You rarely hear anyone cover the Beastie Boys. Is it because their songs rely so much on samples that they’re impossible to recreate legally without making a profit? How did they not get sued into oblivion with hundreds of samples used? Where do those royalties go today?
You must log in or # to comment.
By definition one cannot improve upon perfection, so what would be the point?
deleted by creator
Paul’s Boutique was a landmark record in music law. The Beatles did sue them. It’s largely thanks to that album that sampling isn’t a legal liability and allowed the practice to continue. It’s one of the most important records of all time IMO.
I found a torrent years ago with every song they sampled on this album, I highly recommend it. Absolutely phenomenal collection of music that goes so much deeper than you expect.
If anyone ever tries it, MCA shows up their house with a few of his people.
I like his beard it looks like a billy goat.
ooo-ooo
deleted by creator
With all due respect, this couldn’t be wrong-er. Copyright just wasn’t enforced on sampling back in the Beasie Boys’ heyday, it really wasn’t on people’s radar yet. You’ll hear people say “There’s no way you could make [seminal hip-hop album] today!” due to how much it would cost to clear all the samples that went into something like Paul’s Boutique or Three Feet High and Rising.
You’re right, I was misinformed
All good! Yeah, the wild west days of sampling really showed the art we could have had if sampling was licensed like song covers are.
Someone should do this on the dark web. Start a music industry on the dark web with no copyright rules and no money, just bitcoin and pure inspiration without stupid rules.
I should note that we still got more of this stuff thanks to the regular web, mostly from the early 2000s onward, once digital tools for creating and sharing got better and cheaper. But yeah, mainstream modern platforms with content matching do make sharing more complicated.
What did it say?
