Re: utah saints revisited...

[Karen Silkwood's car <mailrus!gatech!sco.COM!jondr@uunet.UU.NET>]

mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner) writes:
>let me clarify my previous message; i really am interested in legal/aesthetic
>opinions on this.
>suppose an engineer decides to make an extended dance remix of 
>cloudbusting.  s/he extends the sproingy parts, maybe adding filler
>material from the original sessions which didn't make the album track,
>but otherwise leaves the piece intact.  let's call this mix #1.  whose
>"creation" is this, kate's or the engineer's?
[etc deleted]

i think i have a pretty good perspective on this issue as i am now a
published remix artiste (on a major label no less.  i've sold out.)

when we did our production, we started with a completely blank slate.  we
programmed everything from the ground up, and then slapped the original
vocal track over the bits we had created.  however, we did not write the
song.  so, the record still says written by the original band and all that.
we have a nice little credit in the liner notes - it reads, "remixed by blah
for twitch."  i wanted "remix and additional production" but i never
mentioned it to anyone so it didn't get in there.  surprise.

on the other hand, our original composition record, which depends heavily on
samples from other groups (although not as easily recognizable as kate's
contribution to the utah saints), is credited entirely to us.  i feel that
anything is up for grabs, sampling-wise.  if your song is so obviously
dependant on another's (eg. utah saints or mc hammer), you should credit the
original artist.  just to be nice, anyway.  paying money is a different
question entirely.

-- 
Jon Drukman (God's personal DJ)                 uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.