sin
New Member
Posts • 614
Likes • 737
February 2013
|
Appropriation battle royale , by sin on Apr 17, 2015 20:55:49 GMT 1, Because I didnt want to be that .. who said "my two final thoughts" and then reply.
I figured I would start a thread on this topic. (YES for the 1,000,000th time)
This is the quote from nuart. For the sake of not being a continuation, I'd like to suggest we keep the SC work out of the topic and instead discuss the overall concept. God willing using some other examples so we can pull the wider discussion away from the specific instance that spawned it.
- The thing is, and I think low brow, new brow, urban contemporary, comic art, street art and everything in between that references or is subconsciously inspired by or even consciously appropriates the things around them, in this case, iconic pop art motifs such as batman, superman, supermodels etc, has been fair game since the onset on Post Modernism. We're not surrounded by images of old fat women and sears catalog imagery otherwise I'm sure that would be appropriated too. McDonalds, Supermodels, Superheros, Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse, Kate Moss, Money, Graffiti etc.. these are the images that these artists have been bombarded with for decades, it's part of their mental environment. Is it any wonder that urban artists turn to them ? It's an argument that was had, and obviously won, with the old school of Modernism back in the late 70's and early 80's. Would you that we prosecuted early pioneers of hip hop for sampling Led Zep or Incredible Bongo band and kill a fledgling & very real new Black Culture ? would we prosecute Afrika Bambaataa for sampling Kraftwerk and inventing Electro ? Detroit techno pioneers ?. I believe anything in the past is fair game for the future. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan young contemporary urban artists appropriating corporate imagery to create a new language for art outside academia. As Jean Luc Goddard once said "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to, that counts".
Speaking of the Afrika Bambaataa / Kraftwerk & sampling. No one I can imagine thinks that you shouldnt be able to use samples, you should simply be required to credit and unless other arrangements are agreed to, you should compensate the source. In fact the record company did just that for Planet Rock. Likewise, an artist should consider compensating the source when taking something directly and using it without meaningful adjustment. Planet rock used the Kraftwerk sample directly and integrated it into a wider song. In contrast however, I dont think Ron English needs to compensate McDonalds for MC Supersized because Ron took the concept of this icon and built upon it. Using the same prior Planet Rock example, if Afrika Bambaataa took the same notes and sounds and progressions and played them with a different instrument, he would have a case, or maybe adding notes, placing the 808 stuff elements through a self written patch to add texture and dimension to the notes there would be a case.
Regarding your point about appropriating corporate logos and s**t. Take the McDonald's logo, take the Channel logo, steal that s**t, own it, do what you will with it, thats revolution. Taking other peoples art, thats bogus and the hurdle for taking it somewhere should be higher. If someone created it, you have a real obligation to take that s**t somewhere big, otherwise you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, you are riding their coattails and there is a big difference. To the Afrika Mambaata point, he took something wonderful and did something wonderful with it. Both those tracks are monsters in their own right. Could have gone either way and I assume the record company settled vs litigate, artistically however no one is putting shade on Afrika Bambaata. Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen for example, same f**king thing and everything thinks that hack is a bastard because he took a queen song and made some vapid summer hit out of it.
Lastly your quote echoes the exact thing I've said on this subject repeatedly. The difference between theft and appropriation can be defined not by what you took but by what you did with it. So as I've said take the offending item out and what are you left with. If it's not art on its own, worthy of praise on its own, if it only works because of the theft, then its theft.
Because I didnt want to be that .. who said "my two final thoughts" and then reply.
I figured I would start a thread on this topic. (YES for the 1,000,000th time)
This is the quote from nuart. For the sake of not being a continuation, I'd like to suggest we keep the SC work out of the topic and instead discuss the overall concept. God willing using some other examples so we can pull the wider discussion away from the specific instance that spawned it.
- The thing is, and I think low brow, new brow, urban contemporary, comic art, street art and everything in between that references or is subconsciously inspired by or even consciously appropriates the things around them, in this case, iconic pop art motifs such as batman, superman, supermodels etc, has been fair game since the onset on Post Modernism. We're not surrounded by images of old fat women and sears catalog imagery otherwise I'm sure that would be appropriated too. McDonalds, Supermodels, Superheros, Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse, Kate Moss, Money, Graffiti etc.. these are the images that these artists have been bombarded with for decades, it's part of their mental environment. Is it any wonder that urban artists turn to them ? It's an argument that was had, and obviously won, with the old school of Modernism back in the late 70's and early 80's. Would you that we prosecuted early pioneers of hip hop for sampling Led Zep or Incredible Bongo band and kill a fledgling & very real new Black Culture ? would we prosecute Afrika Bambaataa for sampling Kraftwerk and inventing Electro ? Detroit techno pioneers ?. I believe anything in the past is fair game for the future. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan young contemporary urban artists appropriating corporate imagery to create a new language for art outside academia. As Jean Luc Goddard once said "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to, that counts".
Speaking of the Afrika Bambaataa / Kraftwerk & sampling. No one I can imagine thinks that you shouldnt be able to use samples, you should simply be required to credit and unless other arrangements are agreed to, you should compensate the source. In fact the record company did just that for Planet Rock. Likewise, an artist should consider compensating the source when taking something directly and using it without meaningful adjustment. Planet rock used the Kraftwerk sample directly and integrated it into a wider song. In contrast however, I dont think Ron English needs to compensate McDonalds for MC Supersized because Ron took the concept of this icon and built upon it. Using the same prior Planet Rock example, if Afrika Bambaataa took the same notes and sounds and progressions and played them with a different instrument, he would have a case, or maybe adding notes, placing the 808 stuff elements through a self written patch to add texture and dimension to the notes there would be a case.
Regarding your point about appropriating corporate logos and s**t. Take the McDonald's logo, take the Channel logo, steal that s**t, own it, do what you will with it, thats revolution. Taking other peoples art, thats bogus and the hurdle for taking it somewhere should be higher. If someone created it, you have a real obligation to take that s**t somewhere big, otherwise you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, you are riding their coattails and there is a big difference. To the Afrika Mambaata point, he took something wonderful and did something wonderful with it. Both those tracks are monsters in their own right. Could have gone either way and I assume the record company settled vs litigate, artistically however no one is putting shade on Afrika Bambaata. Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen for example, same f**king thing and everything thinks that hack is a bastard because he took a queen song and made some vapid summer hit out of it.
Lastly your quote echoes the exact thing I've said on this subject repeatedly. The difference between theft and appropriation can be defined not by what you took but by what you did with it. So as I've said take the offending item out and what are you left with. If it's not art on its own, worthy of praise on its own, if it only works because of the theft, then its theft.
|
|
|
|
Appropriation battle royale , by Howard Johnson on Apr 17, 2015 21:25:29 GMT 1, Thanks for starting this thread! As a student of intellectual property I think the urban art movement, and the music discussed above, has really blurred the line on what is an acceptable level of appropriation. On one hand copyright is pretty much the only thing protecting artists and allowing them to make a living on from their creations. Thus, statements like "anything in the past is fair game for the future" are detrimental to the ability for all artists or their surviving family members to make a living from their work. Theorists like Locke back up the bedrock of these principles; that people should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor.
That being said, while imperfect, modern copyright law allows for a number of avenues for artists to expand upon artwork of the past. Such rights only exist for 70 years after the death of the artist, allowing future generations to do what they please with the work. Further, the doctrine of fair use allows for artists to use copyrighted material as long as they add their own expression and essentially transform the meaning or context of the work.
Thanks for starting this thread! As a student of intellectual property I think the urban art movement, and the music discussed above, has really blurred the line on what is an acceptable level of appropriation. On one hand copyright is pretty much the only thing protecting artists and allowing them to make a living on from their creations. Thus, statements like "anything in the past is fair game for the future" are detrimental to the ability for all artists or their surviving family members to make a living from their work. Theorists like Locke back up the bedrock of these principles; that people should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor.
That being said, while imperfect, modern copyright law allows for a number of avenues for artists to expand upon artwork of the past. Such rights only exist for 70 years after the death of the artist, allowing future generations to do what they please with the work. Further, the doctrine of fair use allows for artists to use copyrighted material as long as they add their own expression and essentially transform the meaning or context of the work.
|
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Appropriation battle royale , by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 21:33:50 GMT 1, Thanks for starting this thread! As a student of intellectual property I think the urban art movement, and the music discussed above, has really blurred the line on what is an acceptable level of appropriation. On one hand copyright is pretty much the only thing protecting artists and allowing them to make a living on from their creations. Thus, statements like "anything in the past is fair game for the future" are detrimental to the ability for all artists or their surviving family members to make a living from their work. Theorists like Locke back up the bedrock of these principles; that people should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor. That being said, while imperfect, modern copyright law allows for a number of avenues for artists to expand upon artwork of the past. Such rights only exist for 70 years after the death of the artist, allowing future generations to do what they please with the work. Further, the doctrine of fair use allows for artists to use copyrighted material as long as they add their own expression and essentially transform the meaning or context of the work.
Thanks for starting this thread! As a student of intellectual property I think the urban art movement, and the music discussed above, has really blurred the line on what is an acceptable level of appropriation. On one hand copyright is pretty much the only thing protecting artists and allowing them to make a living on from their creations. Thus, statements like "anything in the past is fair game for the future" are detrimental to the ability for all artists or their surviving family members to make a living from their work. Theorists like Locke back up the bedrock of these principles; that people should be rewarded for the fruits of their labor. That being said, while imperfect, modern copyright law allows for a number of avenues for artists to expand upon artwork of the past. Such rights only exist for 70 years after the death of the artist, allowing future generations to do what they please with the work. Further, the doctrine of fair use allows for artists to use copyrighted material as long as they add their own expression and essentially transform the meaning or context of the work. I started a thread earlier today on this here urbanartassociation.com/thread/128939/copyright-copyleft. |
|
mutatis
New Member
Posts • 671
Likes • 492
July 2013
|
Appropriation battle royale , by mutatis on Apr 17, 2015 22:16:58 GMT 1, Because I didnt want to be that .. who said "my two final thoughts" and then reply. I figured I would start a thread on this topic. (YES for the 1,000,000th time) This is the quote from nuart. For the sake of not being a continuation, I'd like to suggest we keep the SC work out of the topic and instead discuss the overall concept. God willing using some other examples so we can pull the wider discussion away from the specific instance that spawned it. - The thing is, and I think low brow, new brow, urban contemporary, comic art, street art and everything in between that references or is subconsciously inspired by or even consciously appropriates the things around them, in this case, iconic pop art motifs such as batman, superman, supermodels etc, has been fair game since the onset on Post Modernism. We're not surrounded by images of old fat women and sears catalog imagery otherwise I'm sure that would be appropriated too. McDonalds, Supermodels, Superheros, Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse, Kate Moss, Money, Graffiti etc.. these are the images that these artists have been bombarded with for decades, it's part of their mental environment. Is it any wonder that urban artists turn to them ? It's an argument that was had, and obviously won, with the old school of Modernism back in the late 70's and early 80's. Would you that we prosecuted early pioneers of hip hop for sampling Led Zep or Incredible Bongo band and kill a fledgling & very real new Black Culture ? would we prosecute Afrika Bambaataa for sampling Kraftwerk and inventing Electro ? Detroit techno pioneers ?. I believe anything in the past is fair game for the future. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan young contemporary urban artists appropriating corporate imagery to create a new language for art outside academia. As Jean Luc Goddard once said "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to, that counts". Speaking of the Afrika Bambaataa / Kraftwerk & sampling. No one I can imagine thinks that you shouldnt be able to use samples, you should simply be required to credit and unless other arrangements are agreed to, you should compensate the source. In fact the record company did just that for Planet Rock. Likewise, an artist should consider compensating the source when taking something directly and using it without meaningful adjustment. Planet rock used the Kraftwerk sample directly and integrated it into a wider song. In contrast however, I dont think Ron English needs to compensate McDonalds for MC Supersized because Ron took the concept of this icon and built upon it. Using the same prior Planet Rock example, if Afrika Bambaataa took the same notes and sounds and progressions and played them with a different instrument, he would have a case, or maybe adding notes, placing the 808 stuff elements through a self written patch to add texture and dimension to the notes there would be a case. Regarding your point about appropriating corporate logos and s**t. Take the McDonald's logo, take the Channel logo, steal that s**t, own it, do what you will with it, thats revolution. Taking other peoples art, thats bogus and the hurdle for taking it somewhere should be higher. If someone created it, you have a real obligation to take that s**t somewhere big, otherwise you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, you are riding their coattails and there is a big difference. To the Afrika Mambaata point, he took something wonderful and did something wonderful with it. Both those tracks are monsters in their own right. Could have gone either way and I assume the record company settled vs litigate, artistically however no one is putting shade on Afrika Bambaata. Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen for example, same f**king thing and everything thinks that hack is a bastard because he took a queen song and made some vapid summer hit out of it. Lastly your quote echoes the exact thing I've said on this subject repeatedly. The difference between theft and appropriation can be defined not by what you took but by what you did with it. So as I've said take the offending item out and what are you left with. If it's not art on its own, worthy of praise on its own, if it only works because of the theft, then its theft.
Bambaataa and Arthur Baker settled out of court with Kraftwerk over Planet Rock being based on two Kraftwerk songs. No record company was involved as it was not a sample and replayed as you say sin. No denying that it was a groundbreaking track and spawned the electro movement but if litgated it would have been tantamount to copyright infringement and Arthur Baker accepted that at the time.
Fast forward to actual sampling - the music industry regulated the practice from a very early stage, which is why you hear of so few disputes. The very early disputes you do hear of for instance involving Jimmy Castor and the Beastie Boys were a case of the artist who was sampled looking to be paid or ironically when Stock Aitken & Waterman tried to injunct MARRS for sampling them on Pump Up The Volume, that was chart politics. In the early days when practices were being established majors didn't want to sue each other as each had artists that would sample or be sampled.
De La Soul found themselves relieved of a whole heap of money after being sued by Flo & Eddie for use of a sample on Transmitting Live From Mars. Prior to the Biz Markie case in 1991 you either didn't clear samples if you were a low key artist on an indie and flew under the radar or cleared obvious ones if you were on a major or affiliated to one through distribution. Biz Markie was a bit cavalier, asked for permission, it was refused and he tried to negotiate, but in the meantime his album was released with the offending sample on it. The rights owner (effectively Gilbert O'Sullivan's own publishing and record label) wouldn't do a deal at any price. When the matter went to court, the decision went against Biz Markie and when the judge pronounced "Thou Shalt Not Steal", a lot of people then said that was the end of rap and sampling. Sample police saw it as an opportunity to catch out unwary artists and a lot of them settled disputes for large sums of money. So they tried to shut it (hip hop) down. However hip hop evolved. Techniques changed and business practices evolved. Listen to Public Enemy albums after 1990's Fear of A Black Planet, De La Soul after 3 Feet High... Beastie Boys after Paul's Boutique - they had to change up their styles and decided to get paid rather than pay all their money towards sampled tracks.
sin it's interesting that you equate Bambaataa and Vanilla lce, because ironically what Ice did was truer to hip hop roots in terms of the sample, same with MC Hammer - their tunes took rap back to 1979 and the party days, as very early rap was by and large cut on the big disco tunes of the day. Bambaataa moved it forward I agree.
Appropriation is nothing new and everything in the past has always been fair game for the future, it is just that now it may come with a hefty price tag.
Because I didnt want to be that .. who said "my two final thoughts" and then reply. I figured I would start a thread on this topic. (YES for the 1,000,000th time) This is the quote from nuart. For the sake of not being a continuation, I'd like to suggest we keep the SC work out of the topic and instead discuss the overall concept. God willing using some other examples so we can pull the wider discussion away from the specific instance that spawned it. - The thing is, and I think low brow, new brow, urban contemporary, comic art, street art and everything in between that references or is subconsciously inspired by or even consciously appropriates the things around them, in this case, iconic pop art motifs such as batman, superman, supermodels etc, has been fair game since the onset on Post Modernism. We're not surrounded by images of old fat women and sears catalog imagery otherwise I'm sure that would be appropriated too. McDonalds, Supermodels, Superheros, Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse, Kate Moss, Money, Graffiti etc.. these are the images that these artists have been bombarded with for decades, it's part of their mental environment. Is it any wonder that urban artists turn to them ? It's an argument that was had, and obviously won, with the old school of Modernism back in the late 70's and early 80's. Would you that we prosecuted early pioneers of hip hop for sampling Led Zep or Incredible Bongo band and kill a fledgling & very real new Black Culture ? would we prosecute Afrika Bambaataa for sampling Kraftwerk and inventing Electro ? Detroit techno pioneers ?. I believe anything in the past is fair game for the future. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan young contemporary urban artists appropriating corporate imagery to create a new language for art outside academia. As Jean Luc Goddard once said "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to, that counts". Speaking of the Afrika Bambaataa / Kraftwerk & sampling. No one I can imagine thinks that you shouldnt be able to use samples, you should simply be required to credit and unless other arrangements are agreed to, you should compensate the source. In fact the record company did just that for Planet Rock. Likewise, an artist should consider compensating the source when taking something directly and using it without meaningful adjustment. Planet rock used the Kraftwerk sample directly and integrated it into a wider song. In contrast however, I dont think Ron English needs to compensate McDonalds for MC Supersized because Ron took the concept of this icon and built upon it. Using the same prior Planet Rock example, if Afrika Bambaataa took the same notes and sounds and progressions and played them with a different instrument, he would have a case, or maybe adding notes, placing the 808 stuff elements through a self written patch to add texture and dimension to the notes there would be a case. Regarding your point about appropriating corporate logos and s**t. Take the McDonald's logo, take the Channel logo, steal that s**t, own it, do what you will with it, thats revolution. Taking other peoples art, thats bogus and the hurdle for taking it somewhere should be higher. If someone created it, you have a real obligation to take that s**t somewhere big, otherwise you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, you are riding their coattails and there is a big difference. To the Afrika Mambaata point, he took something wonderful and did something wonderful with it. Both those tracks are monsters in their own right. Could have gone either way and I assume the record company settled vs litigate, artistically however no one is putting shade on Afrika Bambaata. Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen for example, same f**king thing and everything thinks that hack is a bastard because he took a queen song and made some vapid summer hit out of it. Lastly your quote echoes the exact thing I've said on this subject repeatedly. The difference between theft and appropriation can be defined not by what you took but by what you did with it. So as I've said take the offending item out and what are you left with. If it's not art on its own, worthy of praise on its own, if it only works because of the theft, then its theft. I don't disagree with most of what has been said by @martedanielsen, but the highlighted part is clearly wrong. The very first rap record Rappers Delight was based on two records Here Comes That Sound and more prominently Good Times. The writers of Good Times settled out of court with the Sugarhill Gang and Sugarhill Records and received damages and writing credits. If Rappers Delight had not become the massive hit it did, it probably wouldn't have come to the attention of Nile Rodgers or not enough to merit him wanting a piece of the action, from which he still earns well. However the template was set. Everyone wanted to cut a record and so rap moved from the parks and clubs to the studio. Bambaataa and Arthur Baker settled out of court with Kraftwerk over Planet Rock being based on two Kraftwerk songs. No record company was involved as it was not a sample and replayed as you say sin. No denying that it was a groundbreaking track and spawned the electro movement but if litgated it would have been tantamount to copyright infringement and Arthur Baker accepted that at the time. Fast forward to actual sampling - the music industry regulated the practice from a very early stage, which is why you hear of so few disputes. The very early disputes you do hear of for instance involving Jimmy Castor and the Beastie Boys were a case of the artist who was sampled looking to be paid or ironically when Stock Aitken & Waterman tried to injunct MARRS for sampling them on Pump Up The Volume, that was chart politics. In the early days when practices were being established majors didn't want to sue each other as each had artists that would sample or be sampled. De La Soul found themselves relieved of a whole heap of money after being sued by Flo & Eddie for use of a sample on Transmitting Live From Mars. Prior to the Biz Markie case in 1991 you either didn't clear samples if you were a low key artist on an indie and flew under the radar or cleared obvious ones if you were on a major or affiliated to one through distribution. Biz Markie was a bit cavalier, asked for permission, it was refused and he tried to negotiate, but in the meantime his album was released with the offending sample on it. The rights owner (effectively Gilbert O'Sullivan's own publishing and record label) wouldn't do a deal at any price. When the matter went to court, the decision went against Biz Markie and when the judge pronounced "Thou Shalt Not Steal", a lot of people then said that was the end of rap and sampling. Sample police saw it as an opportunity to catch out unwary artists and a lot of them settled disputes for large sums of money. So they tried to shut it (hip hop) down. However hip hop evolved. Techniques changed and business practices evolved. Listen to Public Enemy albums after 1990's Fear of A Black Planet, De La Soul after 3 Feet High... Beastie Boys after Paul's Boutique - they had to change up their styles and decided to get paid rather than pay all their money towards sampled tracks. sin it's interesting that you equate Bambaataa and Vanilla lce, because ironically what Ice did was truer to hip hop roots in terms of the sample, same with MC Hammer - their tunes took rap back to 1979 and the party days, as very early rap was by and large cut on the big disco tunes of the day. Bambaataa moved it forward I agree. Appropriation is nothing new and everything in the past has always been fair game for the future, it is just that now it may come with a hefty price tag. |
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Appropriation battle royale , by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 22:21:51 GMT 1, Solid input Mutasis. Interesting site here for anyone interested in who sampled who in the music business.
www.whosampled.com
Solid input Mutasis. Interesting site here for anyone interested in who sampled who in the music business. www.whosampled.com |
|
Dr Plip
Junior Member
Posts • 7,043
Likes • 8,981
August 2011
|
Appropriation battle royale , by Dr Plip on Apr 17, 2015 22:39:10 GMT 1, Bloody hell, this is a wordy thread.
Bloody hell, this is a wordy thread.
|
|
|
|
sin
New Member
Posts • 614
Likes • 737
February 2013
|
Appropriation battle royale , by sin on Apr 17, 2015 22:59:23 GMT 1, Because I didnt want to be that .. who said "my two final thoughts" and then reply. I figured I would start a thread on this topic. (YES for the 1,000,000th time) This is the quote from nuart. For the sake of not being a continuation, I'd like to suggest we keep the SC work out of the topic and instead discuss the overall concept. God willing using some other examples so we can pull the wider discussion away from the specific instance that spawned it. - The thing is, and I think low brow, new brow, urban contemporary, comic art, street art and everything in between that references or is subconsciously inspired by or even consciously appropriates the things around them, in this case, iconic pop art motifs such as batman, superman, supermodels etc, has been fair game since the onset on Post Modernism. We're not surrounded by images of old fat women and sears catalog imagery otherwise I'm sure that would be appropriated too. McDonalds, Supermodels, Superheros, Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse, Kate Moss, Money, Graffiti etc.. these are the images that these artists have been bombarded with for decades, it's part of their mental environment. Is it any wonder that urban artists turn to them ? It's an argument that was had, and obviously won, with the old school of Modernism back in the late 70's and early 80's. Would you that we prosecuted early pioneers of hip hop for sampling Led Zep or Incredible Bongo band and kill a fledgling & very real new Black Culture ? would we prosecute Afrika Bambaataa for sampling Kraftwerk and inventing Electro ? Detroit techno pioneers ?. I believe anything in the past is fair game for the future. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan young contemporary urban artists appropriating corporate imagery to create a new language for art outside academia. As Jean Luc Goddard once said "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to, that counts". Speaking of the Afrika Bambaataa / Kraftwerk & sampling. No one I can imagine thinks that you shouldnt be able to use samples, you should simply be required to credit and unless other arrangements are agreed to, you should compensate the source. In fact the record company did just that for Planet Rock. Likewise, an artist should consider compensating the source when taking something directly and using it without meaningful adjustment. Planet rock used the Kraftwerk sample directly and integrated it into a wider song. In contrast however, I dont think Ron English needs to compensate McDonalds for MC Supersized because Ron took the concept of this icon and built upon it. Using the same prior Planet Rock example, if Afrika Bambaataa took the same notes and sounds and progressions and played them with a different instrument, he would have a case, or maybe adding notes, placing the 808 stuff elements through a self written patch to add texture and dimension to the notes there would be a case. Regarding your point about appropriating corporate logos and s**t. Take the McDonald's logo, take the Channel logo, steal that s**t, own it, do what you will with it, thats revolution. Taking other peoples art, thats bogus and the hurdle for taking it somewhere should be higher. If someone created it, you have a real obligation to take that s**t somewhere big, otherwise you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, you are riding their coattails and there is a big difference. To the Afrika Mambaata point, he took something wonderful and did something wonderful with it. Both those tracks are monsters in their own right. Could have gone either way and I assume the record company settled vs litigate, artistically however no one is putting shade on Afrika Bambaata. Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen for example, same f**king thing and everything thinks that hack is a bastard because he took a queen song and made some vapid summer hit out of it. Lastly your quote echoes the exact thing I've said on this subject repeatedly. The difference between theft and appropriation can be defined not by what you took but by what you did with it. So as I've said take the offending item out and what are you left with. If it's not art on its own, worthy of praise on its own, if it only works because of the theft, then its theft. I don't disagree with most of what has been said by @martedanielsen, but the highlighted part is clearly wrong. The very first rap record Rappers Delight was based on two records Here Comes That Sound and more prominently Good Times. The writers of Good Times settled out of court with the Sugarhill Gang and Sugarhill Records and received damages and writing credits. If Rappers Delight had not become the massive hit it did, it probably wouldn't have come to the attention of Nile Rodgers or not enough to merit him wanting a piece of the action, from which he still earns well. However the template was set. Everyone wanted to cut a record and so rap moved from the parks and clubs to the studio. Bambaataa and Arthur Baker settled out of court with Kraftwerk over Planet Rock being based on two Kraftwerk songs. No record company was involved as it was not a sample and replayed as you say sin. No denying that it was a groundbreaking track and spawned the electro movement but if litgated it would have been tantamount to copyright infringement and Arthur Baker accepted that at the time. Fast forward to actual sampling - the music industry regulated the practice from a very early stage, which is why you hear of so few disputes. The very early disputes you do hear of for instance involving Jimmy Castor and the Beastie Boys were a case of the artist who was sampled looking to be paid or ironically when Stock Aitken & Waterman tried to injunct MARRS for sampling them on Pump Up The Volume, that was chart politics. In the early days when practices were being established majors didn't want to sue each other as each had artists that would sample or be sampled. De La Soul found themselves relieved of a whole heap of money after being sued by Flo & Eddie for use of a sample on Transmitting Live From Mars. Prior to the Biz Markie case in 1991 you either didn't clear samples if you were a low key artist on an indie and flew under the radar or cleared obvious ones if you were on a major or affiliated to one through distribution. Biz Markie was a bit cavalier, asked for permission, it was refused and he tried to negotiate, but in the meantime his album was released with the offending sample on it. The rights owner (effectively Gilbert O'Sullivan's own publishing and record label) wouldn't do a deal at any price. When the matter went to court, the decision went against Biz Markie and when the judge pronounced "Thou Shalt Not Steal", a lot of people then said that was the end of rap and sampling. Sample police saw it as an opportunity to catch out unwary artists and a lot of them settled disputes for large sums of money. So they tried to shut it (hip hop) down. However hip hop evolved. Techniques changed and business practices evolved. Listen to Public Enemy albums after 1990's Fear of A Black Planet, De La Soul after 3 Feet High... Beastie Boys after Paul's Boutique - they had to change up their styles and decided to get paid rather than pay all their money towards sampled tracks. sin it's interesting that you equate Bambaataa and Vanilla lce, because ironically what Ice did was truer to hip hop roots in terms of the sample, same with MC Hammer - their tunes took rap back to 1979 and the party days, as very early rap was by and large cut on the big disco tunes of the day. Bambaataa moved it forward I agree. Appropriation is nothing new and everything in the past has always been fair game for the future, it is just that now it may come with a hefty price tag.
This was an interesting reply. Completely enjoyed it. The level of knowledge and detail is admirable.
Because I didnt want to be that .. who said "my two final thoughts" and then reply. I figured I would start a thread on this topic. (YES for the 1,000,000th time) This is the quote from nuart. For the sake of not being a continuation, I'd like to suggest we keep the SC work out of the topic and instead discuss the overall concept. God willing using some other examples so we can pull the wider discussion away from the specific instance that spawned it. - The thing is, and I think low brow, new brow, urban contemporary, comic art, street art and everything in between that references or is subconsciously inspired by or even consciously appropriates the things around them, in this case, iconic pop art motifs such as batman, superman, supermodels etc, has been fair game since the onset on Post Modernism. We're not surrounded by images of old fat women and sears catalog imagery otherwise I'm sure that would be appropriated too. McDonalds, Supermodels, Superheros, Coca Cola, Mickey Mouse, Kate Moss, Money, Graffiti etc.. these are the images that these artists have been bombarded with for decades, it's part of their mental environment. Is it any wonder that urban artists turn to them ? It's an argument that was had, and obviously won, with the old school of Modernism back in the late 70's and early 80's. Would you that we prosecuted early pioneers of hip hop for sampling Led Zep or Incredible Bongo band and kill a fledgling & very real new Black Culture ? would we prosecute Afrika Bambaataa for sampling Kraftwerk and inventing Electro ? Detroit techno pioneers ?. I believe anything in the past is fair game for the future. I can't understand why anyone would bemoan young contemporary urban artists appropriating corporate imagery to create a new language for art outside academia. As Jean Luc Goddard once said "It's not where you take it from, it's where you take it to, that counts". Speaking of the Afrika Bambaataa / Kraftwerk & sampling. No one I can imagine thinks that you shouldnt be able to use samples, you should simply be required to credit and unless other arrangements are agreed to, you should compensate the source. In fact the record company did just that for Planet Rock. Likewise, an artist should consider compensating the source when taking something directly and using it without meaningful adjustment. Planet rock used the Kraftwerk sample directly and integrated it into a wider song. In contrast however, I dont think Ron English needs to compensate McDonalds for MC Supersized because Ron took the concept of this icon and built upon it. Using the same prior Planet Rock example, if Afrika Bambaataa took the same notes and sounds and progressions and played them with a different instrument, he would have a case, or maybe adding notes, placing the 808 stuff elements through a self written patch to add texture and dimension to the notes there would be a case. Regarding your point about appropriating corporate logos and s**t. Take the McDonald's logo, take the Channel logo, steal that s**t, own it, do what you will with it, thats revolution. Taking other peoples art, thats bogus and the hurdle for taking it somewhere should be higher. If someone created it, you have a real obligation to take that s**t somewhere big, otherwise you aren't standing on the shoulders of giants, you are riding their coattails and there is a big difference. To the Afrika Mambaata point, he took something wonderful and did something wonderful with it. Both those tracks are monsters in their own right. Could have gone either way and I assume the record company settled vs litigate, artistically however no one is putting shade on Afrika Bambaata. Vanilla Ice ripping off Queen for example, same f**king thing and everything thinks that hack is a bastard because he took a queen song and made some vapid summer hit out of it. Lastly your quote echoes the exact thing I've said on this subject repeatedly. The difference between theft and appropriation can be defined not by what you took but by what you did with it. So as I've said take the offending item out and what are you left with. If it's not art on its own, worthy of praise on its own, if it only works because of the theft, then its theft. I don't disagree with most of what has been said by @martedanielsen, but the highlighted part is clearly wrong. The very first rap record Rappers Delight was based on two records Here Comes That Sound and more prominently Good Times. The writers of Good Times settled out of court with the Sugarhill Gang and Sugarhill Records and received damages and writing credits. If Rappers Delight had not become the massive hit it did, it probably wouldn't have come to the attention of Nile Rodgers or not enough to merit him wanting a piece of the action, from which he still earns well. However the template was set. Everyone wanted to cut a record and so rap moved from the parks and clubs to the studio. Bambaataa and Arthur Baker settled out of court with Kraftwerk over Planet Rock being based on two Kraftwerk songs. No record company was involved as it was not a sample and replayed as you say sin. No denying that it was a groundbreaking track and spawned the electro movement but if litgated it would have been tantamount to copyright infringement and Arthur Baker accepted that at the time. Fast forward to actual sampling - the music industry regulated the practice from a very early stage, which is why you hear of so few disputes. The very early disputes you do hear of for instance involving Jimmy Castor and the Beastie Boys were a case of the artist who was sampled looking to be paid or ironically when Stock Aitken & Waterman tried to injunct MARRS for sampling them on Pump Up The Volume, that was chart politics. In the early days when practices were being established majors didn't want to sue each other as each had artists that would sample or be sampled. De La Soul found themselves relieved of a whole heap of money after being sued by Flo & Eddie for use of a sample on Transmitting Live From Mars. Prior to the Biz Markie case in 1991 you either didn't clear samples if you were a low key artist on an indie and flew under the radar or cleared obvious ones if you were on a major or affiliated to one through distribution. Biz Markie was a bit cavalier, asked for permission, it was refused and he tried to negotiate, but in the meantime his album was released with the offending sample on it. The rights owner (effectively Gilbert O'Sullivan's own publishing and record label) wouldn't do a deal at any price. When the matter went to court, the decision went against Biz Markie and when the judge pronounced "Thou Shalt Not Steal", a lot of people then said that was the end of rap and sampling. Sample police saw it as an opportunity to catch out unwary artists and a lot of them settled disputes for large sums of money. So they tried to shut it (hip hop) down. However hip hop evolved. Techniques changed and business practices evolved. Listen to Public Enemy albums after 1990's Fear of A Black Planet, De La Soul after 3 Feet High... Beastie Boys after Paul's Boutique - they had to change up their styles and decided to get paid rather than pay all their money towards sampled tracks. sin it's interesting that you equate Bambaataa and Vanilla lce, because ironically what Ice did was truer to hip hop roots in terms of the sample, same with MC Hammer - their tunes took rap back to 1979 and the party days, as very early rap was by and large cut on the big disco tunes of the day. Bambaataa moved it forward I agree. Appropriation is nothing new and everything in the past has always been fair game for the future, it is just that now it may come with a hefty price tag. This was an interesting reply. Completely enjoyed it. The level of knowledge and detail is admirable. |
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Appropriation battle royale , by Deleted on Apr 17, 2015 23:09:15 GMT 1, I have no problem with appropriation. Even a little theft. What I do have a problem with is endless rehash of the same boring ideas, with the same boring symbols. Too many urban/street artists rely on the same played out tropes. Another member called it "street art by numbers":
Step 1: Start with symbol of power structure (military, police, large corporation, political)
Step 2: Corrupt it with a symbol of resistance/counterculture (graffiti, molotov cocktail, skateboard, gasmask)
Step 3: Render it in "street" style (stencils, tags, dripping paint).
This art seeks to appropriate symbols and artistic styles in order to be subversive, but it just comes off as lame. It doesn't pack any punch since we've seen it a thousand times before. Rather than feeling edgy, it's just following a well worn trail blazed by tons of artists before them. It hard not to appreciate the irony of all these self-styled rebels behaving as insipid conformists.
The sad part is, people buy this crap, so artists are incentivized to make it. Next week we'll see a corrupted Warhol for the millionth time, another "evil" Mickey Mouse, another print emblazoned with Louis Vuitton labels, another dystopian gasmask future.
Steal. Pilfer. Borrow. Appropriate. Metamorphosize. Whatever. But artists need to have their own voice. They need to take a chance with something we haven't seen for the nth time. The biggest sin in art is to be boring.
Postscript:
I just followed a link in another thread pointing to an artbox print and discovered this gem which illustrates my point exactly:
artobox.com/artwork/ghetto/
It's corrupted Warhol with Louis Vuitton! The artist dropped the ball by not including a gasmask.
I have no problem with appropriation. Even a little theft. What I do have a problem with is endless rehash of the same boring ideas, with the same boring symbols. Too many urban/street artists rely on the same played out tropes. Another member called it "street art by numbers": Step 1: Start with symbol of power structure (military, police, large corporation, political) Step 2: Corrupt it with a symbol of resistance/counterculture (graffiti, molotov cocktail, skateboard, gasmask) Step 3: Render it in "street" style (stencils, tags, dripping paint). This art seeks to appropriate symbols and artistic styles in order to be subversive, but it just comes off as lame. It doesn't pack any punch since we've seen it a thousand times before. Rather than feeling edgy, it's just following a well worn trail blazed by tons of artists before them. It hard not to appreciate the irony of all these self-styled rebels behaving as insipid conformists. The sad part is, people buy this crap, so artists are incentivized to make it. Next week we'll see a corrupted Warhol for the millionth time, another "evil" Mickey Mouse, another print emblazoned with Louis Vuitton labels, another dystopian gasmask future. Steal. Pilfer. Borrow. Appropriate. Metamorphosize. Whatever. But artists need to have their own voice. They need to take a chance with something we haven't seen for the nth time. The biggest sin in art is to be boring. Postscript: I just followed a link in another thread pointing to an artbox print and discovered this gem which illustrates my point exactly: artobox.com/artwork/ghetto/It's corrupted Warhol with Louis Vuitton! The artist dropped the ball by not including a gasmask. |
|
curiousgeorge
Junior Member
Posts • 5,833
Likes • 1,091
March 2007
|
Appropriation battle royale , by curiousgeorge on Apr 17, 2015 23:26:34 GMT 1, Have drips even been protected yet??
Some great input already here. Most folk can tell the difference between a damned lazy copy and being inspired??
As youngsters we would listen to hip-hop/rap and have competitions picking out loops and samples and then finding other tracks. Seemed like fun at the time…Use anything with permission and credits/ nod of bleeding respect. duh???
Same applies to art too, though you get the going round in circles 'inspiration' I've seen enough Art now to understand being inspired and blatant rip off's
I love some heavily sampled music, some not so much. Same applies to art I guess. Bit of a brain-fart but Adam Neate stands tall as having made a seamless transition over the years without any hint of copying.Going back and look at who inspired great *current artists is also a treat.
Edit;*current
Posted before
Have drips even been protected yet??
Some great input already here. Most folk can tell the difference between a damned lazy copy and being inspired??
As youngsters we would listen to hip-hop/rap and have competitions picking out loops and samples and then finding other tracks. Seemed like fun at the time…Use anything with permission and credits/ nod of bleeding respect. duh???
Same applies to art too, though you get the going round in circles 'inspiration' I've seen enough Art now to understand being inspired and blatant rip off's
I love some heavily sampled music, some not so much. Same applies to art I guess. Bit of a brain-fart but Adam Neate stands tall as having made a seamless transition over the years without any hint of copying.Going back and look at who inspired great *current artists is also a treat.
Edit;*current
Posted before
|
|
Pipes
Junior Member
Posts • 2,430
Likes • 2,857
January 2012
|
Appropriation battle royale , by Pipes on Apr 18, 2015 0:52:07 GMT 1, Have drips even been protected yet?? Some great input already here. Most folk can tell the difference between a damned lazy copy and being inspired?? As youngsters we would listen to hip-hop/rap and have competitions picking out loops and samples and then finding other tracks. Seemed like fun at the time…Use anything with permission and credits/ nod of bleeding respect. duh??? Same applies to art too, though you get the going round in circles 'inspiration' I've seen enough Art now to understand being inspired and blatant rip off's I love some heavily sampled music, some not so much. Same applies to art I guess. Bit of a brain-fart but Adam Neate stands tall as having made a seamless transition over the years without any hint of copying.Going back and look at who inspired great *current artists is also a treat. Edit;*current Posted before
My re-post coach.
Where's the credit? 
Have drips even been protected yet?? Some great input already here. Most folk can tell the difference between a damned lazy copy and being inspired?? As youngsters we would listen to hip-hop/rap and have competitions picking out loops and samples and then finding other tracks. Seemed like fun at the time…Use anything with permission and credits/ nod of bleeding respect. duh??? Same applies to art too, though you get the going round in circles 'inspiration' I've seen enough Art now to understand being inspired and blatant rip off's I love some heavily sampled music, some not so much. Same applies to art I guess. Bit of a brain-fart but Adam Neate stands tall as having made a seamless transition over the years without any hint of copying.Going back and look at who inspired great *current artists is also a treat. Edit;*current Posted before My re-post coach. Where's the credit? |
|
Deleted
Posts • 0
Likes •
January 1970
|
Appropriation battle royale , by Deleted on Apr 18, 2015 9:52:16 GMT 1, Ice Ice Baby
Ice Ice Baby
|
|
