Daft Punk

[Explud]

http://pitchfork.com/news/71351-daft-punk-announce-pop-up-shop-unlike-any-other-pop-up-shop/

Gosha Rubchinsky?! Boooooo!

[inchemwetrust]

SHOWS!....NOT CLOTHES!

[Wolkenkrabber]

Fuck. I...I didn't know.

[MadPooter]

I remember finding this out for the first time quite a number of years ago now.

This was a black mark on Daft Punk for me. There was not a whole lot else that they did with Robot Rock, and there didn't seem to be a whole lot there in the song that was... them... I suppose...

I mean, still a cool track that they made, and I don't know how many people would actually know that the original track even exists had it not been for Robot Rock.

But there certainly have been better Daft Punk tracks.

[Bendy1001]

Samples are a weird thing. Even some Chemical songs are harder to listen to once you've heard the samples. I don't really know anything about the music industry, so I don't really think about it and just listen to cool tracks that i like. But I can't help but feel sometimes like I'm being kind of ignorant. Is it common practice for musicians to compensate people they use samples from?

[Enjoyed]

It's still a huge grey area.
If the sample is arguably integral to the new piece of music then the original copyright owners should be compensated, normally in the form of a percentage of the performance and publication rights. Some folks though, are happy enough for their samples to be used for a fixed fee, or even completely for free.
And there's still the issue of how much a sample has been manipulated and at what point it becomes something new. I remember discussing samples with my manager at the time and 'supposedly' there was a kind of unwritten rule that if the clip is 3 seconds or less, or has been warped/edited/changed enough from the original that it becomes almost unrecognisable, then you didn't have to concern yourself with getting clearance - or were certainly less worried about it.

The other thing to note is that some people simply just get away with it. I mean, the Amen break is used in more music than any team of copyright lawyers could track down and sue. And similarly, there are releases that just don't make enough of a wave to warrant investing time and money to sue for copyright.

[Wolkenkrabber]

Even some Chemical songs are harder to listen to once you've heard the samples.

Yes, THIS ONE was certainly an eye-opener for me.

I remember discussing samples with my manager

You got any samples in your music for sale on itunes where you thought, "I hope I don't get sued"? (don't worry no one's reading this, just you and me  )

[Explud]

Ha! How about this one? (4:40)

[WhiteNoise]

Yes, THIS ONE was certainly an eye-opener for me.

I've never heard a Chems sample that made me think less of the track, not in the way hearing Release The Beast ruins the "genius" of Robot Rock. I can't think of an instance the Chems have wholesale sampled something and had it be the absolute core of their song. Worst ones I can think of are The Goats sample on Chemical Beats and James Asher's Asian Workshop, but even that one's a really clever sample, in a similar vein as Idioteque's sample.

You got any samples in your music for sale on itunes where you thought, "I hope I don't get sued"? (don't worry no one's reading this, just you and me  )

I don't know all of them but you should listen very carefully to K Special sometime. Hint's in the name.

[ThePumisher]

Even some Chemical songs are harder to listen to once you've heard the samples.

No. NO! NO!!

If the sample is arguably integral to the new piece of music then the original copyright owners should be compensated, normally in the form of a percentage of the performance and publication rights.

And that's how The Verve never ever in their entire live will get any money from any sell of Urban Hymns, because they've sampled The Rolling Stones for Bittersweet Symphony and where sued for that -  and now paid for that until the very end.

I've never heard a Chems sample that made me think less of the track, not in the way hearing Release The Beast ruins the "genius" of Robot Rock.

It's not really a sample, but how Wayne Coyne is doing the vocals on The Golden Path does remind a lot on U2's Where The Streets Have No Name.

[WhiteNoise]

And that's how The Verve never ever in their entire live will get any money from any sell of Urban Hymns, because they've sampled The Rolling Stones for Bittersweet Symphony and where sued for that -  and now paid for that until the very end.

The shitty part of this was the sample was initially cleared for 50/50 royalties, until the song took off in popularity and the Stone's manager decided they wanted as much of the pie they could get, claiming they sampled more than agreed upon. You can guess who had the better lawyers in the case.

Fatboy Slim hasn't seen a dime from The Rockefeller Skank by the way - he wasn't expecting much, but every artist he sampled took 25%, totaling 100. But where's his credit for combining all those parts?

Art and money just go weird together.

[Enjoyed]

You got any samples in your music for sale on itunes where you thought, "I hope I don't get sued"? (don't worry no one's reading this, just you and me  )

A bunch. I'm not making any money from sales so it's hardly an issue. But yeah, I've got samples from the soundtracks of a couple of pretty famous movies (1 very famous), drums from disco records, harmonies from a pretty well known English a capella group, a classic French flamenco band sample... Not to mention a clap sample that makes it into almost every track of mine.

I don't know all of them but you should listen very carefully to K Special sometime. Hint's in the name.

Shhhhhh. We can't talk about that one here of all places.... 

[Wolkenkrabber]

And that's how The Verve never ever in their entire live will get any money from any sell of Urban Hymns,

The whole album?

It's not really a sample, but how Wayne Coyne is doing the vocals on The Golden Path does remind a lot on U2's Where The Streets Have No Name.

Oh I get your drift. Speaking of slightly tenuous ones: Whenever I listen to the full length version of Doves'

(released 2000) it reminds me of the end of The Sunshine Underground (released '99) and vice versa.

[ThePumisher]

The whole album?

Not the whole, i maybe get that wrong. But a huge part of Urban Hymns and This Is Music

[Csar]

I've never heard a Chems sample that made me think less of the track, not in the way hearing Release The Beast ruins the "genius" of Robot Rock. I can't think of an instance the Chems have wholesale sampled something and had it be the absolute core of their song.

No. NO! NO!!

Well, I was certainly surprised to learn back in the days that e.g. IDM's or Hoops' main sample was almost untouched. It didn't spoil the tracks entirely for me but sure left a somewhat "bad" taste in my mouth at the time. But unlike the Chems, Daft Punk, to me, always was less playful and more relying on repetition of their sampled loops.

Here are some further examples

[Enjoyed]

That was a great video! Thanks for sharing.

I knew a lot of the more obvious samples but the High Fidelity and High Life construction was very interesting. Definitely hard to take credit away from them for that kind of sample manipulation.

They just got lazy with the other tracks is the issue. And Robot Rock really is unforgivable in terms of how much they rely on the original.

[Csar]

Yeah, lazy describes it very well. On the other hand, sometimes you can just get carried away, too, with a sample and never bother to tweak it in the process of producing because it just feels so right. But with Daft Punk I often feel like they just found a great sample and then merely put it on loop for 4 something minutes.

[Born In Planet Dust]

The only obvious sample the Chems have ever used (to me at least).  I'd be mad if their use of it didn't rule. 

[Bendy1001]

Sorry if I sounded like I was slagging off the Chemical Brothers
I think their use of samples is fine and completely elevates the music they make. It's just that when I have certain samples pointed out to me it ruins the magic a little bit for just a moment. But in the end it doesn't change whether a song is awesome or not, it just means I have a few more people to thank for it being awesome.

[Csar]

No need to be sorry.. And I do know, too, this oh-that's-actually-not-from-you kind of feeling with some parts of their songs that I thought were their own creation.