"More Spell On You" was actually produced by Daniel Vangarde (a.k.a Thomas Bangalter's father). It might be the reason why Daft Punk were able to avoid legal complications.
Why do people assume there would be "legal complications?" Why the assumption that they just took what they wanted without licensing? They're not obligated to inform us about these arrangements, the licensor has no interest in disclosing what its licensee is up to, and the licensee can say (or not say) whatever it wants.
Do you actually need any kind of licensing or permission to sample 10 seconds of a song? Especially when the end result sounds nothing like the original
Yes, you do. Legally speaking. Which means if the song makes money and is popular, and your samples aren't covered, you can get fucked hardcore. Regardless of how long the sample is.
No need to be rude. The video itself implies that the sample wasn't cleared. I wouldn't expect everyone who saw this post to watch the video AND read the whole thing. Still, you're right of course.
I’m sorry, but you cannot use “TFA” without implying “The fucking article” at least to some degree. That’s just how it is, never mind the intent. If you want to be polite you do not use “TFA”, it’s as simple as that.
> YouTube user SadowickProduction gives a step-by-step breakdown of how Daft Punk built the basic backing track for “One More Time,” using Eddie Johns’ “More Spell on You"
I think we can agree that overanalyzing a hastily-posted article is pointless.
Nitpicking, but that comment in the closing paragraph is jarring: "Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art". It's clearly a reference to Marcel Duchamp's Fountain - a key work in the argument of what is and isn't art. However, that urinal, and its reproductions, were pointedly never mounted on a wall, but flat on a pedestal where it couldn't be used. It's like the author had heard the phrase but didn't know what it was about?
"Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art"
I'm not sure this is too far from the point of duschamp's piece, which is that you can "put anything on a pedastal" and the "sign it", and as long as it's done by someone with a certain "aura", such an act becomes transformative.
The "wall" and the "pedastal" need not be taken literally, IMHO. There is a whole "deconstruct the art gallery" theme that followed. Things like..."pile of rocks in a white cube". And for that matter, the actual "white cube" itself.
Oh for gods sake, are we still discussing this? It's been almost a hundred years. Look:
> Submitted for the exhibition of the Society of Independent Artists in 1917, Fountain was rejected by the committee, even though the rules stated that all works would be accepted from artists who paid the fee.
He was playfully trolling. That's what Dada was all about. Then it caused a stir, and in response to the controversy he didn't waver but kept going. "Let's see how far we can push this!"
I respect that, and the fact that people have been taking it as seriously as they have makes it more brilliant, but at its core it the whole thing was an epic art-troll by an already established artist. Can we finally get over that and stop over-interpreting it?
Readymades were a Duchamp thing completely. Warhol was influenced by them (and Duchamp in general), but he didn't call his work by that term, regardless of similarities in method or concept.
It's been a long time since, I read it, but in Bob Colacello's biography[1][2], I thought he mentioned that Warhol did create (or at least _refer to_) items as "ready made art", without (if I recall correctly) reference to Duchamp.
Warhol would do things like mass-produce objects that looked very much like other things, example: screen printed Brillo Boxes - and then photograph them in say, a super market. It's similar, but different - Duchamp, as the story goes, would just buy the object and call it art. There's some controversy over that, as some of these Found Objects aren't so commonplace, but have key differences in them, to make them more aesthetically pleasing - they may be actually one-ofs, that only look like something commonplace and mass-produced, giving Duchamp the last laugh. That's what happens, when a chess player starts makin' art!
Also see the Warhol's Campbell Soup cans - he just really liked Campbell tomato soup. Speaking of canned things, see, Piero Manzoni's "Canned Shit", where, well, it's what it says on the tin, I guess. I guess, as I haven't actually opened one, myself,
Warhol would use many different mass-production (cheap!) techniques to produce his art. One of my favorites is xerox'd photographs of flowers, he would almost give away for free - certain that they would be both collectable, and that people would simply throw them away, because hey: it's just some cheap photocopy. The one's that survive are worth quite a bit. Incidentally, he didn't get the copyright to the original photograph, so lost money on the whole thing.
I think warhol's biggest, "Readymades" were the actors of his films, who would get little, if any direction and they would just film them doing their thing. See, "Chelsea Girls"
Its worth noting that when poor people (eg, homeless) pile junk outside...its called vandalism.[#,##] When rich, white people do it...its put in a museum. The confusion of vandalism/and art making...is the origin of s0-called "street art".
[##] The origins of the vandalism / art dichotomy more correctly stem from the work of (poor, black) people...ie, graffiti artists...not to suggest they were homeless...my apologies for the "confusion in the allusion", above.
Excellent post, thanks for all those references. Regarding your last sentence, you're right in terms of the actual product, but in art (or at least modern art) it's often the intention behind the product that is important part. In that sense there is a huge difference between what a homeless person does and what a "white person" does, (as you describe it.)
The homeless person is making a mess, the white person is making a statement.
^^^ I'll just put an aside here: I know you were being hyperbolic, but these are obviously quite bad choices; realistically, the homeless person just needs a place to put things. You really want "vandals" and "artists" rather than "homeless people" and "white people."
That said, it simply begins the whole discussion on whether art should be objectively pleasant/obvious/etc... "what is art", we could go on and on.
But I think it's quite well understood these days that there is a lot more to a piece of art than what is in front of your eyes. The message, background, and intention are everything.
As I said though, calling them vandals and artists is the interesting part, since as you point out, the whole street art movement deliberately blurs the line.
You understood the reference, and so did everyone else, so does it really matter if he says "on the wall" instead of "on a pedestal"?
Also, you have misquoted (?) the article. When quoted like that, it sounds like the author is criticizing Daft Punk, when in fact the author is addressing potential detractors.
Or the author saw it in a TV show or film. There's an episode of the old show, "My Name is Earl" which shows an art gallery and a urinal mounted on the wall. (Earl's brother Randy uses it and then comments how it doesn't flush.) That episode has been shown on TBS in the past week, so the author might have seen it.
Yup, and I did wonder about that (or generally if it was a recent pop culture reference). I checked google&IMDB before posting in case it was a quote. I didn't recall that MNIE episode - good spot.
That one is a lot more enlightening as to the creative process for this kind of music.
(Of course the prodigy didn't do it like that, all point and click. There would have been a lot more twiddling of knobs and generally wigging out with actual hardware.)
It's perfectly doable to create good sample based tracks in Reason. But you couldn't finish and master something of the standard of a Prodigy track on that alone.
I once saw Liam walking along the street of Sarm studios around the time that 'Always outnumbered never outgunned' must have been in production: http://www.sarmstudios.com/ - I assume he came out of there. It's a touch more advanced setup than Reason ;) Although if I had to guess which album he made on Reason I reckon it's that one.
I doubt the latest album 'Invaders Must Die' was done on Reason alone because of the quality of the synths used. Although again he could have just programmed the rough idea on Reason and then used the midi-notes to drive high-end synth.
All of the electronic artists that are big in Aus right now do. Had drinks with a whole heaps of em at Bigsound a few weeks back and chatted to a few of them, all really nice people.
ehehe this is is sick. at least they used more than 1 sample, lol. i gotta figure out ableton.... i use it but mainly to process live tracks with max. WHY DONT I USE MY SAMPLING SOFTWARE FOR SAMPLING GAH
I'm pretty amazed by how accepted sampling is. You can cherry pick examples of uses and alterations of original works that are made...better, or at least distinct or unrecognizable. But that's rarely the case. What you usually get are unholy abominations:
Even though Kanye West gets a lot of flak for his behavior, I think that most of the sampling that he's done (especially on his first 3 albums) has been amazing. Like taking a 2 second sound clip from Steely Dan's Kid Charlemagne and somehow transforming it into the main beat for his song in Champion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XaDeC2LEdA#t=68
Wow that was a great video. Big fan of Kanye's earlier stuff and some of the newer stuff, always appreciated the samples but great to see where they come from. Very varied. Everything from classical to Michael Jackson to Daft Punk.
On a side note: How does the whole legal process work? I mean, the original tracks, or at least parts of it, are taken from a song and re-sampled to create something new. So far so good. But is everybody allowed to do it or do you have to ask the original creator for permission, especially if you want to use the new sample in/as commercial products?
You need to get permission from the copyright holder, which has gotten substantially more expensive over the years. Hip hop tracks back in the 80s and early 90s used to contain loads of different samples all mashed together, but it slowed down a bit after people started suing. Nowadays sampling isn't quite as popular, and sampled tracks don't usually use more than one or two samples.
The rapper Fabolous had a hit song "Breathe" several years ago that contained a sample from a Supertramp song. The track leaked and became HUGE before they cleared the sample, so when it came time to negotiate Supertramp had all the leverage. Supposedly they got $100,000 plus almost all royalties, so Fabolous didn't make any money off the single. (Though of course he made tons on album sales).
EDIT: Just because you're supposed to clear samples doesn't mean people always do. If a sample is obscure enough or sufficiently altered, artists may try to get away with it hoping that no one will notice -- apparently that's the case with Daft Punk. I think Timbaland has gotten into trouble sampling foreign artists without permission ("Big Pimpin'", maybe), and the source of the sample in Nas's "Nas is Like" went unknown for around a decade. See http://www.whosampled.com/sample/4061/Nas-Nas-Is-Like-John-V...
For non-commercial use, can an artist sample without legal threat?
For example, if an artist is just posting 80s style tracks with dozens of uncleared samples on their website free for their fans to download, doesn't fair use allow for it?
(This was a massive tune last summer, getting loads of radio airplay and all over the clubs. Hence the apology. Really, by these standards he should apologise to Mr Fingers as well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmz3SVuHPhs)
Fair use isn't mutually exclusive with commercial use in the US though in practice there doesn't seem to be much scope for overlap.
Also free-gratis isn't co-terminous with non-commercial as - for example - giving away a competing product is a commercial activity. Also moral rights can arguably be harmed by sampling ... and then you've got parody exceptions ... it's nuance all the way down.
I believe so, but not 100% sure. There are a lot of artists nowadays releasing sample-heavy music for free, and then making their money by touring and playing it live.
This depends on the jurisdiction also. The concept of ‘Fair use’ does not exist in European copyright law, which makes any sampling without permission a potential copyright infringement.
The test for infringement in Europe requires that a "substantial" part be copied however.
Such samples [as in the OP video] IMO aren't substantial but I think the contrary point can be argued well as "if it's not substantial why copy it / it must be substantial to warrant reuse (with or without modification)"?
This (dated) Slate article makes a pretty convincing case that when a proper fair use case finally gets to court, most sampling will likely be deemed fair use:
Artists like Girl Talk are getting bolder and more blatant in their uncleared sampling. It might have something to do with his giving away his recent albums, though.
Edit: Here's a couple other Slate articles that go into more detail -
Well, it’s probably possible to make a very decent argument that this falls under fair use in the US (though fair use is quite US specific). Making a fair use argument, however, is always challenging and very much up to interpretation. There is little legal certainty in relying on fair use.
In practice, however, at least big acts always get clearance for the use of samples. That removes the legal uncertainty that would surround a fair use argument.
Just an FYI really; I have a pal who's the sound engineer with Introducing Live, who are touring Daft Punk's Discovery and playing the lot actually live, which had never been attempted before, even by DP themselves. His main gig is writing pro music software, so he knows his waveforms. Pretty neat, so if you want to know how it's done, that's another source. Some might be interested in links. Google's easy, so here's their tube: http://www.youtube.com/user/introducinglive
The comments on Slate just show how little people understand about the culture of EDM. The debate about whether Daft Punk is "stealing" or passing off other people's work as their own misses the point. Daft Punk (and many other electronic artists) are mainly producers, and it's normal for producers of all kinds of music to hire sessions musicians and record them in the studio. Sampling is just another version of that. That's no more stealing other people's work than a director of a movie is stealing the work of the actors or the writer. I think what people can't get their heads around is that a producer can be a legitimate creative role and it makes sense to give them the main credit.
Secondly, no electronic music producer argues against having to pay licensing fees to copyright holders, on fair use or on any other grounds. Since they are copyright holders themselves, it wouldn't make any sense. Remixes are considered legitimate collaborations, and many producers are motivated by the desire to showcase forgotten or obscure works by people who didn't the attention (and money) they deserved for whatever reason.
"Daft Punk (and many other electronic artists) are mainly producers, and it's normal for producers of all kinds of music to hire sessions musicians and record them in the studio. Sampling is just another version of that."
This statement assumes they are not sampling other peoples music illegally. The law is based on the argument that if I sample so much as hiss from a record without consent that it is illegal. Why? The reasoning is that said hiss was recorded within a specific set of variables that can never be reproduced ever again in the exact same manner any time 'within the known universe'. Hence if you sample some hiss off a record its because you want that hiss and this is why sampling of other peoples recordings is illegal without consent.
http://www.samples.fr and http://culture.samples.fr/ are two sites dedicated to famous samples analysis, and they've been there for such a long time that the number of titles analyzed is huge. It's in french, but the videos speak for themselves
Agreed, so the sample is taken/used to create something new. I'm not saying that sampling is not creative, and I've done it myself on plenty of tracks.
But a sample only becomes creative after it is taken. You can't 'create' a sample because it is just a snippet of audio.
As the article says, it's about "building songs from samples".
I'm not being pedantic by the way.. I just see the person who 'created' the sample as the original recording artist.
I just see the person who 'created' the sample as the original recording artist.
This is a perpetual debate =D. Although I'm not sure its black or white. A good artist can use a "sample" in the same way a panatone color is used by a pointillist painter. At that stage, its all about the spectrum of color, the contrast, and the entire effevt of many points of color...not just the quality of the sampled pigments in any one brush-stroke.
Because it's tedious semantic quibbling, and it's not even correct. One samples a record, by doing this one creates a sample in ones sampler. One then plays this sample in a record of ones own, just like you would any other instrument or sound. You will likely manipulate the sample, like in the video, and then you will have created a new sample.
This isn't very clear in the video, because the editing process in modern software is very non destructive, so you never actually "make" a new sample. In the more primitive hardware of the past, the process is much more explicit.
If you have some other point to make about creative/artistic legitimacy, you should just make it.
So by your description, if it was really about how Daft Punk 'created' that sample, the article would just be a description of how they plugged a record player into a sampler and pressed the record button.
I guess it sounds like you're pretending not to understand what is a fairly simple linguistic ambiguity, in order to start and then win a boring argument.
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is confused about what it means to sample a song, or to create a sample, or to take a sample from a song. That would be a tedious semantic argument of no value.
So most people interpret would instead interpret it as snide commentary on the illegitimacy of sampling as an art.
Even if you didn't read that, you must at some point come to the conclusion the word "sample" is a bit ambiguous and might have many contexts and uses wouldn't you?
Trying to make yourself feel smart by making a witty one liner, which in all fairness was unjustified, won't win you any awards.
Another interesting video, Fred Falke creating (rather than recreating, though the result is similar to his other works) a song from scratch and talking through the process: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tblZ3EqRE0
If you're into this kind of thing, here's a great tutorial breaking down creating Justice vs. Simian Mobile Disco - We Are Your Friends... The teacher does a fantastic breakdown on how to create this type of sound.
Here's a similar, but more in-depth, video on making "Smack my Bitch Up" from The Prodigy. My mind was blown when it shows how "Bulls on Parade" was sampled :D
But he gives bad advice regarding the warping of samples. After Ableton 7.0 was released the warping system changed from move the time into the sample to move the sample into the time. He's trying to use Ableton 8.0's warping mechanism the same way it worked in 7.0.
Granted the end result is the same, however, Ableton 9.0 defaults to the newer warping system.
Way to take that quote way out of context. You make it sound like the Slate writer is supporting the quote, when it seems to me like he's arguing against it.
> A lot of people will see this video as proof of how building songs from samples takes a keen ear and a lot of skill: You’re not just “stealing” something, you're transforming it. Others will see it as proof of the opposite: Anyone can put a urinal on the wall and call it art. Of course, those people didn’t put a urinal on the wall, and they aren’t Daft Punk.
