Do you agree with J. Cole about music sampling?

soul rattler
soul rattler Members Posts: 18,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
Toward the end of the 14 minute and 35 second finale of "Note To Self" on the album 2014 Forest Hill Drive, I. Cole said the following:
And all the ? ' samples that cleared, thank you, y'all be tryin' to give a ? a hard time on the samples, man! I'm a go to the ? ' Supreme Court and try to make this ? easier for ? like me to clear these samples, man. If you made the ? ' music, and you made the art, and you put it into the world, I should be able to use it however the ? I want. I'm a pay you, I'm a give you a percentage, but you shouldn't be able to tell me I can't use it. Ya, that's ? '... that's ? up ? . You was inspired by the world allow the world to be inspired by your ? , and to use your ? . So all them people like [*censored*] or whoever that don't let ? use they ? , ? that man. It's 2014, 2015 by the time you might hear this ? . ? that man we movin' on

Agree or disagree?
«13

Comments

  • CJ
    CJ Members Posts: 15,312 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I get what he was saying but nah

  • bbkg79
    bbkg79 Members Posts: 613 ✭✭✭✭
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I wouldn't want my music being used for some ? i don't agree with. People make music with purpose sometimes and another artist could deflect from that purpose while minimizing the impact of your original work. In terms of people being influenced and making something similar, there shouldn't be any limitations unless the music is similar enough to be considered a clone. Regardless of what you want, you can't always control the outcome especially after you and yours are long gone. Disney is the most famous example of this but they would be the first ones to sue.

    Ten ? Commandments lawsuit...
  • soul rattler
    soul rattler Members Posts: 18,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
    disagree.


    i see what hes trying to say but nobody is entitled to use another person's work just because they put it into the world.


    its all about ownership.

    Ownership is all about money. Cole just said he'll pay up, he simply wants to be able to use what he wants at whatever price it costs.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    bbkg79 wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    I wouldn't want my music being used for some ? i don't agree with. People make music with purpose sometimes and another artist could deflect from that purpose while minimizing the impact of your original work. In terms of people being influenced and making something similar, there shouldn't be any limitations unless the music is similar enough to be considered a clone. Regardless of what you want, you can't always control the outcome especially after you and yours are long gone. Disney is the most famous example of this but they would be the first ones to sue.

    Ten ? Commandments lawsuit...

    Wow. I didn't know about this. Word, chuck D music super pro black and big made it into a ? anthem. lmao.
  • zombie
    zombie Members Posts: 13,450 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ? no under his idiotic reasoning the kkk could remake public enemy songs and make a profit.
  • 5th Letter
    5th Letter Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 37,068 Regulator
    zombie wrote: »
    ? no under his idiotic reasoning the kkk could remake public enemy songs and make a profit.

    They could if they wanted to. They just need permission if they're putting it out for profit.
  • DNB1
    DNB1 Members Posts: 19,704 ✭✭✭✭✭
    The person who owns the art/music has the right to say no.

    But the reality is that if you say no, it's just being petty and more than likely you rate yourself and your work better than it actually is.

    I understand tho, I'd be upset if I made something I considered timeless and some ? ? sampled the ? and butchered the ? out of it....but at the same time i'd use it as free promotion for my original work.

    Kind of tricky this one....
  • KingFreeman
    KingFreeman Members Posts: 13,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ? that wack ass capitalistic view. These ? really do just get money and start thinking like they're rich whites. What an idiot.
  • R.D.
    R.D. Members Posts: 20,156 ✭✭✭✭✭
    ? that wack ass capitalistic view. These ? really do just get money and start thinking like they're rich whites. What an idiot.

    Everybody has a capitulation view...the world was build on capitalism. grow up
  • Listencloser
    Listencloser Members Posts: 2,757 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2015
    It's time to go back to the mixtape era and ? this certified ? all together. CyHi gets the message. Free the Knowledge
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2015
    R.D. wrote: »
    ? that wack ass capitalistic view. These ? really do just get money and start thinking like they're rich whites. What an idiot.

    Everybody has a capitulation view...the world was build on capitalism. grow up

    Actually, a great deal of the world was built and is still being built on the spoils of war, slave labor and cronyism.
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited March 2015
    5th Letter wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    ? no under his idiotic reasoning the kkk could remake public enemy songs and make a profit.

    They could if they wanted to. They just need permission if they're putting it out for profit.

    It depends on if it can eventually earn or influence profit potential.
  • KingFreeman
    KingFreeman Members Posts: 13,731 ✭✭✭✭✭
    R.D. wrote: »
    ? that wack ass capitalistic view. These ? really do just get money and start thinking like they're rich whites. What an idiot.

    Everybody has a capitulation view...the world was build on capitalism. grow up

    Like the world is some great place in a great state. Unless ur white u should kys for saying that. Hate it has to be you @R.D
  • BarryHalls
    BarryHalls Members Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Cole just made himself look like an idiot because they CAN tell you if you can or cannot use it.
  • jonlakadeadmic
    jonlakadeadmic Members Posts: 4,735 ✭✭✭✭
    BarryHalls wrote: »
    Cole just made himself look like an idiot because they CAN tell you if you can or cannot use it.

    what? Cole is saying you should be able to use it regardless, although you WILL get paid.

  • R.D.
    R.D. Members Posts: 20,156 ✭✭✭✭✭
    R.D. wrote: »
    ? that wack ass capitalistic view. These ? really do just get money and start thinking like they're rich whites. What an idiot.

    Everybody has a capitulation view...the world was build on capitalism. grow up

    Damn

    All kind of typos
  • 5th Letter
    5th Letter Members, Moderators, Writer Posts: 37,068 Regulator
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    5th Letter wrote: »
    zombie wrote: »
    ? no under his idiotic reasoning the kkk could remake public enemy songs and make a profit.

    They could if they wanted to. They just need permission if they're putting it out for profit.

    It depends on if it can eventually earn or influence profit potential.

    How?
  • shtoopid
    shtoopid Members Posts: 2,546 ✭✭✭✭✭
    i agree. artists were saying the same things about photographers back in the day. composing is painting, sculpting, etc. sampling is photography, mixed media, graphic design. if i see an amazing building in public, ask for permission, and pay the owner a cut, there's no reason i shouldn't be able to photograph it, and put it up in a gallery.

    i understand getting mad about somebody taking your ? out of context, but that's the whole point of art. look at rapgenius lol. whether or not they miss the point completely, you should be happy that people are listening to your music, and enjoying it enough to put their own spin on it, and applying it to their own experiences.
  • TheGOAT
    TheGOAT Guests, Members, Writer, Content Producer Posts: 15,916 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I just wonder what he wanted to sample so bad and who wouldn't let him.

    He was clearly disappointed
  • Brian B.
    Brian B. Members Posts: 6,717 ✭✭✭✭✭
    disagree.


    i see what hes trying to say but nobody is entitled to use another person's work just because they put it into the world.


    its all about ownership.



    ehh, if you don't want anyone to use it keep it to yourself... cuz it will happen


    people can make a parody of your work & put it out w/o your consent, protected by law


    you think Mike would've cleared weird Al for this ? ? Lol

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcJjMnHoIBI
  • KillaCham
    KillaCham Members, Moderators Posts: 11,417 Regulator
    Yeah disagree. If you are the rightful owner, you should have a say in how your copyrighted material is used for profit. If someone is utilizing your art in a compromising (subjective) manner.. you should have a right to dead that ? . Poor Wale.
  • Bulletproof Wallets
    Bulletproof Wallets Members Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭✭✭
    I like RZA's opinion, stating that it should be a 50% cap on splitting up the royalties between the sampler and OG artists.