U.S. Court Upholds Beastie Boys' Musical Sampling

[Chuck Nessa]

To me sampling is no different than lifting a bass line from a tune (such as Steely Dan taking the bass line from "Song For My Father" or Organissimo taking the drumbeat from The Meter's "Handclapping Song" for Clap Yo Hands).

"To me" don't count.

If it's the same thing, why did the Beastie Boys go to the trouble of getting a license?

[Noj]

So Chuck, the law speaks correctly for music in this case?

[RDK]

To my ears, at least, Bird created something greater than what he stole from - the chords of "Cherokee" in this case. Bird played his own tune. Perhaps to your ears (or to others' ears) the Beastie Boys have done the same. I would rather listen to James Brown (or James Newton) than to listen to a rap artist sampling their music. But that's just me.

Believe it or not, Paul, but I agree with you here! I actually don't care for the Beastie Boys and have never heard (or at least don't recall) their tune in question. I do, on the other hand, have the Newton LP ("Axum" I believe) that the samples were taken from. Still, as a matter of principal I found Newton's lawsuit baseless.

[cannonball-addict]

James Newton was targeting a different audience than the Beastie Boys. James Newton didn't know how to loop his music into a hot hip hop beat, the Beastie Boys did. Also, by being sampled by the Beastie Boys freaks like me might try to track down James Newton's record to hear the whole song.

It's terrible.

[cannonball-addict]

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?pt=LoZD5B25G5...Hx6scFWmR%3D%3D

[Noj]

Cannonball Addict, the Beastie Boys are so much different from Dead Prez I don't even know where to start.

[Jim Alfredson]

To me sampling is no different than lifting a bass line from a tune (such as Steely Dan taking the bass line from "Song For My Father" or Organissimo taking the drumbeat from The Meter's "Handclapping Song" for Clap Yo Hands).

"To me" don't count.

If it's the same thing, why did the Beastie Boys go to the trouble of getting a license?

Because that's what the law says they have to do. The law is silly. It's no different than quoting someone in a book or using other pieces of art to make a collage or quoting a melody or lick in a solo.

[kdd]

To me sampling is no different than lifting a bass line from a tune (such as Steely Dan taking the bass line from "Song For My Father" or Organissimo taking the drumbeat from The Meter's "Handclapping Song" for Clap Yo Hands).

"To me" don't count.

If it's the same thing, why did the Beastie Boys go to the trouble of getting a license?

Because that's what the law says they have to do. The law is silly. It's no different than quoting someone in a book or using other pieces of art to make a collage or quoting a melody or lick in a solo.

Well it is different. It's taking a piece of a copyrighted recording and using it for your own gain. How about of some millionaires sampled something you recorded and it was a hit and it made millions and you got nothing. Are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with that?

[Jim Alfredson]

To me sampling is no different than lifting a bass line from a tune (such as Steely Dan taking the bass line from "Song For My Father" or Organissimo taking the drumbeat from The Meter's "Handclapping Song" for Clap Yo Hands).

"To me" don't count.

If it's the same thing, why did the Beastie Boys go to the trouble of getting a license?

Because that's what the law says they have to do. The law is silly. It's no different than quoting someone in a book or using other pieces of art to make a collage or quoting a melody or lick in a solo.

Well it is different. It's taking a piece of a copyrighted recording and using it for your own gain. How about of some millionaires sampled something you recorded and it was a hit and it made millions and you got nothing. Are you saying you wouldn't have a problem with that?

No, I wouldn't have a problem with that, as long as they gave me credit. With credit, chances are that a lot of the people that bought the record would dig into my music as well.

Now, they have to change the sample they are using enough so that it doesn't resemble my music. The rule with collage in the art world is that as long as you alter something 30%, it's yours.

For instance, MC Hammer using Rick James' "Superfreak" for his hit "Can't Touch This"... he should definately pay. There is barely any difference between the music of Superfreak and what Hammer rapped over.

On the flip side, all the samples that the Beastie Boys used on Paul's Boutique... there are so many going by so fast, mixed together in a big "gumbo" that it's a totally different entity.

To have to get permission by law to use a half second sample of something is ridiculous. If you copy the tune outright and then put your own words to it, that's a different story. It would be akin to quoting someone in a paper versus copying someone's thesis and only altering the opening paragraph.

[Jazzmoose]

I don't know about the Beastie Boys vs Newton thing, but equating sampling to a jazz player quoting another tune strikes me as total bullshit. Sampling is using the actual performance of another artist. This is NOT the same thing as using the same notes, using the same words, using the same colors, etc. I mean, Steely Dan didn't actually just clip out the bass riff from Song for My Father, the bass player picked up his instrument and played the damned thing, right? No way in hell this is the same thing.

[Big Wheel]

I think Jim's point is that it depends on the sample. This is three notes. It was used in a way that made it sound completely different from the original work. If they had taken the entire tune and rapped over it, that's a different story. It's not like it took a whole lot of skill for the Steely Dan bass player to do what he did, either. I don't play bass and I bet I could learn that line in an hour. You do the same thing three times in a row (a perfect fifth up and down) and then do one other thing (play one note). Almost anyone here could learn how to plunk that out on a synth in 10 minutes and make it sound ok.

Now I guess the question is, where do you draw the line between a legitimate sample and a ripoff?

Edited November 13, 2004 by Big Wheel

[Noj]

It isn't exactly the same thing Mark, but like Jim is saying, when it is a big gumbo of samples like the Beasties used the final product is far different from the original.

Here's a challenge, anyone who thinks sampling is crap can pm me their address and I'll mail them a cdr of well-crafted musical collages.

Some of Bjork's music is made with samples.

[kdd]

I don't know about the Beastie Boys vs Newton thing, but equating sampling to a jazz player quoting another tune strikes me as total bullshit.  Sampling is using the actual performance of another artist.  This is NOT the same thing as using the same notes, using the same words, using the same colors, etc.  I mean, Steely Dan didn't actually just clip out the bass riff from Song for My Father, the bass player picked up his instrument and played the damned thing, right?  No way in hell this is the same thing.

Thank you!

And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay

Edited November 13, 2004 by kdd

[Chuck Nessa]

Some of Bjork's music is made with samples.

That seals the deal for me.

[cannonball-addict]

Cannonball Addict, the Beastie Boys are so much different from Dead Prez I don't even know where to start.

Aside from the fact that they're intelligent black guys and their rap is socially conscious, what's the difference.

They still sample and the point of posting that link was to show a well-articulated argument on a very similar issue.

[Rooster_Ties]

Aside from the fact that they're intelligent black guys...

Check your head...

Edited November 13, 2004 by Rooster_Ties

[Noj]

The Beasties also play instruments.

[Big Wheel]

I don't know about the Beastie Boys vs Newton thing, but equating sampling to a jazz player quoting another tune strikes me as total bullshit.  Sampling is using the actual performance of another artist.  This is NOT the same thing as using the same notes, using the same words, using the same colors, etc.  I mean, Steely Dan didn't actually just clip out the bass riff from Song for My Father, the bass player picked up his instrument and played the damned thing, right?  No way in hell this is the same thing.

Thank you!

And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay

As the article notes, they did pay the record label to use the tapes. They did not have to pay Newton for the use of the composition, but later offered to pay him anyway when he threatened to sue. Then Newton rejected their offer.

I think some people are crying foul for reasons that don't have anything to do with the musical or legal realities here. If jazz were the genre selling like hotcakes and hip-hop the domain of a few fringe artists struggling to make a living, would we still be mad at the Beastie Boys if Newton threatened to sue for the use of his sample? Or would we be calling Newton the greedy bastard here?

[Jazzmoose]

Some of Bjork's music is made with samples.

That seals the deal for me.

Same here!

But I wonder if we ended up on the same side....

[Jim Alfredson]

I mean, Steely Dan didn't actually just clip out the bass riff from Song for My Father, the bass player picked up his instrument and played the damned thing, right?

Yes. So what? The result is the same.

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Is it?

Are you proud to have an actual real - "Live DJ" at your social events?

Why not? The result is the same, isn't it?

Now, where was that lip-syncing thread?

The result is the same, isn't it?

Mike

[Alexander]

Are you proud to have an actual real - "Live DJ" at your social events?

If he was doing some serious turntabling, yeah, I would be...

[kdd]

I don't know about the Beastie Boys vs Newton thing, but equating sampling to a jazz player quoting another tune strikes me as total bullshit.  Sampling is using the actual performance of another artist.  This is NOT the same thing as using the same notes, using the same words, using the same colors, etc.  I mean, Steely Dan didn't actually just clip out the bass riff from Song for My Father, the bass player picked up his instrument and played the damned thing, right?  No way in hell this is the same thing.

Thank you!

And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay

As the article notes, they did pay the record label to use the tapes. They did not have to pay Newton for the use of the composition, but later offered to pay him anyway when he threatened to sue. Then Newton rejected their offer.

I think some people are crying foul for reasons that don't have anything to do with the musical or legal realities here. If jazz were the genre selling like hotcakes and hip-hop the domain of a few fringe artists struggling to make a living, would we still be mad at the Beastie Boys if Newton threatened to sue for the use of his sample? Or would we be calling Newton the greedy bastard here?

Read my first post. The record company owns that particular performance of that tune and you have to get permission from the record company to use that performance of the tune. James Newton owns the copyright to the tune and you have to get permission from him to use his tune. They didn't so Newton is well within his rights to sue. If the Beasties made an offer to James and he didn't think it was enough money, that's his right. Perhaps that makes him a bit of an asshole but it's his tune. He owns it. He decides what is done with it.

[.:.impossible]

I can't believe people are still quarreling about this issue. The Beastie Boys have done nothing wrong, according to the current law, in this situation. Morally, I don't think they have done anything wrong either.

I didn't understand the video game analogy, and don't think there really is a good analogy to sampling music. It is a musical device in and of itself that seems to be very misunderstood.

Do you guys think it would be ok for the Beastie Boys to perform this material live, with a dj sampling James Newton? Could they charge admission, or would they have to perform for free? Is the issue that their record label released an album to the retail market that has someone else's music on it?

[Big Wheel]

I don't know about the Beastie Boys vs Newton thing, but equating sampling to a jazz player quoting another tune strikes me as total bullshit.  Sampling is using the actual performance of another artist.  This is NOT the same thing as using the same notes, using the same words, using the same colors, etc.  I mean, Steely Dan didn't actually just clip out the bass riff from Song for My Father, the bass player picked up his instrument and played the damned thing, right?  No way in hell this is the same thing.

Thank you!

And by the way, I have nothing against sampling, I've heard some great things done with it but if you are going to use other peoples recordings you should pay for the priviledge. In a way you are using the sample instead of using musicians so there should be a budget for it as there are no musicians to pay

As the article notes, they did pay the record label to use the tapes. They did not have to pay Newton for the use of the composition, but later offered to pay him anyway when he threatened to sue. Then Newton rejected their offer.

I think some people are crying foul for reasons that don't have anything to do with the musical or legal realities here. If jazz were the genre selling like hotcakes and hip-hop the domain of a few fringe artists struggling to make a living, would we still be mad at the Beastie Boys if Newton threatened to sue for the use of his sample? Or would we be calling Newton the greedy bastard here?

Read my first post. The record company owns that particular performance of that tune and you have to get permission from the record company to use that performance of the tune. James Newton owns the copyright to the tune and you have to get permission from him to use his tune. They didn't so Newton is well within his rights to sue. If the Beasties made an offer to James and he didn't think it was enough money, that's his right. Perhaps that makes him a bit of an asshole but it's his tune. He owns it. He decides what is done with it.

One thing is unclear to me: is the sample from the head of the tune or from improvising on the tune? It might not matter in this case, but what about sampling a cover version? If I sampled a one second fragment from Nicholas Payton's solo on Cantaloupe Island, from a part of his improvised solo--a part that Herbie Hancock never wrote into the music, do I still have to pay Herbie for the use of his composition?

Edited November 13, 2004 by Big Wheel