Re: utah saints

[Rob Sanner <mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.UU.NET>]

In article <1992Sep9.201354.15285@bradley.bradley.edu> pwh@bradley.bradley.edu  
(Pete Hartman) writes:
> In <1992Sep9.165103.2284@athena.mit.edu>  
mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner) writes:
> >their song, which is getting a distressing amount of airplay up here
> >is called, i think, "something good", and is built almost entirely
> >around a sample from cloudbusting.
> >while catchy, it really burns me that something like this can qualify
> >as somehow a "new" composition.  actually, what is the copyright law on
> >this; does KaTe have to give permission for the sample?? if not, the piece
> >becomes even more execrable IMHO.
> 
> I have the disc.  They credit her, and it *appears* that they had permission.
> 
> I think if you were to bother to listen to the MUSIC behind the SAMPLE
> you might have noticed a significant difference between it and  
"Cloudbusting".
> Certainly the sample is key to the whole piece, but your opinions about
> "new" composition are ridiculous.  You might as well start slamming anyone
> who uses a melody that has been used before--I suppose Kate's use of
> Handsome Cabin Boy is just completely BOGUS by those standards, right?
> 
> 
> I can understand not liking it, but I can't understand trying to slam it
> on such silly grounds.

laying down a basso continuo synth track with a beat box underneath the sample
doesn't really qualify as "composition" to my mind.  i HAVE listened to the
song many times (unfortunately).

to each his own...

rob