'Can Ya Dig It'? ... No, Seriously: Can You?

Listen:
DJ Premier - Royalty (Outro) [MP3 on zShare]

Are we "fakin' the funk"?

I appreciate the responses we've gotten on the previous post, as well as the widespread turnout across countless other blogs and forums throughout the web. I'm taking this time out to address certain arguments and comments I've come across, as well as state some new points and make some reiterations on previous ones.

Point #1: The Premo Call-Out

As expected, I was sent the infamous recording made by DJ Premier (my favorite producer), in which he calls out 'break record cats' who 'snitch' on producers such as himself. Now don't get me wrong, I respect Premo. But how does mirroring information, which is already public knowledge might I add, an act of snitching? Would I be a snitch if I copy something from The Breaks or Discogs? No. Um, well that's exactly all that I'm doing. The sense of entitlement that producers have on other people's works is, in my opinion, both dishonest to the source and hypocritical. I'll establish that point further on... But now...

Point #2: The Clash of The Information Age & Hip-Hop Elitism

This is a touchy issue because it affects both sides of the opinion. The argument has been made that many classic albums that sampled lots of uncleared songs would never be able to exist in the current age of information and corporation. Sample-heavy albums by Public Enemy, for instance, would simply not be possible to make and release nowadays. So on the one hand, I feel like I'm betraying legends like Chuck D with my opinions. But on the other hand, Chuck's previously noted embrace of new technology and the evolution of music seems to stand on my side of the ring, more than anything else. We live in a time where "Hip-Hop secrecy" is no longer private. If you used that Apache or Funky Drummer break, we're gonna know about it.

A board member from a Hip-Hop forum wrote:

Why you want to spread it around on some blog? I think it would be nicer if it was like some 'Digger's Secret', not a thing the whole world needs to know.

We might as well shut down our libraries, huh? I mean: in reality, what Kevin and I (and John Q of Lyrics to Go, of course!) are doing is setting up a space where cats can learn about production sources and the inspiration for Hip-Hop classics. Why would we want to hold that priceless information back? Especially now, in an age where kids are being bombarded with nonsense! If real Hip-Hop got as much shine as the trash that's put out today, the music would be much more balanced. Instead, what we've got is T-Pain and Soulja Boy on the radio all day, while Hip-Hop elitists blow dust off of vinyl in dark basements. If we brought that out a little bit more, don't you think the culture would benefit? Why hoard when you can share? The internet is a great tool which allows us to do that, and our sample sets have been a way of spreading that knowledge. Thanks to the internet, we're able to stay connected with what's new in Hip-Hop. Thanks to the internet, mentions on blogs have been found to increase record sales by up to six times the average.

Don't deny someone the knowledge that should be rightfully theirs. Full exposure is what Hip-Hop needs. So too, political campaigns and controversies have been exposed and presented forth to the public thanks to YouTube and notable blogs and watch-dog sites. That's just the way it is nowadays. The information is out there hence the name: It's the information age, people! Get over it. Work with it, not against it. And if you are gonna work against it, choose your enemy. Choose wisely...

Point #3: Enemy Number One?

Kevin and I are not the enemy! As a member of a notable Hip-Hop forum pointed out:

Revealing the samples isn't what hurts hip hop, it's the laws that are unfriendly to sampling that hurt. Madlib is going after the wrong target. Why aren't these artists ever active in fighting for law change? All they ever seem to do channel their complaints to the wrong sources.

Another member wrote:

The people to blame are the lawyers and fucked up music industry for making it hard to sample without getting sued or having to pay a ridiculous fee before hand based on hip hop top sellers. Just cause you sample someone to make a record doesn't mean it's gonna go platinum and make crazy money.

And another one:

If Madlib is worried about getting sued, then fine...SAY THAT instead of shitting on the people who get just as geeked on rare loops as he does. Who does he think his fans are anyway? It's the dudes like you and me who are diggers in our own right.

Like I said before, the information is already out there. We're basically copy-and-pasting this sh*t. Damn, I don't even ask for credit on this work I do, other than the ID3 tagging and cover art. If there's an issue at all that should be addressed, then it's the insane demands and prices put forth by corporations regarding sample usage. Don't shoot the messenger! As I see it, this debate is comparable (though not a perfectly matched example, of course) to the dispute between DJ Drama and the RIAA.

Point #4: Puffy, Kanye and Liner Notes

Another forum member made the following statement in the context of the usage of liner notes:

Citing the stuff they cleared and acknowledged on the album is different though, the guy who wrote this is a dumbass for not making that distinction.

The fact that there's a distinction between samples included in liner notes and samples missing from liner notes brings up a whole new issue: what's up with this selectiveness? What grants the need for sample clearance on one track and not on another? If a track on an album samples two songs, but only mentions one of them in the liner notes, isn't that an example of dishonesty? More on that later...

The member also wrote that I'm a 'dumbass' for...

trying to claim that Puffy isn't wack.

Another member wrote:

Kid is a f*cking dolt, especially [for] citing Puffy and Kanye as examples of quality. I wish there was a way to revoke his privilege of listening to rap music.

Talk about missing the point completely! The argument I was making was in response to Madlib's claim that sample exposure hurts Hip-Hop. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. I backed this up by using popular examples which even the lay listener would recognize.

Everyone doesn't know the tracks that Madlib samples. Damn, a lot of people don't even know who he is! But by bringing up Puff and 'Ye into the context of sample usage, I'm exhibiting how the knowledge of sample-usage doesn't hurt anyone's shine. I used the example of Chaka Khan's 'Through the Fire' to make that point. Everybody knows that he sampled her for his first hit. Does that knowledge hurt Hip-Hop? Under Madlib's reasoning, it does! Well, I disagree with his reasoning: simple and plain. If you didn't get the point earlier on, you better understand it now.

Back to the "Puffy is wack" comment, we return to the discussion on Hip-Hop elitism. Do I think Puff is the greatest of all time? No, not at all. But his contributions speak for themselves. My direct quote was:

Is Puffy any less of a producer because he sampled recognizable hits from the '80's? No! Not at all!

How can you disagree with that?

Point #5: Should Underground Artists Get Leniency on Copyright Laws?

I mentioned this argument before, and I think it's one of the the most grounded and fair-minded of them all. Here's a board member who expressed it quite wisely:

Well if you don't want to hear anymore classic underground albums come out in the future then keep doing what you're doing. Realistically there is no way they could have cleared all the samples on Madvillainy, and Lib is obviously trying to prevent any lawsuits now that would both effect him financially, and potential listeners aurally as the album would be withdrawn from stores. You state that you believe all samples should be cleared, but if that was the case 90% of the great underground albums wouldn't exist.

This leads me to the conclusion that I will now no longer complete sample sets of albums by underground artists such as Madlib. Fair enough people? See? I can be reasonable! Nonetheless, this doesn't fix the problem! The fact of the matter is that ___ still used uncleared samples and still faces the penalties that come along with that.

Point #6: Where the Hypocrisy Lies

Just as I'm releasing sample sets with c0pyr1ghted material, so too ____ is also testing the waters in the same way! A board member wrote:

If Madlib wanted you to remove the music out of a moral opposition to stealing music from the original creators, then I would support his argument. It makes sense – essentially, don’t steal from the originators who created this music. However, to say that “pages like this on the internet are no help at all to people like Doom, Madlib, and those that work with them,” is complete self-serving bs, which deserves limited consideration.

So basically it's cool to sample other people's work and not give them credit, but it's uncool to do what I'm doing by giving the credit where it's due? I'm a 'snitch' for 'exposing' the sample? Fine. But then that makes ____ a thief for stealing the sample in the first place.

When producers get mad(d) over people 'exposing' their sample sources, I'm always put off by their sense of entitlement and total display of arrogance. That music that you swiped from James Brown or George Clinton (...) is not yours! End of the story! Don't get mad(d) because your secret has been exposed! As John Gotty from The Smoking Section put it:

I know a good magician never shows his tricks. But if you leave the book laying around…

See what I mean?

Point #7: The Blue Note Compilation

This one's too easy. Follow me on this one... In the previous post, I stated the following:

A couple weeks back, I got the idea to compile all the songs that influenced Madlib's jazzy 'Shades of Blue'. I was surprised to find out that there was in fact a sample collection set released officially by Blue Note Records. 'Untinted: Sources for Madlib's Shades of Blue', as it's called, was just that: The sources for all the tracks that were sampled, interpolated and covered on Madlib's 2003 album.

Got that? I've acknowledged that the sample compilation was issued by Blue Note Records. Now here's what a forum member had to say:

I also thought that was a very poor argument. Of course Madlib doesn't have the rights to the source material of 'Shades of Blue' but that doesn't matter because he was officially contracted by Blue Note for the concept in first place. Absolutely no hypocrisy there whatsoever -- a terrible point.

And finally, the one that makes no sense:

What a f*cking dumbass. He didn't even have to turn the album over to see that Shades was released by Blue Note itself as it's right on the damn cover. Oh wait, downloads don't come in covers.

What part of "I was surprised to find out that there was in fact a sample collection set released officially by Blue Note Records" did the last guy not understand? Jeez...

Moving along: The Blue Note analogy was another one which apparently went over some cats' heads. Point blank period (as Prem' would say) Blue Note Records issued a sample set in the same vein in which Kevin, John Q and I do. It contained the samples used on an album, just as our sets contain the samples used on an album. The one sole difference is that Blue Note Records owns the rights to that music, whereas Kevin, John and I do not (we'll admit it...LOL). But at the end of the day, Blue Note Records and I are crafting the same product: a collection of samples from a specific album. Kevin had a set with all the 'Madvillainy' samples, and Blue Note had a set with all the 'Shades of Blue' samples. Right?

Issues of copyright and money have no bearing in the argument that the knowledge of sample-usage is detrimental to artists such as Madlib (as he himself would put it). Regardless of the matter of profit, Kevin and Blue Note's sets are identical in substance. If Kevin's set "are no help at all to people like Doom, Madlib, and those that work with them" (as Madlib stated), then the release of Blue Note's set is just as harmful. That's the point I was making.

The fact that we know that Madlib sampled Ronnie Foster's 'Mystic Brew' for the 'Shades of Blue' album is no different from the fact that we know that he sampled a Steve Reich song for the 'Madvillainy' album.

I wanna wrap this up, so here's my final point (for now):

Point #8: Does Sample Info Diminish a Producer's Skills?

Simple and plain, my answer is: No! Some people seem to disagree with me. Here are a couple of responses from the web:

Back to that magician analogy, sometimes I'm dying to hear a sample source but when I'm shown the strings, the trick isn't that exciting anymore.

A fair point of view. Here's another one:

The excuse that they are trying to learn about this artform is beyond stupid. There is nothing to learn. You go out- listen to a bunch of records, hear something you like that nobody else knows (you hope), loop it and add a beat (and try and mask it so someone can't tell whether it's sample or original)- then take all the credit. Hiphop 101 for FREE.

"There is nothing to learn"! Really? No, really? If you think Hip-Hop is so simple and plain, so formulaic and dull, then what are you even doing on a Hip-Hop board?

Maybe it's just me, but I find it fascinating to see and hear the various ways in which producers work with samples. What makes some producers' techniques 'better' than others? What makes that chopping technique by Pete Rock or J Dilla so much more special than someone else?

A quick search on The-Breaks will show you the hundreds of different ways in which James Brown samples have been flipped. A recent Sample & Example post here on Hip-Hop Is Read displayed the production differences between L.E.S. and Kanye West on a Chic sample (read about it here). It's a fun talking point and topic of discussion! It's not so cut and dry as this anonymous board member would have you think. That's all I'm saying...

Lemme conclude by recapping my 8 points as succinctly as possible:

#1: Premo's charges of 'snitching' are misdirected.
#2: The suppression of information won't make it go away. Instead, find a way to work with it.
#3: Hip-Hop blogs aren't the enemy; Instead, re-direct your frustrations toward (potentially) unfair sample-clearance laws.
#4: Question: Should liner notes include a full list of samples? If not, why?
#5: I make a vow to stop releasing sample sets by underground artists.
#6: If I'm a snitch, then that must make you a thief. Otherwise, what 'crime' would I be 'snitching' about?
#7: I (re-)address the Blue Note Records analogy and it's similarity to our sample sets.
#8: Great Hip-Hop is more than just a sample and a beat.

As always, I welcome your responses. Once again, I expect that you reply with both honesty and a sense of maturity.

1