Vinegar: Safari extension that replaces YouTube embeds with HTML5 video tags

I was talking about copyrighted samples. eg

Fatboy Slim - Rockafella Skank: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLjgXPDzeZo

Daft Punk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MhmnKUOxB4

Prodigy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIMQtMSnpBA

...and these are just 3 headline artists. Sampling was common place in the underground scene too. eg The Amen break is a percussion loop that basically invented Jungle and early Drum and Bass, and that was a copyrighted loop too: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFKMtv8tU0U

> I do agree the waters get muddy once it's multiple seconds long.. IANAL but there's the famous vanilla ice lawsuit, and I think there was some fair use wiggle room if it's under some amount of time (forgot the exact limit), it is fine to use.

Fair use doesn't cover sampling. Artists need to clear any samples used. If a sample is used creatively enough then there is a chance it might sound different enough that it goes unnoticed with anyone accosiated with the original artists estate. But that's a calculated risk the sampling artist chooses to take rather than their automatic right under copyright law.

> Good point about the DJ mixtape thing. I am guessing a lot of composers/producers got the raw end of that deal, but you are right, it helped a lot for promotion and growing the scene

Producers (nobody calls those kinds of artists "composers") didn't get the raw end because it wouldn't have affected their sales; if anything, it helped promote them). Bare in mind that mixed records on a cassette mix tape cannot be used for anything other than home listening (DJs didn't work of cassette players) and dance tracks didn't typically make for good home listening because they'd have long intro and outro sequences purposely designed for beat mixing. So mix tapes served an important role.

The only caveat some artists would have placed was any unreleased promos stayed off mix tapes (unless specified otherwise) because those promos were often secret weapons for headliner DJs.

Because you believed I wasn't talking about copyrighted samples and yet that break is copyrighted. Hence why I reminded you of that break.

> Did have had plenty of conversations with musicians who called themselves composers, esp. as they would make their living composing tunes for video games and film etc. Sure "producers" is the more common term, but it's a bit reductive for you to say "nobody".

That's because they're a different scene entirely from what we were originally discussing. I didn't say "nobody in music calls themselves composers". I believe the term "producer" originates from "record producer", which film and game composers are not.

> How about Squarepusher, Simon Posford, and folks like that? Guarantee you they have been called all kinds of things, hehe.

From wikipedia:

Squarepusher: Musician record producer DJ

Hallucinogen: DJ, record producer, sound engineer

Yeah I'm sure they have been called other things too but that doesn't mean it is the common vocabulary nor even what they identify themselves as.

As an aside, Squarepusher is one of my all time favourite artists. Seen both live but I have a special love for IDM

> Anyway, when it comes to actually creating original tunes, my experience and recollection tells me it's by far mostly about synthetic instruments and laying out tracks, e.g. actual original compositions.

You keep saying that and I keep saying that it depends on the genre and artist. However that doesn't mean that sampling wasn't a massive part of the scene. I've cited examples to that end too.

> Significantly large samples of copyrighted material play a very small part, in the big picture.

Shall we just overlook the examples I've cited then....

> Of course there's some notable exceptions, but it's a drop in the ocean compared to original material.

That really wasn't the case when I was active in the scene as a DJ and producer. However lets avoid the anecdotes:

From Wikipedia: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)#Impact)

"Sampling has influenced all genres of music.[5] It is a particularly important part of pop, hip hop, and electronic music,[14] equivalent to the importance of the guitar in rock.[5] It is a fundamental element of remix culture."

If one compares the sampler to dance music as the guitar of rock, then it's hard to argue that sampling isn't a significant influence on dance music.

Also since you seem to be a fan of Goa, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa_trance#Sound)

"A popular element of Goa trance is the use of vocal samples, often from science fiction movies."

However I'm not disputing that synths are also used heavily too.

> Not talking about DJing. By definition that is literally just sampling/remixing.

DJing is not remixing. Some techno DJs will argue otherwise but as one of those multi-turntable techno jocks I found the arguments about DJing being "live remixing" to be overstated. That doesn't mean it isn't still a creative process though.

> And of course you have famous DJ's who put out mixes and nobody knows how hard the original music synthesis freak worked to get that fat bass line sounding just right.

I really don't understand your point here. DJs can't "fatten" up a bassline of an existing track live. They can layer other basslines over an existing track (a trick I'd do regularly) but that's very different to remixing and sampling.

> Re: fair use, I believe you're wrong.

I'm not. To quote Wikipedia again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_(music)#Legal_and_eth...)

"To legally use a sample, an artist must acquire legal permission from the copyright holder, a potentially lengthy and complex process known as clearance"

I guess that's not a super nice thing, so I'll share my reasoning, but I'm not really interested in taking this further unless you have something new to add:

1. your quote on fair use literally stops a few lines before citing the opposite of your point. any basic search on fair use will tell you that the length of the sample is one of the fundamental factors.

2. it's trivially easy to find music industry sites that call Posford and others "composer", such as discogs

3. Your distinction of exactly which types of music we are talking about appeared out of nowhere and doesn't seem to have any rules, feels like changing the goalposts to me.

4. I literally said that the original music synthesis person makes the bass line fatter. This is the work that goes into producing electronic music. It's original and not an issue of sampling.

5. You're ignoring the most fundamental fact: if we take the sum total of modern music, the amount of it which is composed of definitely copyrightable samples is extremely small relative to the amount of synthesis and traditional composition. I don't want to guess an exact number, but I would be shocked if it came anywhere even close to as high as 1%. You seem to think it's somewhere like 50% or more. My takeaway is you are only accounting for very specific sub-genres (e.g. if you think Goa trance is mostly composed of vocal samples, waaaayyy off, but vocal trance, certain kinds of hip hop.. yeah, of course).

Whatever, man, to be honest I am just not enjoying this convo anymore. Forgive me but I'm gonna bow out.