get pissed off whenever I hear any band putting other musicians' music into their songs. I have to admit, it occurs most often in the rap/hip hop industry, but a great deal of rock artists do it as well. It enrages me when ever anyone steals a beat or a riff from another musician. For example, when MC hammer stole the music from Rick James' Super Freak to put into the song Cant Touch This, it pissed me off just as much as this article does. If an artist wants to make music, it should be origional. I dont even care about permission. Get your own musical voice before you dare call yourself a musician.   Seems KE9 thinks you're still a thief (or hardly better than one) even if you do ask for permission, give credit, etc. etc.

Well Manunkind, there are extremists always, recieving blood after an accident is necessary to save your life in some cases, but there's people that despite the blood is tested for AIDS and Hepatitis B refuse to recieve blood due to religious beliefs.

We all use samples during our lives. In my case when I use a closing argument in a case I read what other lawyers have to say about similar situations and even quote them as jurisprudence.

The whole Judiciary system of USA is based on precedents, so when a lawyer says I use the USA against Gideon, he's sampling.

When a medical docror creates a revolutionary method, all the surgeons in the world will use it. I don't imagine a patient whop needs heart transplant  asking to his doctor "Hey don't use Barnard's method, be original"

Going back to art, look at this names:

• Donatello (ca. 1430 - 1440)
• Andrea del Verrocchio (1476)
• Michelangelo Buonarroti (1504) 
• Gian Lorenzo Bernini (1624)
• Antonin Mercié (1873)

Each one mentions the year in which the artist made a statue of King David, but I don't imagine the Prior of the Florence Cathedral saying to Michelangelo, "Hey you, take this thing from my church because Donatello already did it"

Every one is a piece of art, and I'm sure all the authors checked the work of their predecessors and used something from their works, so in some way all except Donatello's are samplersr.

As long as you act according tom morality and legislation I don't see a problem.

Iván

BTW: I forgot that ELP didn't quoted Bartok and Janacek in the first album (Something strange after all the work that Keith Emerson took to obtain Ginastera's blessing for Tocatta) probably it was a mistake of the label responsibles, but this enforces my opinion, they had to do it, why should rappers and hip hoippers should be free to sample anybody without a mention?

Edited by ivan_2068