Do you agree with J. Cole about music sampling?
Options
soul rattler
Members Posts: 18,852 ✭✭✭✭✭
in The Reason
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:
Agree or disagree?
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?
Comments
-
Personally I'll be humbled and happy someone would want to use my art and pay me a percentage of their sales. I think its a double win. Its all on how the individual sees it.
-
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.
-
I get what he was saying but nah
-
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... -
TheEyeronic1 wrote: »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. -
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. -
? no under his idiotic reasoning the kkk could remake public enemy songs and make a profit.
-
? 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. -
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.... -
? that wack ass capitalistic view. These ? really do just get money and start thinking like they're rich whites. What an idiot.
-
KingFreeman 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 -
It's time to go back to the mixtape era and ? this certified ? all together. CyHi gets the message. Free the Knowledge
-
KingFreeman 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. -
5th Letter wrote: »
It depends on if it can eventually earn or influence profit potential. -
KingFreeman 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 -
Cole just made himself look like an idiot because they CAN tell you if you can or cannot use it.
-
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.
-
yea disagree...if an artists doesn't want you using their stuff regardless if you pay them or not then that's their right....cole tripping
-
KingFreeman 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 -
FuriousOne wrote: »5th Letter wrote: »
It depends on if it can eventually earn or influence profit potential.
How? -
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. -
I just wonder what he wanted to sample so bad and who wouldn't let him.
He was clearly disappointed -
TheEyeronic1 wrote: »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 -
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.
-
I like RZA's opinion, stating that it should be a 50% cap on splitting up the royalties between the sampler and OG artists.
