Remixing reggae, Copyrights & royalities ?
Mark Hafner
i would be interested how this difficult topic will be handled in
practice.
1. if you are performing as a DJ live
2. if you are performing as a DJ on air or on the web
3. if you are publishing a CD
What is the opinion of artists ? Where are mostly the rights?
Producers ? Labels ?
Can you avoid conflicts, if you contact artists directly ?
My personal feeling is, that I never would pay the lawyermafia for
remixing reggae but would like to do it in peace and respect of the
original reggaeartists.
What is a practical solution ?
Webmaster
a royalty unless ASCAP, BMI, or one of the other performers-rights groups
scan the venue.
2. Same as #1 above. Typically, ASCAP doesn't scan small
independent/college stations, BMI does. This, of course, could change.
3. You owe mechanical royalties and publishing royalties and you have to
get permission from the OWNER of the song. Most of the time, this
(unfortunately) isn't the artist, but the record label.
And I might add, that going through an attorney would have protected a good
portion of the reggae artists who aren't being paid their correct royalties.
You may not like the system, but working without it only indicates to me
that you're trying to circumvent it...and possibly not pay. True or not
true, it's irrelevant. As a business owner, it's my job to look out for the
artists I represent.
Carol
(who is posting as herself right now, and not Peter's webmaster.)
"Mark Hafner" <marc...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ebf7291f.02011...@posting.google.com...
Christopher Albin Edmonds
> 1. If you're performing as a DJ live, chances are you'll never have to pay
> a royalty unless ASCAP, BMI, or one of the other performers-rights groups
> scan the venue.
you'd be surprised how often this is happening now, reggae spots included.
Webmaster
Carol
(who again, is posting as herself....not as the webmaster.)
"Christopher Albin Edmonds" <cedm...@Stanford.EDU> wrote in message
news:a2ahpq$3rt$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
FresnoReggae.com
I have never come across an artist OR label that DIDN'T want their music
played....
"Webmaster" <webm...@peterbroggs.com> wrote in message
news:pf328.6031$OS5.4...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Webmaster
Carol
"FresnoReggae.com" <webm...@fresnoreggae.com> wrote in message
news:XQm28.116621$fo5.28...@typhoon.we.rr.com...
Ashanti Levy
how does playing music at a club equate to stealing music?
STUTTERING JOHN
Mark Hafner
> portion of the reggae artists who aren't being paid their correct royalties.
> You may not like the system, but working without it only indicates to me
> that you're trying to circumvent it...and possibly not pay. True or not
> true, it's irrelevant. As a business owner, it's my job to look out for the
> artists I represent.
>
Hi,
I'm speaking about remix.
A good remix could be very different from the original track with new
creativity inside. So it should be very difficult to decide, whether
it's something new or not.
Also reusing riddims and postproduction is part of the reggae history
and lawyers practice in all countries is very different.
Is there a customary law accepted by the reggae community, artists and
labels ?
Mark Hafner
> how does playing music at a club equate to stealing music?
Good question ;-)
JahCedmon
club/venue who has to pay ASCAP/BMI since they are the ones hiring bands to
play. If the artist decide to record a cover tune then they need to get
permission and pay royalties to whomever the song/music belongs to. I remember
a couple of yrs ago a local venue was sued for $15 million for having live
shows and not paying BMI for royalties. I think it got settled out of court.
>> how does playing music at a club equate to stealing music?
>
>Good question ;-)
Ced, "Drummie",
Root Awakening--RAW #374
c/o Stamina! Productions
POB 4152, Santa Cruz, CA 95063
888-AWAKENING
http://rootawakening.iuma.com
Ashanti Levy
hypocritical since reggae music is music made to be played
at a dance....
jah bill
pay us our money. thank you.
--
one love
rasta 4 I
jah bill
"Ashanti Levy" <ash...@ashanti.fiyabun.com> wrote in message
news:slrna4papg....@ashanti.fiyabun.com...
Matthew L Miller
: and im sure their reply is: yes it was made for the dancehall. no problem.
: pay us our money. thank you.
Actually it would probably be more along these lines: I'm not registered with ASCAP or BMI, so if you're
going to give anyone money, give it to me.
That's what we're talking about here, whether it's necessary to send the mafia-like ASCAP protection
money which they claim to put towards a general fund for the support of artists...I'm sure that all comes
after the lavish executive salaries and funding for this door-to-door extortion that they engage in is
paid for....
A club that I used to play at here shut down because of that ASCAP crap, it's a damn shame since very few
of the songs performed there were registed with ASCAP. Probably somehting like 1%, but they can still
use their corporate weight to bully small, vulnerable businesses into paying them off, or shutting down.
I agree with Ashanti, this is music for the dancehall, half of the rhythms and melodies are stolen or
"adapted" anyway, and most of it's certainly not registered with ASCAP or BMI, and if they were it most
likely wouldn't be the artists getting the royalties anyway... this pay-per-view ASCAP business should
stay out of it.
--
******************************************************
Mark Hafner
if this system would be fair, then Jackie Mittoo should be rich as a
2nd Bill Gates
... or who is paying the originators of major and minor scales ?
Its just a new lawyers chainletter, like the whole world now.
A few cocaine guys payed by the laywermafia are trying to ripp off the
rest of the world. Same just is happing to "patentsystem" (most
"inventors are lawyers hehe :-))) - and trademarksystem. Crazy World !
So the whole software industry now is in lawyers hand. You will hardly
find any softwareengineer, who is owning his own business.
Do you know, how you can catch wild animals ???
Very easy:
Just give them meat ... and then put up fences around them during they
are eating ;-)
Hope, the Reggae Lion will be strong enough avoiding the poisoned
food.
Remixing is a new wonderful art for free people. Everybody, who is
trying blocking this art is part of the real babylon system
just my 2 cents
"jah bill" <wj...@dgweb.com> wrote in message news:<a2ipa...@enews3.newsguy.com>...
Mark Hafner
probably it would be a solution, if one can bring original artists,
DJ's, clubs etc. together into a "licensing direct"-network .. but who
will do it ?
Lawyersbiz just is business - and unfortunately a very successful
business, how the history of US-governments and other Governments in
Western countries did show.
Another solution could be, if a few of the original artists and labels
would place their stuff under a public license like GNU.
I personal don't know whether this would help, cause actually most
reggae artists aren't part of any lawyermafia like ASCAP, BMI, GEMA
etc., but of course the lawyerguys are getting all of licensing money
from distributed music.
So crazy situation now is.
If you are buying reggaemusic, you are paying the lawyermafia and of
course all the cocaine guys specially the "Top10Chart"-mafia around
them.
arrggghhh - crazy world !!! :-)
Rhythmwize
says...
>
>In this case it's not the band or DJ that will get harrased. It's the
>club/venue who has to pay ASCAP/BMI since they are the ones hiring bands to
>play.
How much money are we talking about here...say, per song played by
a DJ in a club?
IMO, there must be a better way... a DJ keeping track of each song played,
then sending the money to ascap/bmi...what nonsence that is!
john
XAC
own music in the Juke. One I know of has several reggae albums including some
Sizzla.
Mmmm Mac and Jack's African Amber, the best beer in the world.
Werner de Bruijn
> How are do royalties work for Juke boxes? I know of a few bars that put their
> own music in the Juke. One I know of has several reggae albums including some
> Sizzla.
Yeah, and how about when I'm at home playing my music so loud that the whole
block can hear it: do I have to pay?
Werner.
--
*************************************************
"Strickly Drum an' Bass mek yu wine up yu waist!"
*************************************************
Bjahn1
I agree with Ashanti, this is music for the dancehall, half of the rhythms and
melodies are stolen or
"adapted" anyway, and most of it's certainly not registered with ASCAP or BMI,
and if they were it most likely wouldn't be the artists getting the royalties
anyway... this pay-per-view ASCAP business should stay out of it.
>>
How do you think the artist who DO get money from ASCAP would think of this?
Bjahn1
reggae artists aren't part of any lawyermafia like ASCAP, BMI, GEMA
etc., >>
I beg to differ I know MANY, MANY who are now part of it(ASCAP). If they want
to collect....is more now than ever b4 that belong. They want what they are
entitled to as well .
Bjahn1
Remixing is a new wonderful art for free people. Everybody, who is
trying blocking this art is part of the real babylon system
>>
again I disagree,sort of, on a diff note, that is simmilar (sort of) as a
photographer if anyone takes ANY part of one of my photo's , and cuts it up in
some form (remix if u will) that is in direct copyright violation and can be
sued ... if they did not ask for permission to do so. Has been done several
times to me b4. People think if u give them a photo that they can do as they
please with it, and it's not the case, u need permission from the person who
made it.
True that most of ths depends on in some way if you are making any kind of
profit from it .... but i do get pissed off when people rip off my stuff ....
and I have sued, several times.
B
Bjahn1
Yeah, and how about when I'm at home playing my music so loud that the whole
block can hear it: do I have to pay?
Werner.
>>
u pay only the fine for disturbing the peace. LOL
Robert Nelson
XAC wrote:
> How are do royalties work for Juke boxes? I know of a few bars that put their
> own music in the Juke. One I know of has several reggae albums including some
> Sizzla.
>
any restaurant or bar who as much as plays the radio in the background while
their customers eat or drink are obligated to pay ASCAP a licensing fee.
Robert
Robert Nelson
Bjahn1 wrote:
I must have missed the original thread. Is the problem here that ASCAP is coming
after individual selectors who play in clubs or bars?
Robert
Matthew L Miller
: <<
: I agree with Ashanti, this is music for the dancehall, half of the rhythms and
They probably wouldn't like it, since they have an interest in the system being followed. I happen to
believe that this whole idea of intellectual property is about the crappiest idea to come along since
phrenology. I think that any given song /cannot/ be more than 5% original, and therefore to locate
ownership in just one person is ridiculous. And I feel the same way about photography...
If those artists want to make money off of music they should play shows and make records, not engage in
this ASCAP foolishness. That's my opinion, anyway.
--
******************************************************
Mark Hafner
Aarrghh...
I would agree you, if the "photocomposer" would sell it as an
original. If he is selling it as a new art, then it's a kind of
advertising for you
Did you pay all people which are on your photographs ??? Probably you
did not even ask them ;-)
JahCedmon
>>club/venue who has to pay ASCAP/BMI since they are the ones hiring bands to
>>play.
<<How much money are we talking about here...say, per song played by
>a DJ in a club?
>
>IMO, there must be a better way... a DJ keeping track of each song played,
>then sending the money to ascap/bmi...what nonsence that is!
>
>john >>
IMO, ASCAP/BMI need to leave the small clubs and venues alone. Many of these
places barely makes the money back that they paid for the band ..not to talk
about making a profit from it. Yet they have to comeup with the money to pay
the yearly fee.
A friend of my keyboardist worked at this brewery/rest. A couple of yrs ago
they decided they wanted to have live music a couple of nights a week. Some
months later they had a visit from a BMI rep. who warned them that they need to
get a license and need to pay BMI a yearly fee of $1000 for 'their music' being
played there! They were threatened with a lawsuit by BMI if the continue
without a permit.
Pure bully madness! And I would bet 10 cents that the writers/performers of the
music won't see a penny.
Peace,
DC
she says no, don't... when you finished the product send it to the
original artist so he can give permission...or not. Maybe for free
maybe for a fee maybe for a royalty percentage.
And also as long as it's not officially released, there's no problem.
As for performing as DJ in a venue. The venue is committed to pay a
certain amount per year to author rights organisation so don't worry
bout that, but when you play covers as a band you have to tell the
organisation what tunes you play. On radio shows you have to fill in
forms with what tune you played by what artist and how long you played
it. A radio station is obligated to record all they're broadcasting.
Most radio stations do that on timelapse video recorders so the author
rights organistation can ask for the tape to check it.
DC
Matthew L Miller
: IMO, ASCAP/BMI need to leave the small clubs and venues alone. Many of these
: places barely makes the money back that they paid for the band ..not to talk
: about making a profit from it. Yet they have to comeup with the money to pay
: the yearly fee.
I completely agree with this sentiment...the past 5 years have been a nightmare of corporate intrusion on
grassroots music scenes. They presume that you are playing music they control and demand this protection
money...what happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Let them sit there and listen and write it down
themselves, life's too short to be stopping to inform this octopus-like, parasitical corporation about
every record you play... Fire on this toll-booth mentality.
--
******************************************************
Bjahn1
therefore to locate
ownership in just one person is ridiculous. And I feel the same way about
photography... >>
so all work should be free for everyone? are u saying all photography is
derivitave, or only 5% original.Do people write books, plays, movies, just for
the fun of it, NO. they do it to make MONEY, Obviosly the people who do not
understand intellectual property right is NOT intellectual. IMO. example your
an inventor, u tell me your idea"that u copyrighted, patented" and I steal the
idea before u put it out, is that OK?
Bjahn1
I would agree you, if the "photocomposer" would sell it as an original. If he
is selling it as a new art, then it's a kind of advertising for you
Did you pay all people which are on your photographs ??? Probably you did not
even ask them ;-)
>>
people don't usualy credit you when they are ripping you off....
as a photographer ALL whom I photograph KNOW that I will be using the pictures
for whatever, magazine article , book, CD cover. I NEVER pay anyone to take
thier picture, just as a reporter would NEVER pay for a story. I am in the
business of photograhy and thats why people pay ME to do the work.I am usualy
ask to do the photo's so why would I pay anyone to take a pic. I have give some
people (in JA) a "ting" if they need it but I do not make it a practice...
Matthew L Miller
: << I think that any given song /cannot/ be more than 5% original, and
: therefore to locate
: ownership in just one person is ridiculous. And I feel the same way about
: photography... >>
:
: so all work should be free for everyone?
Yes...
are u saying all photography is
: derivitave, or only 5% original.
Yes I am. Technologically, stylistically, thematically derivative. Even the greatest genius can't go
beyond 5% in my opinion....same with inventions. Nothing comes from nowhere, there are always previous
links in the chain, and when you claim ownership you deny those links. That's egotistical and wrong, in
my opinion...
Do people write books, plays, movies, just for
: the fun of it, NO. they do it to make MONEY, Obviosly the people who do not
: understand intellectual property right is NOT intellectual. IMO. example your
: an inventor, u tell me your idea"that u copyrighted, patented" and I steal the
: idea before u put it out, is that OK?
The prevailing attitude, so common that most people just take it for granted as "the way the world
works," is that anytime a person creates something that somebody else might be interested in, they hold
out their hand expecting to be paid. Never mind the fact that they draw on the whole preexisting
universe of human creative endeavor to make what they make, as soon as it's made, they seem to think they
can take sole credit for it. I think that human creative evolution would be better served by breaking
down such barriers, not erecting them...if you create something and you /only/ want to share it with me
on your own terms, then I'm frankly not interested in you sharing it with me at all. Yeah, let's put
bean-counting middlemen like ASCAP between every musician and every selector, between every poet and
every reader of poetry... Let's put coin slots on the covers of library books.
And I take issue with your contention that people only write books or make music to make money, if that
was the case then they would probably be doing something more profitable. Most people that I know do
those creative things because it is fun, and then they worry about getting paid.
--
******************************************************
Webmaster
to choose which one to join -- and they're all registered with Harry Fox,
too. Maybe if more reggae artists would actually treat their
business.....<gasp!>....like a BUSINESS (apparently a novel idea....), they
wouldn't have to weep every time their royalty statements came in.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Bjahn1" <bja...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020124113849...@mb-cf.aol.com...
Webmaster
venues. If the rep finds that one of their artists' songs is being played,
the club pays a fee. If there's a band, and all of the music is original to
the band performing, there's no fee. But keep in mind, they're *random*
scans. There isn't an ASCAP or BMI rep in every club in America every night
of the week.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Rhythmwize" <Rhythmwi...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a2n87...@drn.newsguy.com...
Webmaster
an artist OR label that DIDN'T want their music played...." As if having
the music played was enough reward....and that getting paid isn't a
consideration.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Ashanti Levy" <ash...@ashanti.fiyabun.com> wrote in message
news:slrna4m5ao....@ashanti.fiyabun.com...
JJerfree
business.....<gasp!>....like a BUSINESS (apparently a novel idea....), >>
Carol -- In all of your posts you have seemed like a smart person, but here --
what happened?
Think of the reggae artist -- here they are trying desperately to get their
break lined up in frot of Jammy's studio -- two days woth of no food int heir
stomach. no education, and no real oppurtunities...So here comes Jammy ( or any
producer, A&R guy, Laywer, Publisher) and he says, "bwooy -- ya have tune fi
me?"
So, for that likkle bit of money -- you record a tune -- ya nah have the cash
for a laywer or any connection with Harry fox -- or even knwo about -- what you
are htinking of is bread...c'mon Carol -- ya blemae the youth?
Hmmm...recording is fucked up..go help and do not blame the youths for trying.
Bjahn1
<< Think of the reggae artist -- here they are trying desperately to get their
break lined up in frot of Jammy's studio -- two days woth of no food int heir
stomach. no education, and no real oppurtunities...So here comes Jammy ( or any
producer, A&R guy, Laywer, Publisher) and he says, "bwooy -- ya have tune fi
me?"
So, for that likkle bit of money -- you record a tune -- ya nah have the cash
for a laywer or any connection with Harry fox -- or even knwo about -- what you
are htinking of is bread...c'mon Carol -- ya blemae the youth?
Hmmm...recording is fucked up..go help and do not blame the youths for trying.
blame the youth for what, why would you blame them for trying to eat.? Blame
Jammy or whoever producer. They sure DO know whats goin on, and they usualy get
all the rights and $$ . Once this happens a few times to the struggling artist
, they catch on pretty quick ..
FresnoReggae.com
-Spleece
"Webmaster" <webm...@peterbroggs.com> wrote in message
news:meM48.19481$ag5.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Webmaster
able to cover their butts and treat their business in a professional manner?
Nope. Sorry -- I take the approach that once they see how things could be
for them, they'll take the higher road. Generally, I assume everyone is
intelligent until they prove otherwise.
But your post is pretty much in line with the attitudes of most record
labels and studios....the artists will take what they can get, instead of
what they actually deserve (to be compensated fairly for their recordings.)
It's been my personal goal over the past....what...10 years
now...yikes...long time...to see that at least some artists don't get
screwed by the system because they'd rather hire their "friend" Screechy or
Scratchy or whateverthehell...to take care of their business affairs.
Interestingly enough, part of the management side of what I do will be
making a big change over this year -- and it will be registered as a
501(c)(3) nonprofit organisation with the IRS. I've decided to concentrate
on artist development, and I'd rather see the money go towards educating
people instead of in my pocket. No, I'm not polishing my halo.....it just
seems to me that a well-educated artist (in terms of understanding how this
business really works) is a less pain-in-the-butt client for me.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"JJerfree" <jjer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020127064257...@mb-mf.aol.com...
Jesse I
cho! nah Werner, you should be charging them for the privilege of
listening to your tunes!
but seriously, this whole discussion reeks to me of babylon's greed to
me. yes, piracy is wrong, and no artists deserve to get ripped off that
way. but going through babylonian corporations and organisations to get
every last cent out of music being played (and promoted) in public,
that's just wrong. reggae music is roots and culture, and serves a
higher purpose - fuck the almighty dollar, praise and promote the
almighty father!
the more people that hear this music, the better. the people making it
deserve to be compensated for their work, the same as any workers, but
this ASCAP stuff can burn in fiya!
--
--- Jesse I --- Chant Down Babylon
je...@cnl.com.au Melbourne, Australia
http://www.chantdown.com 106.7 PBS FM / Sat 3-5pm
Bjahn1
seems to me that a well-educated artist (in terms of understanding how this
business really works) is a less pain-in-the-butt client for me. >>
true the more you know, the more you grow .....
Werner de Bruijn
> are u saying all photography is
> : derivitave, or only 5% original.
>
> Yes I am. Technologically, stylistically, thematically derivative. Even the greatest genius can't go
> beyond 5% in my opinion....same with inventions. Nothing comes from nowhere, there are always previous
> links in the chain, and when you claim ownership you deny those links. That's egotistical and wrong, in
> my opinion...
While this may be true, technically speaking, I really feel that in practice it's of little relevance, since
in many cases this 5% is exactly what makes a song special, very different from other songs that use the same
common 95% and in some cases even a masterpiece. Besides: aren't the most brilliant melodies very often the
ones that are so simple that you think: I could have come up with this myself? Well: you didn't, and that's
what makes the person who did original and in some cases even a genius.
(btw: I don't know if the 95% / 5% ratio you mention is actually the result of serious research on the
subject or just a rough estimate for argument's sake. If it's a research result I would be very interested if
you could provide a link)
Werner.
Werner de Bruijn
> It doesn't. I was responding to this statement: "I have never come across
> an artist OR label that DIDN'T want their music played...." As if having
> the music played was enough reward....and that getting paid isn't a
> consideration.
Maybe this is true for the majority of professional (in the sense of: making a
living from making music) artists, but I would just like to point out that
there are also many serious artists out there in the underground who actually
DO feel that the music being played is the main reward. I'm referring
specifically to the roots/dub soundsystem scene where there are many people who
are producing tunes with the sole purpose of them being played in the dance.
Having their dubs played by for instance a sound like Jah Shaka is a very
satisfactory reward in this scene. And believe me: these artists are just as
serious about their music than any 'professional' artist is.
Sure, if there's money to be made, as much as possible of it should go to the
artist, but don't you think that for anyone who has committed himself to making
reggae music, making money can not have been the first objective? (except of
course for Jamaicans).
Not disagreeing with you about the importance of looking after the artists'
rights,
Rhythmwize
"Webmaster" says...
>
>It doesn't. I was responding to this statement: "I have never come across
>an artist OR label that DIDN'T want their music played...." As if having
>the music played was enough reward....and that getting paid isn't a
>consideration.
>
or record that is being played. Playing the music is free advertising
and results in club patrons wanting to go purchase the music. This scheme of
billing the club for playing a tune sucks and is an outdated scam.
john
JJerfree
able to cover their butts and treat their business in a professional manner? >>
That is not at all what I was saying. Especially the part where you are
reffering to intelligence. What I meant to say is that many Jamaican artists
start in the position with a certain amount of desperation and a certain amount
of ignorance about the music business. There are not 5 million music business
attorneys in Kingston the way there are in NY.
Oftentimes young artists are treated as disposable -- The producer makes it
clear that there are 100s of other artists who are willing to work so if they
want the shot to record a record, they better make the choice immeidiatly. the
artist is then afraid that if they hesitate or express that they feel the money
or contract is a rip-off, they'll be passed over and lose their one chance.
I was not disparaging the artist, I was complaining about the system that
forces such choices.
Matthew L Miller
:
: While this may be true, technically speaking, I really feel that in practice it's of little relevance, since
: in many cases this 5% is exactly what makes a song special, very different from other songs that use the same
: common 95% and in some cases even a masterpiece. Besides: aren't the most brilliant melodies very often the
: ones that are so simple that you think: I could have come up with this myself? Well: you didn't, and that's
: what makes the person who did original and in some cases even a genius.
: (btw: I don't know if the 95% / 5% ratio you mention is actually the result of serious research on the
: subject or just a rough estimate for argument's sake. If it's a research result I would be very interested if
: you could provide a link)
That is a rough estimate. That would be some pretty tough research to do... I see what you are saying
about the importance of the 5% new contribution, but I still don;t think that is a good reason to locate
ownership exclusively with that person.
--
******************************************************
Webmaster
esoteric stuff doesn't matter to me. My focus is on my artists and making
sure they understand what their business is really about....and making sure
they're paid on time and in full.
I suppose it would be nice to be able to examine the system from all sides,
but I'm not "allowed" to. The system is what it is, and I have to work
within its parameters.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Werner de Bruijn" <wer...@akst.tn.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:3C5564A4...@akst.tn.tudelft.nl...
Webmaster
Individuals make the choice whether or not to sign a contract, and they make
the choice whether or not to rip someone off. People seem to forget -- it's
a two way street. I can choose to rip you off.....or you can choose to be
ripped off. Education about the system is key to *not* being ripped off.
This whole conversation has me thanking my lucky stars that I chose to do
what I do.... ;-)
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"JJerfree" <jjer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020128133016...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Jesse I
Webmaster wrote:
>
> But that's the problem. The system doesn't force those choices.
I think you fail to see his point - the system *does* force those
choices as the system currently stands in Jamaica. The choice between
signing the contract and eating a food, or not signing and starving, is
not much of a choice.
> Individuals make the choice whether or not to sign a contract, and they make
> the choice whether or not to rip someone off. People seem to forget -- it's
> a two way street. I can choose to rip you off.....or you can choose to be
> ripped off. Education about the system is key to *not* being ripped off.
> This whole conversation has me thanking my lucky stars that I chose to do
> what I do.... ;-)
>
> Carol
> Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
> http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
>
--
JJerfree
Thank you Jesse -- A forced choice is not a choice. It is life or death.
Rhythmwize
>
>I think you fail to see his point - the system *does* force those
>choices as the system currently stands in Jamaica. The choice between
>signing the contract and eating a food, or not signing and starving, is
>not much of a choice.
>
Jamaica because they didnt get that recording contract...Food for
subsistence is relatively easy to obtain...However, a decent pair
of shoes or a shirt or a few dollars to take your girl to the dance
would be the reason enuff to sign any contract, not much of choice indeed.
john
Mark Hafner
> so all work should be free for everyone? are u saying all photography is
> derivitave, or only 5% original.Do people write books, plays, movies, just for
> the fun of it, NO.
Some people are thinking, that Internet only is s.th. technical.
Million of slaves did design the possibility, that u can write in a
newsgroup.
DID YOU PAY THEM ???
> they do it to make MONEY, Obviosly the people who do not
> understand intellectual property right is NOT intellectual. IMO. example your
> an inventor, u tell me your idea"that u copyrighted, patented" and I steal the
> idea before u put it out, is that OK?
That is exactly how it is working ! I'm an engineer and think, that
i'm having some experience with patents.
Most patents are written by lawyers, who are working for the big money
industry
.. Do you really think, that real originators will
see some bucks out of this system ?
Mark Hafner
for me it seems, that you are agreeing to a law which prefers
photographs more then human being.
Don't you think that every human being on this earth is more art then
a fu..... photograph ? .. but there is no law, which protects people
for making money with their faces on photographs
my opinion: the truth is, that you are just part of a big brother
chainletter$$$
Werner de Bruijn
> but there is no law, which protects people
> for making money with their faces on photographs
Yes there is.
At least over here. ('portret recht')
Webmaster
complain about the system than actually do any research and find out what
the laws say.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Werner de Bruijn" <wer...@akst.tn.tudelft.nl> wrote in message
news:3C590586...@akst.tn.tudelft.nl...
JJerfree
Wow...we are certainly lucky that this "orginality" did not exist in the early
part of this century or we would have never gotten art forms like collage or
great cubist paintings.
It just seems to me that the world gives birth to our orginal ideas -- that is,
we are all formed by our experiences with the outside world and it is wise to
not overestimate our own "originality". It seems to me that all art is a form
of collage...whther music or art. this is not to say that artists should not
be paid royalties for radio play or for song reproduction...but that artist's
should be open to their music entering the outside world and being
re-interpreted by the people who are affected by it.
Webmaster
But the fundamental right of ownership remains. If you want to use someone
else's work and incorporate it into your own, great -- just remember to ask
permission, and if royalties are owed, pay them.
Musicians are no different than anyone else -- they deserve to be
compensated in every way for the work they create. And they also deserve to
retain the rights to their work -- to decide who uses it and when.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"JJerfree" <jjer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020131132434...@mb-cr.aol.com...
Mark Hafner
> Right. Artists should be, and most are, open to having their music redone.
> But the fundamental right of ownership remains. If you want to use someone
> else's work and incorporate it into your own, great -- just remember to ask
> permission, and if royalties are owed, pay them.
that is exactly what most remixartists would like to do. Hope many
artists will come with a website, that people can ask them directly
But nobody likes to pay a lemmingsystem like ASCAP/BMI or here in
Germany GEMA
Mark Hafner
Hi Werner,
also here in Germany
what I did mean is the common practice in private TV.
They call it journalism - but of course its just a virtual marketplace.
Mark Hafner
> Bjahn1 (bja...@aol.com) wrote:
> : << I think that any given song /cannot/ be more than 5% original, and
> : therefore to locate
> : ownership in just one person is ridiculous. And I feel the same way about
> : photography... >>
> :
> : so all work should be free for everyone?
>
> Yes...
>
> are u saying all photography is
>
> Yes I am. Technologically, stylistically, thematically derivative. Even the greatest genius can't go
> beyond 5% in my opinion....same with inventions. Nothing comes from nowhere, there are always previous
> links in the chain, and when you claim ownership you deny those links. That's egotistical and wrong, in
> my opinion...
>
Most reggae artists didn't pay Jackie Mittoo for his nice riddims
They just claim it ... and in my opinion: "claiming" sounds negativ,
but in reality it's the truth of culture.
If you are complaining about a senseless time, babylon system or
apokalypse you propably mean the death of culture (= the death of
learning from former ideas)
Mark Hafner
> But the fundamental right of ownership remains. If you want to use someone
> else's work and incorporate it into your own, great -- just remember to ask
> permission, and if royalties are owed, pay them.
>
Lets make a try - hehe ;-)
You are hosting Peter Broggs website .. probably you are having a
direct contact to him.
I would like to remix "International Farmer"
ok .. i like Peters voice, but what really makes me happy is the Roots
Radics & Scientist soundmix.
Whom I have to pay ???
+ Peter Broggs
+ Roots Radics
+ Scientist
+ RAS
+ BMG/ASCAP
Webmaster
Records. You'd have to call Gary Himmelfarb and get permission to redo the
song. Then you'd agree on a fee, of which I believe Peter would receive
half (that number would change as per the terms in the artist's contract).
And just for the record, I'm not the web host -- I'm the schmuck designer
and webmaster. ;-) The site is hosted by a company called HostSave -- very
good web host, if you're ever looking for one. (And no, I don't get
anything for saying that.....I don't participate in their referral
program....conflict of interest.)
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Mark Hafner" <marc...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ebf7291f.02020...@posting.google.com...
Matty
>...So here comes Jammy ( or any
> producer, A&R guy, Laywer, Publisher) and he says, "bwooy -- ya
have tune fi
> me?"
>
> So, for that likkle bit of money -- you record a tune...
And the reason they can do that is because if you say no, they will
go on to the next guy and ask him and he will do it for what you
have just turned down...
In other words the artists of today have no special something that
the audience wants, so they as individuals have no power. This is
music that anyone can do, and which takes no special talent at all.
If you look at true established artists, most of them in areas of
music outside reggae, they work at their art, establish themselves,
produce a high quality product, and are then able to turn the tables
on the A&R men, producers and record companies, and can work under
their own terms.
Modern reggae artists are disposable, like BIC razors - when they
wear out, throw them away and buy some more for a few cents.
Matty
Matthew L Miller
: In other words the artists of today have no special something that
: the audience wants, so they as individuals have no power. This is
: music that anyone can do, and which takes no special talent at all.
So, can YOU do it? No, of course you can't. You, or I, or just about anyone in this newsgroup could not
go into a studio, record a dacehall track, and expect anyone to listen to it or play it in a dance. It
is a highly competitive scene and the music takes talent to make, whether or not you appreciate that
fact.
I get so tired of people that say dancehall/hip-hop/what-have-you "takes no talent" and "anyone
could do it..." and then you put the same person in front of a mic with a beat rolling in the background,
and what do you think comes out?
: If you look at true established artists, most of them in areas of
: music outside reggae, they work at their art, establish themselves,
: produce a high quality product, and are then able to turn the tables
: on the A&R men, producers and record companies, and can work under
: their own terms.
:
: Modern reggae artists are disposable, like BIC razors - when they
: wear out, throw them away and buy some more for a few cents.
This is true of most commercial genres of music, and there are several dancehall artists like Capleton
who have had long careers...your anti-dancehall bias is clouding your reasoning ability.
--
******************************************************
Matty
news:a3rqs0$htj$1...@paladin.cc.emory.edu...
> Matty (idea...@net.ntl.com) wrote:
> : In other words the artists of today have no special something
that
> : the audience wants, so they as individuals have no power. This
is
> : music that anyone can do, and which takes no special talent at
all.
>
> So, can YOU do it? No, of course you can't. You, or I, or just
about anyone in this newsgroup could not
> go into a studio, record a dacehall track, and expect anyone to
listen to it or play it in a dance. It
> is a highly competitive scene and the music takes talent to make,
whether or not you appreciate that
> fact.
Well, I could certainly get a sequencer, and create a MIDI ridim -
anyone with a decent ear could.
Whether people would (choose to) listen to it or not is what is at
stake, and I contend that in today's scene whether it is successful
or not has little to do with talent. It has a lot more to do with
fashion. The dancehall of today is inward looking and
self-consuming.
> I get so tired of people that say dancehall/hip-hop/what-have-you
"takes no talent" and "anyone
> could do it..." and then you put the same person in front of a mic
with a beat rolling in the background,
> and what do you think comes out?
Somewhere else in another thread, a participant was contending that
only 5% of a song was 'created' and the other 95% belonged to a kind
of communal musical knowledge which was drawn from. Modern dancehall
reduces this to about half a percent. Don't talk to me about
hip-hop - there's more creativity and originality in 10 hip-hop
tracks than in 100 dancehall releases.
Why I say it is self-consuming is that to be successful involves
repeated use of the same ridim, lyrical content, phrases, vocal
technique and so on. If you're not in with this then you will
probably fail unless you're lucky (not talented, just lucky), when
your own ridim, lyrical content, phrases, vocal technique will catch
the moment and everyone will follow you.
Of course you have to be into this in order to appreciate it. If
you're into it, you know what to say, and you can bite everyone
else's lyrics and probably run the mic OK. I don't know if
cannibalising the output of many other artists who processed
material they heard before, and then adding your half a percent of
original ridim, lyrical content, phrases, vocal technique qualifies
as talent. Personally I think it's about as talented as learning
your multiplication tables at school, and about as useful as
declining a latin verb.
> : If you look at true established artists, most of them in areas
of
> : music outside reggae, they work at their art, establish
themselves,
> : produce a high quality product, and are then able to turn the
tables
> : on the A&R men, producers and record companies, and can work
under
> : their own terms.
> :
> : Modern reggae artists are disposable, like BIC razors - when
they
> : wear out, throw them away and buy some more for a few cents.
>
> This is true of most commercial genres of music, and there are
several dancehall artists like Capleton
> who have had long careers...your anti-dancehall bias is clouding
your reasoning ability.
Capleton, I agree, has talent and is individual. How many imitators
has he spawned, and how many have imitated the imitators ? And how
diluted does the talent become after they have made their slight
changes in ridim, lyrical content, phrases, vocal technique ?
You may call it anti-dancehall bias, I call it a critical
assessment. A lot of people here bemoan the lack of commercial
success and critical acclaim for dancehall. Just how will dancehall
develop and achieve anything when it is so introspective ?
Matty
Lars Rindelöf
idea...@net.ntl.com wrote on 2-02-06 18.47:
Who cares about a little ignorant bitch like you anyway...
Matty
"Lars Rindelöf" <lars.r...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:B8877EFD.7493%lars.r...@chello.se...
>
> Who cares about a little ignorant bitch like you anyway...
>
Discussion at its finest.
Sophisticated sentiments just like the 'music' you support.
I won't waste my breath trading insults with you.....
Ras Mikael Enoch
>Who cares about a little ignorant bitch like you anyway...
Woah !
Using the term "bitch" will likely bring the wrath of
Messy Dread against you and yours. Messy doesn't like
the word: bitch, even when it was describing a voodoo
sorceress witch named Racine Sans Butt, who used to
haunt rec.music.reggae.
____________________________________________
Ras Mikael Enoch
http://www.angelfire.com/journal/mikaelenoch
Matty
"Matty" <idea...@net.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:YYd88.5067$ZM5.5...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Modern reggae artists are disposable, like BIC razors - when they
> wear out, throw them away and buy some more for a few cents.
Commenting my own comment here, it's not fair to say that this
occurs only in reggae, just look at groups like Hearsay, Backstreet
Boys, Steps, etc.
Perhaps it's unfair to diss the artists without also dissing the
producers who churn out this short-term product. Hey, they're the
business guys, perhaps they should extend their horizons beyond next
week.
All these situations occur because of the current emphasis of style
over content, which also pervades film and the written media as
well.
Matty
JJerfree
the audience wants, so they as individuals have no power. This is
music that anyone can do, and which takes no special talent at all. >>
As both a heavy collector of reggae (both old and new) and a selector who plays
out to lots of people every week -- I completely disagree with you. My initial
point was that in a life of someone starving, getting a little bit of money for
a tune is better than having no money at all.
Also, you claim that dancehall is so introspective and without talent that it
cannot gain a wider audience -- but, when did reggae have a large audience with
the exception of the international reggae that appeared in the wake of Bob
Marley? I have always beleieved that one of the reasons that reggae remains
such a strong form of music is that it has devised its own standards for
success, rather than making an attempt to reach out for a hugely wide audience.
Also -- your statements about how successful artists "work at their art,
establish themselves, produce a high quality product" -- who are you talking
about in the modern field of music -- Brittany Spears? N'Sync, Matchbox 20? I
wpuld say that these artists have spent there time devising music that will not
offend anyone, and therefore have ammassed a catalog that will never sell
beyond the year 2005.
I dunno...you seem to hate dancehall and actually think that you or anyone
could make the music -- not to sound trite, but you can't. Sure, some of the
riddims are simple -- but when they they are good that simplicity has power and
drive. Yes, there are some relatively untalented artists -- but there are
some great artists right now making memorable songs that will be played in the
dancehall for years to come.
Matthew L Miller
: Whether people would (choose to) listen to it or not is what is at
: stake, and I contend that in today's scene whether it is successful
: or not has little to do with talent. It has a lot more to do with
: fashion. The dancehall of today is inward looking and
: self-consuming.
Whether you want to call it "fashion" or "talent," I seriously doubt that you could recreate it...
:
: Somewhere else in another thread, a participant was contending that
: only 5% of a song was 'created' and the other 95% belonged to a kind
: of communal musical knowledge which was drawn from. Modern dancehall
: reduces this to about half a percent. Don't talk to me about
: hip-hop - there's more creativity and originality in 10 hip-hop
: tracks than in 100 dancehall releases.
That was me who said that about the 95% thing. Anyway, this distinction between hip-hop and
dancehall....I just don't get it. Maybe your distance from hip hop or your lack of any investment in it
prevents you from perceiving that it is at least as derivative/self-focused as dancehall...I personally
don;t listen to much new hiphop because it's as boring to me as contemporary dancehall is to you...the
differnce being that I would attribute this to my personal tastes...
: Of course you have to be into this in order to appreciate it. If
: you're into it, you know what to say, and you can bite everyone
: else's lyrics and probably run the mic OK. I don't know if
: cannibalising the output of many other artists who processed
: material they heard before, and then adding your half a percent of
: original ridim, lyrical content, phrases, vocal technique qualifies
: as talent. Personally I think it's about as talented as learning
: your multiplication tables at school, and about as useful as
: declining a latin verb.
Yes, it's obvious that you have no respect for the culture at all, even though it's been established that
you could not replicate the products that you view as so facile. The point has been made many times
before that 70s reggae had at least as much versioning, re-riddiming, imitation, style-biting,
name-biting, what-have-you as dancehall does. Only the names and the sounds have changed, the basic
patterns of culture making in Jamaica remain the same today as they were in the 50s-60s-70s.
--
******************************************************
Matthew L Miller
: All these situations occur because of the current emphasis of style
: over content, which also pervades film and the written media as
: well.
Style /is/ content.
--
******************************************************
Matty
> Matty (idea...@net.ntl.com) wrote:
> : Whether people would (choose to) listen to it or not is what is
at
> : stake, and I contend that in today's scene whether it is
successful
> : or not has little to do with talent. It has a lot more to do
with
> : fashion. The dancehall of today is inward looking and
> : self-consuming.
>
> Whether you want to call it "fashion" or "talent," I seriously
doubt that you could recreate it...
Why would I want to ? I don't have to be able to paint in order to
determine whether a painting is good or not. Nor does that preclude
someone else from liking it if it's to their taste.
The point that I was making about talent is similar to this. I'm
walking along the banks of the Seine in Paris and I want a to buy a
sketch. If I want any sketch, which is good enough, I can choose
between lots of artists, and if one's too expensive I can move on to
the next one, pay my 20 Euro and get what I want. I can't draw, but
they can, and what they do is good enough. However it is never going
to make it into an art gallery, neither is anyone going to applaud
it as a work of art.
If I want a great picture, I have to pay more - the artist has me at
their mercy rather than the other way around. Lesson: to become more
wealthy, become a better artist.
In the same way that abstract and repetitive paintings have been
applauded as 'great art' in the past by other artists and their
accomanying sheep, they have never been recognised as such by the
public at large, who remain uninterested in them.
Before you cry that I'm therefore a 'traditionalist', I would point
out that this is not true. Tracy Emin's bed and other similar
creations are more interesting than these repetitive paintings.
> : Somewhere else in another thread, a participant was contending
that
> : only 5% of a song was 'created' and the other 95% belonged to a
kind
> : of communal musical knowledge which was drawn from. Modern
dancehall
> : reduces this to about half a percent. Don't talk to me about
> : hip-hop - there's more creativity and originality in 10 hip-hop
> : tracks than in 100 dancehall releases.
>
> That was me who said that about the 95% thing. Anyway, this
distinction between hip-hop and
> dancehall....I just don't get it. Maybe your distance from hip
hop or your lack of any investment in it
> prevents you from perceiving that it is at least as
derivative/self-focused as dancehall...I personally
> don;t listen to much new hiphop because it's as boring to me as
contemporary dancehall is to you...the
> differnce being that I would attribute this to my personal
tastes...
Well, I do listen to quite a bit of hip-hop, and I would concede to
you that it is probably my distance from dancehall and /your/
distance from hip-hop which leads us to these opposing views. The
antidote to this seems to be a suggestion that I should listen to
more dancehall, and my experience of this would suggest that it
probably won't change my assessment.
> : Of course you have to be into this in order to appreciate it. If
> : you're into it, you know what to say, and you can bite everyone
> : else's lyrics and probably run the mic OK. I don't know if
> : cannibalising the output of many other artists who processed
> : material they heard before, and then adding your half a percent
of
> : original ridim, lyrical content, phrases, vocal technique
qualifies
> : as talent. Personally I think it's about as talented as learning
> : your multiplication tables at school, and about as useful as
> : declining a latin verb.
>
> Yes, it's obvious that you have no respect for the culture at all,
even though it's been established that
> you could not replicate the products that you view as so facile.
Er, well, it's true that I can't find anything very positive in
dancehall culture, nor do I find much to admire in hip-hop culture
(apart from the fact that the music is better).
By the way, an assertion by yourself that I cannot do something does
not establish anything.
> The point has been made many times
> before that 70s reggae had at least as much versioning,
re-riddiming, imitation, style-biting,
> name-biting, what-have-you as dancehall does. Only the names and
the sounds have changed, the basic
> patterns of culture making in Jamaica remain the same today as
they were in the 50s-60s-70s.
Well yes, this is true, but only to an extent. Answer versions to
records were common, and then when DJ's arrived at the turn of
'69/'70 then it became common for a producer to do a vocal cut, DJ
cut, version(dub) cut and then possibly an instrumental. Then you
might get covers from other producers, or old records recycled in
the current style, with their versions, or licensed backing tracks
(Yamaha Skank)
Fine, but version albums and 10-16 cuts on one unchanging
computerised MIDI ridim released in a 2 week period just bore me
sh*tless. I'm happy to admit that computerised dancehall ridims do
nothing for me, and that complexity rather than repetition are what
I look for. That's another thing there's more of in hip-hop,
rhythmic variation, even though it is done with computers.
This /is/ personal taste, but I expect you're going to tell me that
programming a MIDI computer takes as much talent as 10 guys and an
engineer learning to play and operate their instruments - I'd take
some convincing.
Matty
Werner de Bruijn
> Why would I want to ? I don't have to be able to paint in order to
> determine whether a painting is good or not. Nor does that preclude
> someone else from liking it if it's to their taste.
Funny distinction you make here:
Let me get this straight: so you are able to 'determine' what is 'good'
and what is not, while you grant us other people no more than the right
to say if we 'like it'?
hm...
> The point that I was making about talent is similar to this. I'm
> walking along the banks of the Seine in Paris and I want a to buy a
> sketch. If I want any sketch, which is good enough, I can choose
> between lots of artists, and if one's too expensive I can move on to
> the next one, pay my 20 Euro and get what I want. I can't draw, but
> they can, and what they do is good enough. However it is never going
> to make it into an art gallery, neither is anyone going to applaud
> it as a work of art.
>
> If I want a great picture, I have to pay more - the artist has me at
> their mercy rather than the other way around. Lesson: to become more
> wealthy, become a better artist.
I suppose you would have told Vincent van Gogh, who died poor and
without any public recognition, this same thing?
> In the same way that abstract and repetitive paintings have been
> applauded as 'great art' in the past by other artists and their
> accomanying sheep, they have never been recognised as such by the
> public at large, who remain uninterested in them.
Again, this fits Van Gogh completely: he was admired only by a couple of
his colleagues, like Paul Gauguin, but 'the public at large' ridiculed
his style of painting.
But going back to music: what would be your point of the above?
Britney Spears = recognized by the public at large = talent?
> Before you cry that I'm therefore a 'traditionalist', I would point
> out that this is not true. Tracy Emin's bed and other similar
> creations are more interesting than these repetitive paintings.
Says who? You.
I just looked at a picture of this and you know what the funny thing is?
The first thing that comes to mind is that anyone who says this is art
is probably just a sheep following what the art critics say is art. I'm
not kidding.
So what am I, having nothing but abstract paintings on the walls of my
appartment? Am I one the 'accompanying sheep'? I'm sorry, but I hardly
know anything about art, don't know any visual artists in person, so I
don't see who it should be that I'm following.
I just buy what I like and what I like happens to be different than what
'the majority of the people' likes. So what? What is the conclusion from
that? As far as I'm concerned there is no deeper conclusion: the
statement that I just happen to like something different IS the
conclusion.
You were talking about hip hop and how today that is more interesting
than dancehall.
Well, I could replicate your whole reasoning by saying that 15 years ago
hip hop was much more interesting than the lame, uninspired stuff that
is being produced today. And I could go on and on about how, compared to
my old skool heroes, most of todays rappers are completely talentless
and don't have any skills and completely lack the 'flow' that makes a
good rapper.
And I would mean it too, with the difference that I have no problem
accepting that I feel this way because the music has just taken a
direction that doesn't appeal to me as much as the 'old' stuff did.
My point, Matty: why isn't it sufficient for you to just say that todays
dancehall just doesn't appeal to you musically and accept that it does
to others in the same way that your favorite style appeals to you? Or do
you have any special qualities that makes your taste actually a measure
for what is good and what's not?
If so: tell us all about it.
Webmaster
window. Who's to say that a gallery owner, walking right behind you along
the Seine, doesn't see one of those paintings as the Next Great Work of Art?
Hell -- I have this painting I did....I never thought it was anything
special -- just something I did for myself. Someone saw it and gave me
close to $5000 for it. Was it a great work of art? Apparently it was, at
least to the guy who bought it.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
SUPPORT REGGAEFUSION! www.reggaefusion.com
"Matty" <idea...@net.ntl.com> wrote in message
news:sUP88.4396$YA2.9...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
JJerfree
Werner -- I agree with you 100% on just about everything that you have written
in this thread.
I too have found that in the past 6 years or so, the concept of flow has become
totally devalued in hip-hop while melody and hooks have taken pre-eminence.
However, when one of my friends points out that present-day hip-hop, in casting
away the very things that made it appealing to me in 1986, it has gained a
strong mainstream appeal and the same complexity of traditional pop music, I
have to agree. My own tastes enjoy older hip-hop, but I really cannot scoff at
the direction that it has grown into. Its just funny to me that in reality,
the ridiculed (at the time) MC Hammer is much more of an influence to the
modern state of hip-hop than a great band like the Jungle Brothers.
Alexander Petrushko
|If I want a great picture, I have to pay more - the artist has me at
|their mercy rather than the other way around. Lesson: to become more
|wealthy, become a better artist.
Talent does not equal money: what you have above is a skewed version
of supply and demand. (Artists in demand may command higher fees).
Many a great artist, writer, film star have been miserable at the end of
their lives yet others have a lot of street cred and no wealth.
Example: Eminem toiled for 10 years in obscurity before "making" it.
His first single was in late 80s and he was well known in Detroit
hip-hop scene.
|In the same way that abstract and repetitive paintings have been
|applauded as 'great art' in the past by other artists and their
|accomanying sheep, they have never been recognised as such by the
|public at large, who remain uninterested in them.
I am part of a public at large and I love abstract art. If you have
a Pollock or Rothko lying around, I'll take it.
|Well, I do listen to quite a bit of hip-hop, and I would concede to
|you that it is probably my distance from dancehall and /your/
|distance from hip-hop which leads us to these opposing views. The
|antidote to this seems to be a suggestion that I should listen to
|more dancehall, and my experience of this would suggest that it
|probably won't change my assessment.
|
|Fine, but version albums and 10-16 cuts on one unchanging
|computerised MIDI ridim released in a 2 week period just bore me
|sh*tless. I'm happy to admit that computerised dancehall ridims do
|nothing for me, and that complexity rather than repetition are what
|I look for. That's another thing there's more of in hip-hop,
|rhythmic variation, even though it is done with computers.
|
|This /is/ personal taste, but I expect you're going to tell me that
|programming a MIDI computer takes as much talent as 10 guys and an
|engineer learning to play and operate their instruments - I'd take
|some convincing.
I'll be happy to settle your debate guys -- I listen to both dancehall
and hip-hop aplenty and regularly review records that are sent to our
radiostation by labels. Digital dancehall on one riddim bad? Yeah there's
plenty of crap but there's just as much of it in hip-hop and I'd even
tip the scales in favor of dancehall when it comes to quality vs quantity
simply because there are a lot more kids with means to buy a sampler and
cook up some beats in hip hop rather than dancehall therefore flooding the
market with mediocre product.
On the other hand hip-hop being the all-encompassing genre that it is
has some brilliant producers, MCs, scratch monkeys and zines. Someone like
Dan the Automator or Anticon collective are far and above their dancehall
counterparts but they're redefining hip-hop as a genre whereas dancehall
producers and consumers are happy with it the way it is.
I wouldn't mind some Japanese TV ads splattered with lo-fi noise a la Anticon
to be part of a dancehall track but I don't think the public at large will
buy it. There's no accounting for taste but concentrate on the positive and
keep an open mind.
Cheers,
Alex
---
KALX 90.7 FM http://kalx.berkeley.edu
Mark Hafner
> No, you'd have to pay the record label, not Peter -- the label is RAS
> Records. You'd have to call Gary Himmelfarb and get permission to redo the
> song. Then you'd agree on a fee, of which I believe Peter would receive
> half (that number would change as per the terms in the artist's contract).
>
till now I got no response on my request
In my opinion its a typical reaction of the "copyrightholders".
If you are asking for conditions then you get no answer. But if you
are releasing a remix, then they are coming with their lawyers.
Webmaster
saying, that's your problem -- not mine or anyone else's. Apparently you
didn't hear what you perceived to be the "right" answer -- the one that
suits you. Sorry -- we're not here to suit you, we're here to protect the
artists from people like you.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Mark Hafner" <marc...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ebf7291f.02021...@posting.google.com...
Matthew L Miller
: On the other hand hip-hop being the all-encompassing genre that it is
: has some brilliant producers, MCs, scratch monkeys and zines. Someone like
: Dan the Automator or Anticon collective are far and above their dancehall
: counterparts but they're redefining hip-hop as a genre whereas dancehall
: producers and consumers are happy with it the way it is.
Now, I agreed with your post up until this point. "Far and above" is a matter of opinion, I guess...I
see the folks you named as intellectual dilletants whose works will be largely forgotten in the future,
when music fans are scrambling to get their hands on the Complete Works of Mystikal. Everybody thought
James Brown's music was transitory, simplistic, bootyshake that wouldn't have any lasting value...how
wrong they were.
--
******************************************************
Jesse I
Webmaster wrote:
>
> I answered your question in full. If you choose not to listen to what I'm
> saying, that's your problem -- not mine or anyone else's. Apparently you
> didn't hear what you perceived to be the "right" answer -- the one that
> suits you. Sorry -- we're not here to suit you, we're here to protect the
> artists from people like you.
>
> Carol
"people like you"?
guy wants to do a remix = guy wants to rip off original artist?
sheesh...
--
--- Jesse I --- Chant Down Babylon
je...@cnl.com.au Melbourne, Australia
http://www.chantdown.com 106.7 PBS FM / Sat 3-5pm
Webmaster
label and get their permission (or to whomever owns the copyrights to the
songs, which in a lot of cases is the record label.) I gave him all of the
information he needed, and still he has to argue. So yes, the fact that
he's not willing to listen makes him suspect in my book. People who don't
want to work within the system usually aren't in it to make sure the artists
are taken care of.
Harsh? Maybe. But if you sat listening to some artists' stories about how
they did an album 20 years ago, it climbed the charts -- had a hit single or
two -- and they've never seen more than the $5000 up-front money they were
given.....you'd maybe be a little more open to the idea that music isn't,
nor should be, free for the taking. Artists produce music in the same way a
craftsman produces handmade furniture. CDs are product, just like a dresser
or sofa. And the artist deserves to be compensated for the hard work that
went into the CD....not ripped off by two-bit so-called DJs whose only
talent is to press a button or two to program a sampler and steal other
peoples' music.
</end of lecture>
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Jesse I" <je...@cnl.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C687409...@cnl.com.au...
messian dread
I do agree that artists should get payed. But aren't you over-reacting?
I mean, you respond to a posting of me where I give links to Peter Broggs mp3's, obviously without
checking it, because I only give links to legal mp3 files and epitonic is a legal mp3 site. Now
you're responding to what you say is someone who press a button or two on the sampler, and you're
defending "the system". But if you look to the story you told us, about ripping the artist, it was
not a dj, but a record label, yes? the shitstem.
Peace and respect Iah.
May I wish you Peace and Love
Messian Dread
My Music: http://www.ampcast.com/mdread
Visit the Dubroom: http://www.dubroom.org
- original reggae in midi and mp3 - loops - articles -
- interviews - fora - reviews - links - meditations -
Werner de Bruijn
> He was arguing with the fact that I told him he'd need to go to the record
> label and get their permission (or to whomever owns the copyrights to the
> songs, which in a lot of cases is the record label.) I gave him all of the
> information he needed, and still he has to argue. So yes, the fact that
> he's not willing to listen makes him suspect in my book. People who don't
> want to work within the system usually aren't in it to make sure the artists
> are taken care of.
Hm, when he said "till now I got no response on my request " I was under the
impression that he had actually followed your advice and had contacted RAS
records and didn't get a response from _them_ yet........
Note also that he says: "In my opinion its a typical reaction of the
"copyrightholders""
"copyrightholders": that doesn't refer to you, does it?
> And the artist deserves to be compensated for the hard work that
> went into the CD....not ripped off by two-bit so-called DJs whose only
> talent is to press a button or two to program a sampler and steal other
> peoples' music.
And why start this discussion again? sigh.....
Your focus is supposed to be defending the artist's legal rights, 'talent' or
the lack thereof of the person 'stealing' your artist's music shouldn't be an
issue for you in your role as legal representative.
Mark Hafner
> I answered your question in full. If you choose not to listen to what I'm
> saying, that's your problem -- not mine or anyone else's. Apparently you
> didn't hear what you perceived to be the "right" answer -- the one that
> suits you. Sorry -- we're not here to suit you, we're here to protect the
> artists from people like you.
>
>
Hehe :-))) ... I can see on your reaction that I did find the point
;-)
"Copy&Paste" is the truth about culture and specially Reggaemusic.
Otherwise Jackie Mittoo should be richer then Bill Gates ;-)
If you guys decide to go with the laywermafia instead of communicating
with remixartists and real reggae lovers then it's your problem. But
you have to tell people exactly terms&conditions for using your
products and not coming behind with lawyers.
In my opinion I did ask a simple question:
----------my email--------
Hello RAS,
I'm performing as a DJ and Dub/Remixartist and would like to remix
"International Farmer" (Peter Broggs).
Whats about terms&conditions and fees for
a) performing the remix as an artist in clubs
b) streaming on the web
c) releasing the remix on CD or vinyl
thanks for your information
best regards,
Mark Haffner
-----------------------------
Why can't I expect a simple answer to a simple question ???
Mark Hafner
>
> guy wants to do a remix = guy wants to rip off original artist?
>
> sheesh...
and "original" artists did rip off the originators of major and minor
scales ???
hehe :-))) ... this lawyermafia is killing culture with a awful
chainletter argumentation
In my opinion:
lawyerbiz©rights are marketing
remixing also is a kind of marketing
But a remix only is art, if it has some new creativity inside.
Just copying music with a commercial backround is stealing music.
Of course the problem is to decide when it is art
bass, piano, drums etc are instruments
A computer also is an instrument. Why artists mustn't pay fees for
using instruments ?
Hmmmh ... in my opinion it's just worth to think about this term -
specially if you are seeing the historical aspects of reggae behind
it.
Lars Rindelöf
sales-figures regarding any artist in any genre it takes to make any money
at all?
Most artist earn their money from touring and merchandaise. The Record
companies take the major part of the money generated through record sales
(Promotion, videos etc)
I do not feel sorry for those "poor" Jamaican artists. They made a choice an
I assure you that very few if any of them would be millionaires today even
if their contracts had looked different (ie, royalties instead of royalties
upfront. )
Things simply does not work that way.
Lars
Webmaster
things about that, too. Let's just say this -- You did the right thing by
contacting Record Label A. Now....the chances of Record Label A responding
are probably slim to none, because Record Label A's motives aren't
necessarily about protecting the artist. In fact, they're probably the
polar opposite.....
Did I get the message across without having to be direct? ;-)
And just for the record, I don't represent Peter Broggs in any way other
than in the capacity of lowly web designer and webmaster. On the other
hand, if you do hear back, I would be more than interested in knowing the
terms and conditions they give you. I have my theory.....would be
interesting to see if it pans out.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net~csott
"Mark Hafner" <marc...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ebf7291f.02021...@posting.google.com...
Webmaster
point: "I assure you that very few if any of them would be millionaires
today even if their contracts had looked different (ie, royalties instead of
thing to more than one artist -- "You will never get rich off this....you
have to understand that reggae has a limited audience...blah blah blah
blah...." And they still don't get it half the time. I have no grand
illusions about reggae music --- but the little money that does come in
belongs to the artists. So I spend a *lot* of time protecting that little
bit of money. For me, collecting $2000 in back royalties from a dishonest
record label is a *major* haul -- and cause for celebration.
And I also agree with you about the choices the artists have made. But
making bad choices when you're in your twenties is no excuse for someone
ripping you off when you're 50. Basically, my job description boils down to
two words: Damage Control. I go back and undo all of the stupid choices
and bad decisions that were made in the beginning and down the line, and
then try to come up with a halfway comfortable solution for everyone
involved. I always advise against lawsuits (gain to outlay ratio is usually
not in favour of the artist, but the lawyer) unless we're talking about a
really substantial sum of money (like say in the millions)....and I've yet
to meet a reggae artist who would stand to gain that much money.
And then there's the marketing end......(sigh). The CDs I get from artists
are sometimes SO BAD (either poor sound quality or just plain horrible
music/singing) I wonder about the future of the genre. Once I even walked
down to the Patapsco River and threw a CD in.....the only way to keep it out
of the hands of innocent people -- it was truly *that* bad. I could
literally do this 24 hours a day, 365 days a week, and still there'd be more
to do. Sometimes I think about throwing in the towel, but then again, I do
enjoy my work. Must have a masochistic streak.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Lars Rindelöf" <lars.r...@chello.se> wrote in message
news:B8901047.77D3%lars.r...@chello.se...
Webmaster
about Peter. Peter already has representation, I assure you.
And I did indeed check the site with the Peter Broggs MP3s. I always check.
I might not tell you I've checked.....but I do. And it's not just some of
the record labels who are dishonest -- it's some of the CD manufacturers,
promoters, booking agents, DJs, clubs/venues -- the list goes on and on.
It's not *all* of them -- just some.
But look for example at the message you posted when mp3.com stopped paying
royalties....you were upset about it -- slammed the company for what they
were doing -- talked about how you were being cheated out of a source of
income. We're *all* incredibly indignant when our income is
threatened....so why should other artists be any different? Hmmm...were you
overreacting?
It's like I told someone who e-mailed me and said I was a big bitch for
"talking bad about DJs" --
Call me bitch now, you'll call me "sister" when I'm fighting for you. It's
all a matter of where you're sitting.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"messian dread" <nos...@dub.at.dubroom.point.com> wrote in message
news:b1hh6u8b99tv6ufsh...@4ax.com...
messian dread
I wouldn't call you "bitch", never. I am not into that, disagreements should not lead to a list of
names for female animals.
But you replied to my message about the mp3's, in a way that was suggesting that here there was
piracy or something, which is not the case. Epitonic pays artists. Maybe I should mention that
everytime that I post an update here in the newsgroup. All I do is gathering links to legal mp3's on
the Internet and gather them.
If you checked, I assumed you didn't cause you didn't reply anymore. So to me it was like you accuse
me of something so to speak and then when this proves to be not one in accordance with reality, this
accusation, then it would perhaps have been a nice thing to slighlty mention that.
I am still upset about MP3.com, I think that we as artists have gotten injustice. I see it as a move
from the big guys to lower the possibilities for artists to get a living without their
interfearance. I am also upset about the paranoia of the music industry when it comes to mp3 files
in general. I think it shows the ugly face of the music industry. And although I might end up in a
contract situation myself as well, this will not change my view.
Webmaster
It was a figure of speech, Messian. Don't worry. ;-)
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.earthlink.net/~csott
"messian dread" <nos...@dub.at.dubroom.point.com> wrote in message
news:oldl6us4cfp8k30te...@4ax.com...
Rhythmwize
says...
>
>Listen -- when I'm referring to the artists I represent, I'm *not* talking
>about Peter. Peter already has representation, I assure you.
So, the "artists" YOU represent...who are they, care to list them?
Sounds to me like your just pulling everyone's leg, about all these
artists you are doing such great work for...recovering monies owed, etc.
john
Jeremy
speaking of representaion...
on saturday, the i will be representing san diego
while in north ventura county..
westlake to be exact..
come by john for some food.
Mark Hafner
> Hmmm.....I see....you wrote to Record Label A. Well I could say a few
> things about that, too. Let's just say this -- You did the right thing by
> contacting Record Label A. Now....the chances of Record Label A responding
> are probably slim to none, because Record Label A's motives aren't
> necessarily about protecting the artist. In fact, they're probably the
> polar opposite.....
>
> Did I get the message across without having to be direct? ;-)
>
> And just for the record, I don't represent Peter Broggs in any way other
> than in the capacity of lowly web designer and webmaster. On the other
> hand, if you do hear back, I would be more than interested in knowing the
> terms and conditions they give you. I have my theory.....would be
> interesting to see if it pans out.
Hi Carol,
well, I also have my theory and what I would like to show is that
current "copyyright"-situation isn't in any interest of artists and
culture. It's just a senseless money chainletter of a few lawyers.
I also didn't expect any answer .. so their "reaction" really didn't
surprise me
But whats now ? ... any ideas ???
Webmaster
scenes on the business end. My involvement with them is strictly to make
sure they don't get screwed down the line when they're famous. And as for
the collection efforts -- that's not public information, but priveleged. I
certainly wouldn't name names, and it would be a terrible breach of
confidence for me to do so. Is it that important for you to know who's
being screwed by their record label? And who'd want to do business with
someone who'd plaster their name all over the internet with the words
"....is broke" alongside? Think about it, sheesh.
As for your feelings about me, well that's not really my concern -- believe
what you want.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Rhythmwize" <Rhythmwi...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:a4f8h...@drn.newsguy.com...
Webmaster
this -- it has nothing to do with lawyers....in fact, the only lawyers I
know are artist's-rights lawyers who volunteer their time and don't get paid
for their work. One organisation I turn to for advice now and again is WALA
(Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts). Great group -- and artists (fine
artists as well as musicians) can join (I think the fee is like $50 a year)
and can attend seminars on things like contract negotiations and gallery
representation.
Carol
Webmaster, www.peterbroggs.com
http://www.home.earthlink.net/~csott
"Mark Hafner" <marc...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:ebf7291f.02021...@posting.google.com...
Bjahn1
bass, piano, drums etc are instruments
A computer also is an instrument. Why artists mustn't pay fees for
using instruments ? >>
Uh, they do have to pay if they use enough of it.