…saying you don’t want your music played in gay clubs.

A gay club has the right to play any type of music it pleases. The patrons of that club are entitled to interpret that music in any way they please. They can change the lyrics to suit their preferences. The club can gain noteriety from playing that song. Everyone may know that if you come on Friday night the DJ is going to play that song to set the party off. That may be the best grossing night the club has. In other words they are profiting directly from the use of that song. And yet they never have to pay the artist anything.  There are rules that govern the club playing that music. They pay a regular fee to the publishers, who in turn pay the publishing rights holder(s). 

Now imagine if the rights holder (not necessarily the artists) could set the price based on preference.  So the gay club owner had to pay one rate, while a club that caters to the demographic the rights owner prefers, pays less than a quarter of that rate.  Or what if the rights owner said the gay club owner can’t play the song ever, because they don’t approve of the song being put into that context?  And if the gay club played it after that, the rights owner went and sued the gay club for a quarter of a million dollars in damages.  Seems kind of outrageous huh?

There would be all sorts of outrage if an artist took a stance like this.  And yet when it comes to sampling it’s actually the law.  It could be argued that the context is different between playing a song and sampling one, but not by much.  In either case the rights holder for the song (not always the artist) is making their choice based on personal preference.  In the case of sampling that preference usually based on the false premise that sampling itself is not a musical art,  which the laws as they are written support.  But if sampling is understood as a musical artform, restrictions based on preference are even more obscene as they put limitations on art itself.

Art is based on borrowed themes, whether they are mediums, modes or methods.  Art is a conversation between the art and the world at large, and when that art becomes a part of the world at large (available publicly) it too can become the medium, mode or method through which the conversation continues.  We see this in the arts regularly, be it an interpretation of a dance piece, or a literary work based on the central themes of another literary work.  The use of legislation to limit this conversation especially so that people outside of the conversation (e.g. rights holders that are not the artists themselves) can profit is quite frankly absurd.

This isn’t to dispute the fact that artists deserve credit and compensation for sample usage (emphasis on artists), but rather to point out a flaw in the laws, which allow for prejudicial treatment based on preference.  Now if I’m not just trying to soapbox, I need to provide an alternative which provides compensation in an equitable fashion without limiting the artistic conversation.  The first step however is proving the musical merits of sampling as an art form.  It is my firm belief that through the Heads project I will provide enough evidence to present a strong case that shows the musical value, addresses the issues with the laws as they exist today, and  examples of how they might be changed.  All to a soundtrack three years in the making.  Stay tuned.

You May Want To Read:

• Implicating Reality Hunger: A Sampling Manifesto
• “Come Clean” – An InterARTive Installation
• Bridgeport, Transformation & Sound Recordings as Art