Let Forever Be Sample Uncovered

[elcomplicado]

Someone over on reddit seems to have discovered the samples that make up Let Forever Be.

from r/chemicalbrothers

https://soundcloud.com/casiopeia-420193270/let-forever-loop/s-JNmJpmarE1P

[Csar]

Wow! What superb detective work!!

[Wolkenkrabber]

Someone over on reddit seems to have discovered the samples that make up Let Forever Be.

from r/chemicalbrothers

https://soundcloud.com/casiopeia-420193270/let-forever-loop/s-JNmJpmarE1P

Track sounds like a cross between E.L.O. and The Beatles. You got a link to that Reddit thread Mr Complicado?

[elcomplicado]

I did link it but the april fools thing has broken the link. 
reddit thread again

[Wolkenkrabber]

Oh so it is the f&cking Beatles! 
A little ironic considering the Chems just had their current single "Dolby Atmos'd" by Giles (son of George) Martin at Abbey Road.

God, it seems so obvious now. Not even an obscure Beatles track.

[Bosco]

Spoiler

Stupendous uncovering, but how much should we be discussing this in the open? This could be a damning lawsuit in the waiting considering how prestigious the source is.

[hstn]

Spoiler

Stupendous uncovering, but how much should we be discussing this in the open? This could be a damning lawsuit in the waiting considering how prestigious the source is.

Spoiler

That's what I was thinking cos they've gotten in trouble before, the OP used that Google AI to find the sample too which makes it even more of a snitch which will likely do more harm to artists than good

[rynostar]

Spoiler

It's been right there in the open, Forever!?! Wow, we whiffed on that one. Also probably explains why LFB is played live rarely

[Csar]

I don't think that's the reason. They use the Rolling Stone's sample for the Reel which I assume has not been cleared either.
Would you guys think this is a big of a deal given how transformed/filtered/altered the LFB sample is? I mean, all in all, it's a pretty short one.

[Wolkenkrabber]

I don't think that's the reason. They use the Rolling Stone's sample for the Reel which I assume has not been cleared either.

In terms of live? I'm inclined to agree with your logic.

Would you guys think this is a big of a deal given how transformed/filtered/altered the LFB sample is?

Well speaking of the Stones, we know what happened when The Verve used an orchestral snippet of a Stones song that wasn't even part of The Stones original recording of the track  (...until The Stones eventually relented in 2019).

However in the case of LFB, the notes have actually been rearranged so that it isn't the same tune anymore. The swooping cello sounds are the one obvious thing about it, I think.
I'm guessing the Chems knew how much risk they were (or weren't?) taking at the time of release. And I wonder if it might be a bit late now for anyone representing The Beatles to protest or sue.

I also note that The Beatles released their albums on Parlophone in the UK. Parlophone became part of the EMI group. Virgin/EMI then became part of Universal Music Group - The Chems label.
Or to put it another way "Universal Music acquired the Beatles' catalog with its 2012 purchase of EMI".
So if both acts have their catalogues owned by Universal, it would be kinda weird if one pursued the other over a backwards instrumental sample.

Personally I wouldn't worry that the multimillionaire Chems might get in trouble now over a decison they made in the 90s. But I'm not a lawyer. What do I know?

[shakermaker]

absolutely no one is permitted to sample the Beatles' recordings, ever. the owners of the catalogue are adamant about that. if it has been uncovered by a fan it will be uncovered by those who own the rights, whether or not we talk about it here.

[MadPooter]

Forgive me, it's been a little while since I've delved into copyright issues, so I might be missing something obvious.

I'm using this as a source, and from that source the copyright term limit for sound recordings in the U.K. is 70 years *from the date of first publication*.

According to wikipedia, Strawberry Fields Forever was released February 13, 1964.

Assuming that date is correct and that the instrumental version was released that date as well, it could likely mean that enforcement for that particular Beatles' recording extends to February 13, 2034.

Is what the Chemical Brothers allegedly did infringing on the original copyright?

Another cursory Internet search says that it will come down to a factual question for a jury on whether or not a substantial part of the original work has been used.

I would argue that because of the number of shifts and transformations, the end result simply isn't the same sound as the original recording, and no one would be able to pick up on what was copied unless someone showed them.

Thank you for coming to my CLE. Please return the completed forms at the back of the rooms.

[rynostar]

Thank you for coming to my CLE. Please return the completed forms at the back of the rooms.

Normally these CLEs are dry and leave me more tired than when I arrived. This time I was gripped the entire time and considering the possibilities.

Your argument sounds like the resulting decision in the "Setting Sun" drum loop sample case. Reports (oh god, did I just link buzzfeed?) were the drum sample was original and not a direct sample. This could be a similar result if contested.

Also, seeing 2034 written out makes me realize...that's only 11 years away....2012 was 11 years back... 

[MadPooter]

Normally these CLEs are dry and leave me more tired than when I arrived. This time I was gripped the entire time and considering the possibilities.

Your argument sounds like the resulting decision in the "Setting Sun" drum loop sample case. Reports (oh god, did I just link buzzfeed?) were the drum sample was original and not a direct sample. This could be a similar result if contested.

Also, seeing 2034 written out makes me realize...that's only 11 years away....2012 was 11 years back...

I remember the Setting Sun drum loop case reasonably well--that Buzfeed reporting is correct I believe.

Assuming the use and construction of Let Forever Be, this becomes a different situation because the Chemical Brothers allegedly copied and used the Beatle's recording of Strawberry Fields Forever, which apparently didn't happen with Tomorrow Never Knows.

What could potentially happen if this did become a litigious matter is that the Chemical Brothers would be able to present their source material for Let Forever Be and counter any claims of infringement assuming the Chemical Brothers did not use the Beatle's recording directly, but rather just for "inspiration."

What this comes down to for me is that even if the Chemical Brothers did directly use a sample of Strawberry Fields Forever, it's been so transformed that it's an entirely different work.

[ThePumisher]

https://twitter.com/Diddy/status/1643663676031762451

[Stefan]

Could some music rights assholery also be the reason why TKN isn't used as an intro anymore?
Not that I complain, I'm looking forward to hearing CWU as the intro

[ThePumisher]

Could some music rights assholery also be the reason why TKN isn't used as an intro anymore?

It isn't? I mean, it is not the Beatles version they've played, but Tom also seems to have deleted his version from Soundcloud edit: it's still there

[Wolkenkrabber]

Could some music rights assholery also be the reason why TKN isn't used as an intro anymore?
Not that I complain, I'm looking forward to hearing CWU as the intro

You can play any records (WAVs/CDs/tapes whatever) you like at a gig, you can even play your own DJ edits, assuming you have the licence (which a 'proper' gig would). I think they just changed the intro music as part of the overall changes to the live show. I imagine they were telling festivals/promoters about their completely new live show, so they made it as "completely new" as possible.

It isn't? I mean, it is not the Beatles version they've played, but Tom also seems to have deleted his version from Soundcloud

Watchu talkin 'bout Willis?

rowlands-audio-research · tnk-chems-liveintro

EDIT Ah ok, you've edited your post.

Assuming that date is correct and that the instrumental version was released that date as well, it could likely mean that enforcement for that particular Beatles' recording extends to February 13, 2034.

My understanding from the YouTube uploader of the orchestral stuff (in regular YT comments under the video) is that it has never been released. The YT uploader got the orchestral parts from a bootleg release (and therefore I suspect, so did the Chems). However those orchestral bits are actually parts of The Beatles' Strawberry Fields (including Ringo's drumming), so I suspect in terms of the release date it won't make a lot of difference. How the bootleg angle might otherwise muddy the waters...I'll leave to those with a law degree!

Original Strawberry Fields (for anyone who hasn't listened in a while) with cellos, brass etc in the mix.
(The cellos at about 1:14 are in LFB albeit backwards, I believe)

[shakermaker]

https://twitter.com/Diddy/status/1643663676031762451

dear lord. that's 1.8 million a year.

::googles Diddy net worth:: 

ok he's a billionaire. wtf.

[shakermaker]

What could potentially happen if this did become a litigious matter is that...

...is that they could hire us as their lawyers because we've fan-fictioned every possible scenario. if there's a defense, we've covered it. go us!