[ music / chill ] [ discord / rules ] [ wiki / twitter / facebook / youtube ] [ search ]

/music/ - Music

Name
Options
Subject
Comment
File
Password (For file deletion.)

Submit to The Musikians' 25th album!

File: 1508875800151.jpg (49.11 KB, 600x600, vGh1z0D.jpg)

 No.31684

What do you guys think of plagarism/sampling/quotations/obvious inspiration and so on and so forth (however you want to phrase it)?
Do you think the idea of intellectual property has any relevance to art?

 No.31685

Intellectual properly has all the relevance to art, since it's what protects original artwork. It seems stupid to me how in the world of visual art, you can't even copy minor things, while in music, it used to be common practice to take another's art and use that for your own.

The harsh reality is that in music, using any copyrighted audio is simply theft. And you know what? That's alright. Because a whole new market has arisen around sampling. You can just buy samples, loops, complete vocal kits for tracks and the like. Thus creating more jobs in the music industry. It may have also created a lot of basement producers, but that's fine. With sampling, only creativity can make it truly proper. And that's where brilliant minds will shine.

 No.31686

>>31685

1/2

I get what you mean. As you say, intellectual property does protect artwork, so it serves the practical purpose of creating jobs in the music industry. And this makes it relevant to the way art is made.

However, I think as far as the art itself goes, plagiarism is irrelevant. Like you say, when it comes to sampling (or any of the other things I listed in the OP), there's a possibility to do it well or poorly. Sampling/reference fits the definition for art in every other way I can think of too.

This isn't to excuse shitty bedroom producers. Sampling/reference is done ineffectively a lot of the time, just like anything else in art. But I get that the concern a lot of people have is that it can sometimes be done badly without going noticed just because the source material is good. I'll admit there isn't much justice in rewarding bad artists for albeit effective art.

 No.31687

>>31686

2/2

In a way though, isn't that like anything? I would say things like a high quality instrument, an instrument itself (built and invented by others to make good sounds), a high quality microphone, and a knowledge of theory are similar to "source material." There are also other factors that don't even relate to the sound of an artist's music that could be seen as leading to injustice in the "reward" the artist receives- chance, privilege, personality, etc. Finally, I don't think an artist will get very much critical acclaim if their sound owes too much to its source material, because people can notice that stuff, and the more people who listen the more likely someone will notice.

So, overall, I think it's probably good that artists are paid royalties where they are due. But the concept of intellectual property shouldn't restrict any type of expression. "Where they are due" is where emphasis should be placed, and I think generally, not much is due, especially if not much money is being made off it.

 No.31688

>>31686
>>31687
One other point- not to be anti-capitalism, but consider that if it weren't for capitalism, intellectual property would have NO bearing on art

 No.31694

>>31685
> It seems stupid to me how in the world of visual art, you can't even copy minor things

i am not sure that is true. Appropriation is a longstanding tradition in visual art

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appropriation_(art)

>With sampling, only creativity can make it truly proper. And that's where brilliant minds will shine.


I do agree with this. Whether it is a band playing an arrangement of an existing folk song, or sampling a well known song, but making something new out of it, true creativity it what will make it unique.

>>31687
>I don't think an artist will get very much critical acclaim if their sound owes too much to its source material, because people can notice that stuff, and the more people who listen the more likely someone will notice.

there are plenty of massively popular songs that rely on an entire chorus from a preexisting massively popular song. See Flo Rida - Right Round for just one such example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcCw1ggftuQ

>So, overall, I think it's probably good that artists are paid royalties where they are due. But the concept of intellectual property shouldn't restrict any type of expression. "Where they are due" is where emphasis should be placed, and I think generally, not much is due, especially if not much money is being made off it.


this. of course there is no black and white, but if the creativity of the sampler is greater than that of the samplee, then there should be no issue unless the song starts generating a decent amount of money, in which case it should be examined as to whether the sample is integral to the new creation and if so to what degree. if so, then some royalty should be paid.



[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ music / chill ] [ discord / rules ] [ wiki / twitter / facebook / youtube ] [ search ]