Electronica/Hip Hop artists sampling things is nothing unusual, if you ask me. It plays an important role, however, whether the artist decides to sample Gentle Giant or Kraut Rock, or, say, Madonna.

I don't think he chose Gentle Giant because "he had been searching for a catchy tune nobody had heard of, so that he could get away with it". I seriously wouldn't be surprised if MF Doom himself listens to the same groups we do, knowing the unpredictability of his music. Like I said, although most Gentle Giant fans would consider this offense, it does contribute to the development of Avant-Garde Hip Hop. Did you know there was a part from Metallica's Orion on DJ Shadow's Endtroducing... album? While many consider this a blasphemy, in my opinion, it is not a bad thing at all, as it:

• shows us that Hip Hop artists listen to quality music.
• Most importantly, the Hip Hop genre PROGRESSES.

That's my two santims.

 -- Ivan

sorry, but rappers dont have very much musical talent.  If they did, they would write their own music.  All these guys do is take other peoples music and talk in rhymes over it

horrible.

• hows us that Hip Hop artists listen to quality music.
  
• (I don't give a crap what type of music people listen to as long as they MAKE THE MUSIC THAT THEY PERFORM!)
  
• Most importantly, the Hip Hop genre PROGRESSES.
• (Wow if you consider progression grabbing a tape recorder and recording 3 seconds of a Gentle Giant piece then this is truly a testament to a very abysmal state and the artistic and creative wasteland that is known as hip-hop.
  

The sample is a tiny bit from "Funny Ways"(the self-titled debut). Remember that one catchy part that goes like: "my ways are strange..."? That's the one.

To RPO: If you seriously consider Hip Hop to be a non-progressive kind of music, I suggest you listen to the whole Madvillainy album, from which the song was taken. I mean, it's an excellent avant-rap record, and if you judge it by a track less than 2 minutes long, you're missing out. Whether or not sampling is a work of Art or not varies from person, but it is appreciated worldwide and not merely by 14 year old skaters, so it definitely is. It just depends on how you look at it, you know, but I'd rather listen to an Electronica/Hip Hop experimental icon, where the artist does creative mixes of previously written music instead of listening to one of the popular so-called Retro Prog groups.

It is also ironic how you have Robert Plant in your screen name, are you going to imply that Led Zeppelin had made all the music they performed? Haha, I think I've gone too far. Have a nice day and... prog on!

 -- Ivan

ivansfr0st wrote: It is also ironic how you have Robert Plant in your screen name, are you going to imply that Led Zeppelin had made all the music they performed? Haha, I think I've gone too far. Have a nice day and... prog on!

I'm not trying to start a world war, but I disagree.

Led Zeppelin is a group of musicians. What are those who rely on sampling? Not all of them physically play instruments. I don't know whether this particular guy is included or not, do you? (honest question)

Don't equate sampling with covering/improvising on already-done music.

Led Zeppelin and MadVillian just aren't the same... and very hard to compare as well as draw irony from.

A musician is a person who plays or composes music. What MadVillian "composes" makes him a "musician" by this loose definition, but with all the studio tricks done in hip-hop ever since it began I would argue he isn't doing very much.

Sampling has nothing to do with being a musician, same goes for monotonous beats and ethnic/urban verbal-poetry put on an audio CD.

Now I'm looking at Led Zeppelin II here, as it turns out someone named "Eddie Kramer" mixed the album at A&R studios. I honestly believe "Eddie Kramer" is not a musician by the standard of mixing Led Zeppelin II, although maybe for other reasons who knows. Same for Peter Grant, the executive producer.

If MadVillian is a musician, it makes no real difference, but I do care that people make money off of other people's music without permission.... And people get their panties in a bunch about downloading, ha.. ha.. ha!

Anyways, I see this man below most musicians.

The Ryan wrote: (...)Sampling has nothing to do with being a musician, same goes for monotonous beats and ethnic/urban verbal-poetry put on an audio CD.(...)

Sampling is a tool in the modern musician's toolkit, just like notes.

There is an artistry in being able to put together samples in interesting ways, just like notes.

This sort of generalisation may be true for much of the industry, but as with any genre (with the possible exception of Prog Rock) there is a large amount of humdrum and recycled stuff and a small amount of inspired genius put together by someone with a true artistic feel for what they are doing.

For example, LTJ Bukem uses a lot of samples, and Roni Size/Reprazent tend to create their own samples from scratch (pardon the pun). Both of these guys have exceptionally high standards of musicianship and inventiveness.

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.

that's a sacrilege! i've just listened to the track and it is too true: GG has been ripped off!

how can we be related to rap like this? that's a shame! his record is criminal: it is a CRIMINAL RECORD!

Certif1ed wrote: The Ryan wrote: (...)Sampling has nothing to do with being a musician, same goes for monotonous beats and ethnic/urban verbal-poetry put on an audio CD.(...) Sampling is a tool in the modern musician's toolkit, just like notes. There is an artistry in being able to put together samples in interesting ways, just like notes.

I never said sampling is not art because that's not the discussion.

The Ryan wrote: Certif1ed wrote: The Ryan wrote: (...)Sampling has nothing to do with being a musician, same goes for monotonous beats and ethnic/urban verbal-poetry put on an audio CD.(...) Sampling is a tool in the modern musician's toolkit, just like notes. There is an artistry in being able to put together samples in interesting ways, just like notes. I never said sampling is not art because that's not the discussion.

You said, and I quote, "sampling has nothing to do with being a musician" - and I helpfully pointed out that these days, it very well might.

The overall tone of your post made out that anyone who uses samples can't be a musician (I know that's not what it said, but the implication was more than there ).

I don't know how to add to what has already been said.  Both sides have thusfar made valid points, but I think I'm going to side with the anti-MF Doom camp.  This is simply because I find the value of sampling to be a significant step below real composition and even cover versions.

(I should choose my words carefully here) At least Led Zeppelin were talented instrumentalists . . . and their takes on the blues songs they performed were not merely ripoffs of the originals, but innovative re-workings that genuinely added to their musical value (though I do admit that credit to the original composers should have been present on the albums)

But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician.

Moatilliatta wrote: It may not be right to sample someone else's song, and most of the time it's done, it is done poorly, but I think Madvillain is one of (if not the) best Hip-Hop group out there right now. Much more interesting and creative than your average artist.

 2nd that notion. 

And if this really bothers you all so much, how about you go contact the boys in GG and let them know?  it's alot better than listening to you alll whine and complain about Hip-Hop.

Imagine if a hip-hop fan saw this. He/she would think of us as a bunch of pretentious, stuck up, elitistist. Seriously guys. Just because you don't like something dosn't mean it's not good. The fact that a hip-hop artist samples prog artist is not insulting the artist, it is complementing them by showing how there work influences artist to this day.

Zweck wrote: Pseud0 wrote: sorry, but rappers dont have very much musical talent.  If they did, they would write their own music.  All these guys do is take other peoples music and talk in rhymes over it horrible. And Ulver would be above that sort of stuff, now wouldn't they? And while we're at it, let's denounce almost all orchestras, as most of them just play some sh*t written on pieces of paper, it's like reciting poems.

ulver and rap are completely uncomparable.  Where in ulver's music is there stolen repetitive samples with backbeats and moron's rhyming over them?

Certif1ed wrote: The Ryan wrote: Certif1ed wrote: The Ryan wrote: (...)Sampling has nothing to do with being a musician, same goes for monotonous beats and ethnic/urban verbal-poetry put on an audio CD.(...) Sampling is a tool in the modern musician's toolkit, just like notes. There is an artistry in being able to put together samples in interesting ways, just like notes. I never said sampling is not art because that's not the discussion. You said, and I quote, "sampling has nothing to do with being a musician" - and I helpfully pointed out that these days, it very well might. The overall tone of your post made out that anyone who uses samples can't be a musician (I know that's not what it said, but the implication was more than there ).

I was not implying, you were inferring.

Someone who samples can be a musician, but sampling ALONE makes no one a musician by any credible definition. Music and instruments go hand and hand, a 'toolkit' is there for tuneups.

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

Digital sampling does not involve an instrument. The mellotron by definition is an instrument... and even if there really was no difference between the two, most who play the mellotron also do something else whether it be guitar, drums, or other keyed instruments.

but they arn't repetitive garbage beats.  Btw, WRITING music inspired by samples of others work  and creating something utterly brilliant and unique is different than stealing a couple seconds worth of music and repeating it over and over again. 

Zweck wrote: Pseud0 wrote: Zweck wrote: Pseud0 wrote: sorry, but rappers dont have very much musical talent.  If they did, they would write their own music.  All these guys do is take other peoples music and talk in rhymes over it horrible. And Ulver would be above that sort of stuff, now wouldn't they? And while we're at it, let's denounce almost all orchestras, as most of them just play some sh*t written on pieces of paper, it's like reciting poems. ulver and rap are completely uncomparable.  Where in ulver's music is there stolen repetitive samples with backbeats and moron's rhyming over them? Whether G. is a moron or not I leave entirely up to you, however, I do believe much of "Blood Inside" is based upon samples one way or another. And more concretely there's a song on the Blake-album where I distinctly hear Coil, which is a bit ironic as they based most of their sounds on samples. And as far as beats go, there's no way you can deny the omniprescence of beats in Ulvers music.

"Line-up

- Trickster G. (aka Garm) / vocals
- Tore Ylwizaker / programming
- Jørn H. Sværen / drums

- Bosse / guitar (2)
- Czral / drums (9)
- Jeff Gauthier / violin (8)
- Havard Jorgensen (aka Haavard) / guitar (1, 2, 8)
- Mike Keneally / guitar (3, 9)
- Andreas Mjos / vibraphone (4, 7)
- Maja S.K. Ratkje / choir (8)
- Knut Aalefjaer / drums, percussion (2, 3, 9)"

You're right about the samples, Zweck, yet there's so much more to this album/band then simple monotonous beats with bad poetry spoken at me on an audio CD as I've said. I'm not a fan of Ulver so don't make me out to be one, but I do know that they've tried plenty of things to distinguish themselves among everyone else in the modern world who samples music.

^ correct. you wont see a rapper sampling a soul singer (or whatever the hell its called) in the way ulver did on 'blinded by blood'

Pseud0 wrote: ^ correct. you wont see a rapper sampling a soul singer (or whatever the hell its called) in the way ulver did on 'blinded by blood'

You're one of those people who understands the difference. Lucky you

The Ryan wrote: I was not implying, you were inferring. Someone who samples can be a musician, but sampling ALONE makes no one a musician by any credible definition. Music and instruments go hand and hand, a 'toolkit' is there for tuneups.

I know you weren't implying, I was being kind to someone who needed a clue.

I only inferred by your exact words, excuse me for not reading between them.

A toolkit is for more than tuneups - the problem with generalisms is that they miss huge areas of fact.

Here's another one of yours:

The Ryan wrote: Digital sampling does not involve an instrument.

Can anyone else spot the "deliberate" mistake?

Certif1ed wrote: The Ryan wrote: I was not implying, you were inferring. Someone who samples can be a musician, but sampling ALONE makes no one a musician by any credible definition. Music and instruments go hand and hand, a 'toolkit' is there for tuneups. I know you weren't implying, I was being kind to someone who needed a clue. I only inferred by your exact words, excuse me for not reading between them. A toolkit is for more than tuneups - the problem with generalisms is that they miss huge areas of fact. Here's another one of yours:   The Ryan wrote: Digital sampling does not involve an instrument. Can anyone else spot the "deliberate" mistake?

Doh! I was having three differnet conversations at the time of typing that.

I was refering to the act of sampling itself, rather than the sampling of instruments. What you need to be able to "sample" is not an instrument.

hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician.

i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan.

hegelec wrote: hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician. i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan.

Poetry is a written form of art, it has it's own value, repeating a stolen or ripped chord ad nauseam is not an art form it's plagiarism (A FELONY). If he wants to be a poet, he should write books.

But no, poetry is not profitable, poetry doesn't win grammys or million dollars contracts.

It's much easier to rip a real musician's work and don't even mention him. Remember Vanilla Ice when he ripped Queen's music, he said that it was an original work because he changed one note .

If this DJ or whatever term you want to give him, was so talented he would write his own music, you don't even need to be mnediocre to create a chord and repeat it adding drum beats (electronic BTW), this guys don't have imagination at all.

And don't compare this guy with Led Zeppelin, this band had more original and 100% own tracks, hip hop andrap are heavily based in sampling.

I won't give my opinion about hip hop because I already wrote it repeteadly.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: hegelec wrote: hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician. i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan. Poetry is a written form of art, it has it's own value, repeating a stolen or ripped chord ad nauseam is not an art form it's plagiarism (A FELONY). If he wants to be a poet, he should write books. But no, poetry is not profitable, poetry doesn't win grammys or million dollars contracts. It's much easier to rip a real musician's work and don't even mention him. Remember Vanilla Ice when he ripped Queen's music, he said that it was an original work because he changed one note . If this DJ or whatever term you want to give him, was so talented he would write his own music, you don't even need to be mnediocre to create a chord and repeat it adding drum beats (electronic BTW), this guys don't have imagination at all. And don't compare this guy with Led Zeppelin, this band had more original and 100% own tracks, hip hop andrap are heavily based in sampling. I won't give my opinion about hip hop because I already wrote it repeteadly. Iván

 Again, has anyone made an attempt to contact Gentle Giant somehow?  E-mail?  Letter?  Carrrier pigeon? 

I suppose telling you guys that can has been sampled before would get your panties in an uproar too.

ivan_2068 wrote: hegelec wrote: hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician. i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan. Poetry is a written form of art, it has it's own value, repeating a stolen or ripped chord ad nauseam is not an art form it's plagiarism (A FELONY). If he wants to be a poet, he should write books. But no, poetry is not profitable, poetry doesn't win grammys or million dollars contracts. It's much easier to rip a real musician's work and don't even mention him. Remember Vanilla Ice when he ripped Queen's music, he said that it was an original work because he changed one note . If this DJ or whatever term you want to give him, was so talented he would write his own music, you don't even need to be mnediocre to create a chord and repeat it adding drum beats (electronic BTW), this guys don't have imagination at all. And don't compare this guy with Led Zeppelin, this band had more original and 100% own tracks, hip hop andrap are heavily based in sampling. I won't give my opinion about hip hop because I already wrote it repeteadly. Iván

You pretty much just said what I did many times over before, Ivan, I agree. One thing was sort of contradictory though, poetry can be verbal, not just written. It's a fact, considering it's done so often.

All rap/hip-hop really has done in poetry-terms is create repetitive rhyme schemes and throw in some alliteration. I don't consider it poetry personally, but so many other people do I'm not going to talk about it any further unless someone posts something ludacris.

Honestly I doubt most 'rappaz' (Mr. Doom included) know how to play any instrument coherently.

hegelec, you may be on my page in some ways but I will go ahead and judge Mr Doom as a musician. But since he's not a musician, he's trash to my musical tastes obviously, I can't believe people like him make money, where is the Gentle Giant lawyer??!?!

alan_pfeifer wrote: ivan_2068 wrote: hegelec wrote: hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician. i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan. Poetry is a written form of art, it has it's own value, repeating a stolen or ripped chord ad nauseam is not an art form it's plagiarism (A FELONY). If he wants to be a poet, he should write books. But no, poetry is not profitable, poetry doesn't win grammys or million dollars contracts. It's much easier to rip a real musician's work and don't even mention him. Remember Vanilla Ice when he ripped Queen's music, he said that it was an original work because he changed one note . If this DJ or whatever term you want to give him, was so talented he would write his own music, you don't even need to be mnediocre to create a chord and repeat it adding drum beats (electronic BTW), this guys don't have imagination at all. And don't compare this guy with Led Zeppelin, this band had more original and 100% own tracks, hip hop andrap are heavily based in sampling. I won't give my opinion about hip hop because I already wrote it repeteadly. Iván    Again, has anyone made an attempt to contact Gentle Giant somehow?  E-mail?  Letter?  Carrrier pigeon?  I suppose telling you guys that can has been sampled before would get your panties in an uproar too.

Alan! I went over this concerning ULVER on a previous page (Ulver samples). My panties never get in an uproar.

I have emailed the webmaster of the official Gentle Giant website in hopes that this information will reach the musicians soon. I would love to see the band try to prosecute this man to the fullest extent (assuming this really is fraud and Gentle Giant never gave permission), and for now I will be dreaming of a court case.

Something about thieves really turns me off.

ivan_2068 wrote: hegelec wrote: hegelec wrote: But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician. i think you and i are on the same wavelength, the ryan. Poetry is a written form of art, it has it's own value, repeating a stolen or ripped chord ad nauseam is not an art form it's plagiarism (A FELONY). If he wants to be a poet, he should write books. But no, poetry is not profitable, poetry doesn't win grammys or million dollars contracts. It's much easier to rip a real musician's work and don't even mention him. Remember Vanilla Ice when he ripped Queen's music, he said that it was an original work because he changed one note . If this DJ or whatever term you want to give him, was so talented he would write his own music, you don't even need to be mnediocre to create a chord and repeat it adding drum beats (electronic BTW), this guys don't have imagination at all. And don't compare this guy with Led Zeppelin, this band had more original and 100% own tracks, hip hop andrap are heavily based in sampling. I won't give my opinion about hip hop because I already wrote it repeteadly. Iván

I agree. 

Does anyone have the actual CD to see if GG was credited?  A lot of rappers have been sued for not crediting obviously pirated (or lifted) parts.  In these days of ProTools, you can make a 64-bit sample of any song by simply highlighting the data and doing a "copy/paste".  The whole process takes about 30 seconds or less.  

I'm glad that MF Doom listens to GG, however, it's just plain wrong not to mention illegal to plagiarize their music, if that is what he did. 

ivan_2068 wrote: alan_pfeifer wrote:    Again, has anyone made an attempt to contact Gentle Giant somehow?  E-mail?  Letter?  Carrrier pigeon?  Alan, this is my job and I know it well, if you use a fragment (a chord is enough like in the Ice Ice Baby - Under Preassure case) and even if you have permission from the owner, you MUST include the original credits and the phrase "Used with permission of Gentle Giant" I haven't seen the recording, but I know how usually this "samplers" (refuse to call them musicians) work, they just search for old recordings and copy a chord, they change a single note and they affirm that it's not a copy. But intellectual Property laws have evolved and today is not easy, but Gentle Giant doesn't exist, probably the rights have prescribed and I'm not sure if the label cares about somobody copying part of one very unpopular album. I suppose telling you guys that can has been sampled before would get your panties in an uproar too. Honestly, all the money recovered from the illegal user goes to the lwyers, so usually bands don't care too much, unless they are on activity and using that song in their gigs as in the case of Queen where if I'm not wrong they settled outside court, not only with Vanilla Ice, but also with Sugar Knight who left Vanilla Ice hanging on  a balcony to force him to sign him the rights for Ice Ice Baby, that's the world of rappers. Iván

There's nothing moral about what's happened, all decent people want justice to play its role and it's a shame that one note really does make that much of a difference in a case.

With more technology there's more loopholes, I'm so bored of sampling for life.

The Ryan wrote: I have emailed the webmaster of the official Gentle Giant website in hopes that this information will reach the musicians soon. I would love to see the band try to prosecute this man to the fullest extent (assuming this really is fraud and Gentle Giant never gave permission), and for now I will be dreaming of a court case. Something about thieves really turns me off.

Again, if I was GG's lawyer, I would advice them not to say a word (not even to you despíte your good intentions) .

According to the law (we checked it on another thread) the label or producer owns the rights of the songs for 25 years, I don't know when GG released that track, so I can't assure if the band or the author owns the rights.

If this copy is not well sold (lets say 10 million copies) it's useless, the profits are too low to pay the legal costs, and probably this hip hopper will declare himself in bankruptcy so he's not forced to pay.

If this song sells more than 10'000,000 coipies I would go to a judge and ask them for an order to freeze the acounts of the hip hopper and the label, so I ensure that my client will recieve every cent that came from that song.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: The Ryan wrote: I have emailed the webmaster of the official Gentle Giant website in hopes that this information will reach the musicians soon. I would love to see the band try to prosecute this man to the fullest extent (assuming this really is fraud and Gentle Giant never gave permission), and for now I will be dreaming of a court case. Something about thieves really turns me off. Again, if I wa GG's lawyer, I would advice them not to say a word (not even to you despíte your good intentions) . If this copy is not well sold (lets say 10 million copies) it0's useless, the profits are too low to pay the legal costs, and probably this hip hopper will declare himself in bankruptcy so he's not forced to pay. If this song sells more than 10'000,000 coipies I would go to a judge and ask them for an order to freeze the acounts of the hip hopper and the label, so I ensure that my client will recieve every cent that came from that song. Iván

Points taken....

I still don't like thieves.

Inferno wrote: Just like that, there is no rights on music my friend when you write a song. Only on the lyrics. Are you crazy Inferno, this is absurd, there are two copyright symbols for albums: Circle P  : Means Phonogram, this copyright protects the music itself. Circle C © : Means Copyright, protects the lyrics and art of the album, even the artistic covers. If they only sampled music and few words (witch seems to be only 4) it's legal!! I will have to use the same example, Vanilla Ice only copied a bass riff from Under Pressure, not a single lyric, the Queen Bowie version uses no lyrics in that part and VI's version uses the words Ice Ice Baby over the bass, This was enough for Queen lawyers to obtain a settlement out of court. They would have been a lot of court case with Dream theater if Music had rights Again, this is the copyright law Title 17 (British law is almost identical because it's part of an international convention), but even if it was different, I'm sure GG label copyrighted the album before selling it in USA. TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 102  | § 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general Release date: 2005-08-01 (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html - http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_0 0000102----000-.html http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp - I want to ask you something, Do you believe that the Vangelis Charriots of Fire and the soundtrack of Blade Runner are not protected?????? Every intellectual work can be protected, a judge will decide if another work is a copy or simply casual similarities, but music is protected in any country of the world. No company will accept to release instrumental albums if music coouldn't be protected, because the next day a successful instrumental love song is released you would have 30 artists recording the same song. You can evenn read in some cases Music by X and lyrycs by Y artist. And I'm pretty much sure that the musician of Gentle careless if they have been sampled or not! This thread is quite ridiculous and pretentious over the genre! This only prove that the hip-hop artist had an idea over a sample of a Gentle Giant and worked with it! This is also illegal: TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 1 > § 103  | § 103. Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works Release date: 2005-08-01 (a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000102----000-.html - 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. This also prove that Prog fans are too much elitist to understand other genre like Hip-hop. This only means that you are not informed about the law, the text is clear, I don't care if somebody samples Yes, Queen or Donna Summer, a theft is a theft, and the law protects the author that copyrighted his intellectual work (Elitist or not ). Iván

Walrus wrote:

I believe that record was released in 1970 so the rights to the song just ran out. Anyway it would have been better if the rapper paid Gentle Giant but i have to admit i am pleasantly surprised he would put that in his rap.

No Walrus, you misunderstood me, the label owns the rights for 25 years, then it returns to the author and he owns it for live, even 70 - 125 years after his death his family owns the rights, after that it's public domain.

Works Originally Created on or after January 1, 1978 A work that is created (fixed in tangible form for the first time) on or after January 1, 1978, is automatically protected from the moment of its creation and is ordinarily given a term enduring for the author's life plus an additional 70 years after the author's death. In the case of "a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire," the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author's death. For works made for hire, and for anonymous and pseudonymous works (unless the author's identity is revealed in Copyright Office records), the duration of copyright will be 95 years from publication (NOTE: This is a legal fiction includes the first 25 years of the publisher which I explained on a previous post, after that the right passes to the author or his family until 70 years after his death. Being that in this case the name of the author is unknown, the law indicates a fictional death date in the day when the 25 years of the author expire) or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Works Originally Created before January 1, 1978, But Not Published or Registered by That Date These works have been automatically brought under the statute and are now given federal copyright protection. The duration of copyright in these works will generally be computed in the same way as for works created on or after January 1, 1978: the life-plus-70 or 95/120-year terms will apply to them as well. The law provides that in no case will the term of copyright for works in this category expire before December 31, 2002, and for works published on or before December 31, 2002, the term of copyright will not expire before December 31, 2047.

Iván

I'm too Ill to even write about it.

proggin' justin wrote: Absolutely sh*tty job!

Agree!

What a rip-off

Pseud0 wrote: ^ correct. you wont see a rapper sampling a soul singer (or whatever the hell its called) in the way ulver did on 'blinded by blood'

But GG-riffs are more natural?

I'm currently listening to Tricky, which incorporates both rap, samples and maybe not a soul singer, but a female singer  who sings rather beatifully, and it's quite lovely. Though instrumental skills may not be required for sampling there's a huge demand for musicianship involved in doing it skillfully. The arranging of different samples to create a new expression is a quite impressive feat.

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.

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.

I think it's more the hip-hop fans that annoy most people here than hip-hop as such. It's understandable... to a point.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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...

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.

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.

EDIT: I did think ELP weren't entirely clean here, and Nets only reminded me of the actual case. So there you go, my claim would still stand even if KE9 hadn't posted these last few lines.

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?

I've never heard so much pompous wittering in all my life!

So what if GG were sampled.They're relatively obscure so it's a good bet that the composer is a fan.Rush's Tom Sawyer has been sampled and even covered by numerous rap and hip hop acts.Lots of Rush has been sampled over the years!!

Here's a very small selection.Even more can be found http://www.2112.net/powerwindows/Tributes.htm - here :

"Hip Hop Creature" by Cuban rapper Mellow Man Ace on Escape from Havana, 1989

Includes sampling of "Tom Sawyer" throughout

"Time to Make the Donutz" by white rappers YBT (Young Black Teenagers) on Dead Enz Kidz Doin' Lifetime Bidz, 1993

Manunkind wrote: Tony, you just had to post these things, didn't you? As if the GG sampling hasn't caused enough traumas here already.

I have no problems with these "tributes", to me if only 1 person discovers prog via listening to a sample in a piece from another genre then that is a good thing.

Prog artists have plundered Classical music for decades-I can guarantee you that many Classical Music officianados will resent this just as much as prog fans resent Rap and Hip Hop. There is a word for this: "snobbery"

Tony R wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony, you just had to post these things, didn't you? As if the GG sampling hasn't caused enough traumas here already.  I have no problems with these "tributes", to me if only 1 person discovers prog via listening to a sample in a piece from another genre then that is a good thing.

True, but every time someone mentions any potential connection between prog and rap/hip-hop, your average proggie kills a kitten

Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony, you just had to post these things, didn't you? As if the GG sampling hasn't caused enough traumas here already.  I have no problems with these "tributes", to me if only 1 person discovers prog via listening to a sample in a piece from another genre then that is a good thing. True, but every time someone mentions any potential connection between prog and rap/hip-hop, your average proggie kills a kitten

Makes you glad to be associated with these open-minded people doesn't it!

I'd rather listen to Eminem than Magma anyday....

And you're right about the classical music plundering of course, there was a thread about a week ago on Reneissance plundering some classical pieces without any credit and it went down promptly with only 10 or so responses, and maybe one of them was (slightly) critical. Snobbery is definitely the word.

BaldJean wrote: Tony R wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony, you just had to post these things, didn't you? As if the GG sampling hasn't caused enough traumas here already.  I have no problems with these "tributes", to me if only 1 person discovers prog via listening to a sample in a piece from another genre then that is a good thing. True, but every time someone mentions any potential connection between prog and rap/hip-hop, your average proggie kills a kitten Makes you glad to be associated with these open-minded people doesn't it! I'd rather listen to Eminem than Magma anyday.... Ok, and I would prefer Eminem to Rush.

Didnt realise you were familiar with either Rush or Eminem.

Seriously, I like some of Eminem's work-Stan and Lose Yourself particularly whereas Magma just leaves me cold.I'm not having a dig at Magma per se, just that I dont like any of their stuff at all.

BaldJean wrote: The wedding march in "Lohengrin ("Treulich geführt", "Here comes the Bride") has nothing to do with the wedding march in Mendelsohn's "Mittsommernachtstraum". The first 4 notes of both marches are rhythmically (but not melodically) identical; there ends the similarity.

I'm listening in this moment Lohengrin Bridal horus "Treulich Gefürt" by the Choir and Orchestra of the Budapest State Opera conducted by Josif Conta and it's the clear and obviously inspired in the Wedding March credited by Meldelsshon and played in every ceremony since the mid 19 Century.

Despite Wagner's hate for Mendelssohn (due to his anti semitism), both marches are very related and even often played paired because both fit perfectly. I even read somewhere that during some period of time none of the wedding marches were played in Israel because of the obvious relation of both and Wagner's anti semitism and even when Mendelssohn was from the Jewish community.

Iván

Tony R wrote: BaldJean wrote: Tony R wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony R wrote: Manunkind wrote: Tony, you just had to post these things, didn't you? As if the GG sampling hasn't caused enough traumas here already.  I have no problems with these "tributes", to me if only 1 person discovers prog via listening to a sample in a piece from another genre then that is a good thing. True, but every time someone mentions any potential connection between prog and rap/hip-hop, your average proggie kills a kitten Makes you glad to be associated with these open-minded people doesn't it! I'd rather listen to Eminem than Magma anyday.... Ok, and I would prefer Eminem to Rush. Didnt realise you were familiar with either Rush or Eminem. Seriously, I like some of Eminem's work-Stan and Lose Yourself particularly whereas Magma just leaves me cold.I'm not having a dig at Magma per se, just that I dont like any of their stuff at all.

Eminem does have his moments - I don't know that his stuff stands up to repeated listening, but he writes some interesting lyrics. But could he rap in Kobaian?

BaldJean wrote: There may be inspiration, but they are nevertheless completely different. Not even a quotation. That composers have been influenced by other composers, no doubt, but there is quite a difference between citing (or in the case of the hip-hop version of Gentle Giant sampling) and influence.

Of course I agree with you, there's a difference, but it's somehow a precedent, i'm not sure if you or Friedre mentioned last week that Baroque musicians used to recreate other composers work but adding some of their own.

Just as an anecdote, the relation of Wagner's Bridal Chorus was because good old Richard  couldn't resist that his personal enemy's music was getting so popular, as a fact Mendelssohn's Weeding March was used for the first time by Dorothy Carew and Tom Daniel who married at St Peter’s Church,  UK in  1847.

So Wagner used more than just an inspiration of this march to create another one that could be used in weddings and still sound similar to Mendelssohn's version which was already popular, and he succeded partuially, because in Queen's Victoria's daughter wedding in 1858 boith marches were used, one at the entrance and one when the couple was already married, I can't say which one was used in what moment but I believe this happens today also.

There are even versions to be played to recieve the married couple in the party (We call it recepción in Spanish) that join both marches as one.

Iván

ivan_2068 wrote: Certif1ed wrote: (...)  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: Ask permission to the owner (Can be the author and/or publisher) Pay the royalties Quote the author's name. Quote the original work from which is sampled. 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.

I don't know exactly how far the law extends - but I believe that the limit is 7 seconds before a sample becomes illegal - and 7 seconds is a very long time in terms of riffs.

I know that Madonna paid ABBA a large sum of money for the sample she used in her recent hit - although I cringed like mad when I heard it, as I like ABBA and am not ashamed to admit it!

In an earlier post I mentioned two sample-based acts (LTJ Bukem and Roni Size), both of whom use samples intelligently and in a compositional basis, using the samples as part of their overall compositional pallettes. They are not alone

I'm not saying that sampling other musicians isn't OK - in actual fact I was almost saying the opposite; Using material from other musicians was de rigour for most of the greats in history - Bach, Mozart and Beethoven all did it, and, of course, there's the famous Variations on a theme of Paganini by Rachmaninov - and the other set by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Both are superb, BTW, and one is pure Prog Rock 

Syzygy wrote: Eminem does have his moments -  But could he rap in Kobaian?

To my knowledge he's never sampled Nirvana in any of his songs....

Certif1ed wrote: I don't know exactly how far the law extends - but I believe that the limit is 7 seconds before a sample becomes illegal - and 7 seconds is a very long time in terms of riffs.

I agree with most of your post, but there's a problem here,  I believed it was a certain number of chords required to be a copy (INDECOPI -Peruvian Office of Copyrights- once decided using acertain number of bars) but according to USA legal info, it's only required to use a couple of chords or seconds of a song in which the essennce of the original work relies on those few seconds: 

5. IS IT OK TO USE A SMALL PIECE OF SOMEBODY ELSE'S MUSIC IN MY SONG? The obvious answer is yes, if you first obtain permission from the copyright owner. Obtaining permission first is usually the best (though not always the easiest) solution. There is no simple rule concerning how much of a work may be taken before it rises to the level of infringement. Obviously, the more a work is copied, the easier it is to show substantial similarity. Ultimately the test for infringement turns on the issue of quality, rather than quantity. For instance, in determining whether one song infringes on another, it is common for courts to look to whether the "heart" of the song was taken. The heart of a song may be a memorable melody, or an identifiable 2-chord guitar riff or just a few words taken from the chorus. As a result, there is NO truth to the rumor that sampling less than 4 bars is OK. http://www.alankorn.com/articles/copyright_infringe.html - http://www.alankorn.com/articles/copyright_infringe.html  (I'm mentioning the origin and the quote is for critical purpose, so it's not infringement  )

In other words, the judge's subjectivity plays an important role, if he believes that the second author used an essential piece of another song, then his word is law and you must pay, there's an example with George Harrison that some of you may know because I'm not familiar with:

One of the more famous U.S music infringement cases involved ex-Beatle George Harrison, who was found by a jury to have "unconsciously" copied the Shirelle's composition "He's So Fine" in his 1971 hit "My Sweet Lord." Although George Harrison's hit was found to be strikingly similar to the Shirelle's song, it is even possible to infringe another song if only just a few notes are "borrowed." Because the most memorable part of a song may be quite brief, infringement of a musical composition may be found even where only a small portion of a song was copied.  http://www.alankorn.com/articles/copyright_infringe.html - http://www.alankorn.com/articles/copyright_infringe.

I don't know Shirele's song so maybe you could answer that Cert.

Certified wrote:

I know that Madonna paid ABBA a large sum of money for the sample she used in her recent hit - although I cringed like mad when I heard it, as I like ABBA and am not ashamed to admit it!

THAT'S MY POINT, if you want to sampler, it's ok, but ask permission, quote the author, quote the original song's name and pay the price, if not, even if you are Madonna you must pay.

If this guy asked Gentle Giant for permission it's ok, but if not, well it's a felony.

You should remember the Scissor Sisters version of Comfortably Numb, I hate it, it's like a bad Bee Gees style copy (They should have asked authorization of the Bee Gees also ), but I'm sure they paid Pink Floyd part of their profits (Don't know why they accepted with all the money they have), so it's ok, despite how horrendous is the new version it's legal and it must be accepted by everybody, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Iván

While we're on the subject, what about all those folksongs and spirituals Dvorak worked into the New World symphony - or Vaughan William's Fantasia on Greensleeves (it's a good job Henry VIII was dead by then or he'd have been in big trouble) - or John Coltrane playing My Favourite Things and being acclaimed for his 'originality' - and Miles Davis was always playing other people's stuff as well - and when was the last time Pavarotti, Careras or Domingo wrote their own arias - and most of Vladimir Ashkenazy's albums are Chopin pieces played note for note?

When will any of these frauds discover their own musical voice? I think we should be told.