So I'm watching this movie on Youtube called The Lincoln Lawyer. The movie starts with Ain't No Love In The Heart of the City, the song Jay Z sampled for Heart of the City. As the movie was getting started I was wondering if the person who did the soundtrack got the idea to use that song from Jay Z's song, or if he was familiar with the original version by Bobby Blue Bland.. Maybe he had no idea that Jay Z sampled it and it's a coincidence. Then, about 10 minutes into the movie Music by Eric Sermon starts playing. Then about 16 minutes into the movie Don't Sweat The Technique by Eric B and Rakim starts playing. So now I'm inclined to believe that Heart of the City in the intro isn't a coincidence and the person in charge of the soundtrack listens to Hip Hop and probably got the idea to use that song by listening to Jay Z.
That got me thinking. Traditionally you have to pay the original artist for a sample. In the 90s people like myself used to dig in used record shops looking for rare records. And we'd get together at each other's houses and play samples for each other. It was like a sport, who could find records that had been sampled. But nowadays the original sample is so easy to obtain that all you have to do is use google or whosampled and you can usually figure out the original sample from any song. And you can stream/download it via youtube or iTunes or wherever. The culture of "digging in the crates" is a lost art.
Back in the 90s it was difficult to get ahold of the original song. I mean, I knew T.R.O.Y. sampled Honeysuckle Breeze by Tom Scott but that record was impossible to find. Same with All I Got Is You by The Charmels (C.R.E.A.M.) or I Wanna Do Something Freaky To You by Leon Haywood (Nuthin But A G Thing).
My point is that back in the 80s and 90s the logic behind the artist paying for samples was that if the new song was derivative of the old song, the owner of the old song should get a royalty. And it made sense because nobody was checking for the original song. I mean, in most cases you couldn't even find the original song even if you knew the title and the name of the artist.
But nowadays, it's so easy to find the original song, you can just type it in on Youtube and it will pop right up in 5 seconds. Therefore, the original song gets new life when somebody samples it. Heart of The City by Bobby Blue Bland, has 8,500,000 views on Youtube. I think (although there's no way to prove it) that the song got new life when Jay sampled it.
So nowadays with Youtube, and the fact that people can stream the original song that was sampled and it takes 5 seconds to find the original song, does it still make sense that the new artist should pay for sample clearance?
I mean, here's the sample that Premier used for Mass Appeal. It has 93,000 views. If DJ Premier didn't sample it how many views would the original song have? Maybe 100.
Anyway, here's that movie I was talking about, The Lincoln Lawyer. It starts with Heart of the City, at 10:00 Music by Eric Sermon comes in, and then around 16:00 Don't Sweat The Technique plays. And that's as far as I've got.
My point is that with the revolution of Youtube, songs that were once rare are at everybody's fingertips. Shouldn't that have an effect on the sampling laws? Because now if you want to hear the original sample you can stream it in 5 seconds, which is 1 stream for the original artist. Back in the 90s there was no equivalent to Youtube so it made sense that the original artist would want half of the new song's royalties, now not so much.
That got me thinking. Traditionally you have to pay the original artist for a sample. In the 90s people like myself used to dig in used record shops looking for rare records. And we'd get together at each other's houses and play samples for each other. It was like a sport, who could find records that had been sampled. But nowadays the original sample is so easy to obtain that all you have to do is use google or whosampled and you can usually figure out the original sample from any song. And you can stream/download it via youtube or iTunes or wherever. The culture of "digging in the crates" is a lost art.
Back in the 90s it was difficult to get ahold of the original song. I mean, I knew T.R.O.Y. sampled Honeysuckle Breeze by Tom Scott but that record was impossible to find. Same with All I Got Is You by The Charmels (C.R.E.A.M.) or I Wanna Do Something Freaky To You by Leon Haywood (Nuthin But A G Thing).
My point is that back in the 80s and 90s the logic behind the artist paying for samples was that if the new song was derivative of the old song, the owner of the old song should get a royalty. And it made sense because nobody was checking for the original song. I mean, in most cases you couldn't even find the original song even if you knew the title and the name of the artist.
But nowadays, it's so easy to find the original song, you can just type it in on Youtube and it will pop right up in 5 seconds. Therefore, the original song gets new life when somebody samples it. Heart of The City by Bobby Blue Bland, has 8,500,000 views on Youtube. I think (although there's no way to prove it) that the song got new life when Jay sampled it.
So nowadays with Youtube, and the fact that people can stream the original song that was sampled and it takes 5 seconds to find the original song, does it still make sense that the new artist should pay for sample clearance?
I mean, here's the sample that Premier used for Mass Appeal. It has 93,000 views. If DJ Premier didn't sample it how many views would the original song have? Maybe 100.
Anyway, here's that movie I was talking about, The Lincoln Lawyer. It starts with Heart of the City, at 10:00 Music by Eric Sermon comes in, and then around 16:00 Don't Sweat The Technique plays. And that's as far as I've got.
My point is that with the revolution of Youtube, songs that were once rare are at everybody's fingertips. Shouldn't that have an effect on the sampling laws? Because now if you want to hear the original sample you can stream it in 5 seconds, which is 1 stream for the original artist. Back in the 90s there was no equivalent to Youtube so it made sense that the original artist would want half of the new song's royalties, now not so much.
