Eclectic Method's latest remix asks 'Is it illegal if you take just one note?"

Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2018/12/11/eclectic-methods-latest-remi.html

3 Likes

4 minutes 33 seconds of no notes at all would get you in trouble.

23 Likes

Interesting concept, but too disjointed to really work as a song.

Still, not bad for a little brown terrier. Working protools with paws must be hard.

6 Likes

Adversarial sampling, FTW.

4 Likes

It’s not illegal to sample whatever you want. It opens you up to lawsuit, but making music is not a crime (unless you can’t pay the fine.)

3 Likes

   

41 Likes

I think it’s fabulous.

5 Likes

Can I just do it until I need glasses?

1 Like

This is much older, and less “fight the copyright” but, put together way better, and sounds better to boot :

also:

13 Likes

Maybe not. That’s just a sample-that’s-no-longer-than-0.5-seconds, used 546 times in a row.

4 Likes

My life just flashed before my eyes.

2 Likes

Nobody’s dropped John Oswald yet?

2 Likes

I remember when this came out, and it blew my mind. The whole album he did was just amazing, superbly musical, and exhibits exceptional production considering the various quality of source material.

This is maybe my favorite example of “the whole being greater than the sum of it’s parts”.

Thanks for reminding me of it!

3 Likes
4 Likes

Since one can turn one wave into any other wave with software (not criticizing, that’s one reason I love it), this is more impressive for the effort he put into it than as a technical accomplishment.

3 Likes

That is hardcore in a nutshell. It’s done for the love of it, not because it’s clever :grin:

3 Likes

Sad that ‘illegal’ is conflated with ‘flagged by youtube’.

2 Likes

I seem to remember a documentary about Public Enemy where each member of the group used to compose a track, and then they would lift semi-random samples from them all and meld them together in to a finished track to rap over. So, kind of self-generated samples. I might have misremembered this, but it sounds like a cool idea anyway.

Somewhere in my brain this was flagged up.

1 Like

It’s pretty well known that YouTube’s “Content ID” system won’t trigger unless the match is several seconds long (and probably can’t detect matches this short). And if you acknowledge that you went out of your way to sample something, the duration is kina immaterial as a legal argument; if your only defense is “I could have got this sample from anywhere”, the obvious counterargument is “then why didn’t you?”

In fact the video illustrates how “one note” can be quite a lot, if you’re talking about an actual sound recording, rather than a MIDI track / musical score. Even one eighth of a second of uncompressed audio is more than 10,000 samples, and as well as describing a dominant sine wave those samples contain a lot of harmonics and timbre and expression and what not that makes them distinctive. That’s why you can recognise some tracks from the very first note.

Like Kate Bush’s “Hounds of Love”, for example. Which begins with a sample! But the very first sound is a drumbeat. But drum machines use… samples! But I assume the makers of drum machines assign a license to their users to allow them to use the built-in samples. But perhaps not, because I feel like they might try to sue you if you built your own drum machine with their samples. Now that would be an interesting experiment, to buy the copyright to the samples in the TR-909 drum machine and then try to sue everyone who ever used it. (The TR-808 would be more lucrative but it didn’t use samples).

4 Likes