The waxidermy mixes are not being sold to make a profit. There is no money made from them to compensate anyone. They are sold to A. pay for themselves being made, and B. to keep the site online. We are beginning work on a comp that will be pressed in greater quantity and we are going to ask permission to use tracks and pay for them if a profit is made.
You're certainly making a lot of assumptions about the motivations and money involved in other folks mixtapes...
It seemed to me you were holding some moral high ground that Chains and Black Exauhst made enough profit to make licensing worthwhile. It's ok for you to release comps without paying the artists when it pays for your toys and license stuff on bigger releases right? Why is this not ok in Dante's case. If this has nothing to do with C&BE, forgive me for misconstruing the abstract ideas in your head.
I have nothing against Dante, and I honestly have no idea how well his CD sold of if he paid royalties. I wasn't referring to his mix. I took issue with the dude who seemed (to me) to be saying that by working "turntable artistry" or whatever you guys call it, and rendering songs somewhat differently than a straight "comp", that you then no longer need to pay for using tracks. That is ridiculous.
The waxidermy mixes are not being sold to make a profit. There is no money made from them to compensate anyone. They are sold to A. pay for themselves being made, and B. to keep the site online. We are beginning work on a comp that will be pressed in greater quantity and we are going to ask permission to use tracks and pay for them if a profit is made.
You're certainly making a lot of assumptions about the motivations and money involved in other folks mixtapes...
1) You are talking about Dante's mix, in a thread about his mix, and
2) R*b is not an asshole. Never has been. Never will be.
Bud: I have no personal issues with you (I rarely have personal issues with anyone), but you're a little turned around here. C&BE was never meant as a "money-making" venture; it was a mixtape for a couple of friends that blew up unexpectedly within the confines of an extremely limited market. Your Waxidermy mixes are, if without the same inauspicious beginnings, exactly the same as C&BE in that they are "help the family" mixes (served up fish-fry style). I fail to see the distinction between the two products.
There is an art to a solid compilation, especially when the mix is intended as one big you-haven't-heard-it-and-you-can't-top-it assemblage. The artists on C&BE - save for a few names - would likely never have had their sole 45 dug up and played by anyone if not for stumper mixes like this. And Dante certainly doesn't profit from folks re-selling his mix (which listed for, what? maybe $12.99 when it dropped?) for exorbitant sums.
BTW, how many of the artists on the Waxidermy "mixes" (which are actually comps, correct? this is significant because one who owns a song on a mix may still feel the need to buy the product to have the full version) have been compensated?
What am I not understanding?
The waxidermy mixes are not being sold to make a profit. There is no money made from them to compensate anyone. They are sold to A. pay for themselves being made, and B. to keep the site online. We are beginning work on a comp that will be pressed in greater quantity and we are going to ask permission to use tracks and pay for them if a profit is made.
Je**
I doubt seriously that the folks who's music is being used in Waxidermy mixes would necessarily be willing to make those distinctions. Whether certain, self-righteous (borderline psychotic) fryermantis posters like it or not, "bootleg" comps/mixes are part of the process of keeping old music alive. Nobody's making a mint putting these things out. When people have the wherewithal to do comps like that in a completely legitimate manner, including proper licensing, annotation etc. that's obviously better all around, but not everyone has the resources to do so. L
BTW, how many of the artists on the Waxidermy "mixes" (which are actually comps, correct? this is significant because one who owns a song on a mix may still feel the need to buy the product to have the full version) have been compensated?
What am I not understanding?
The waxidermy mixes are not being sold to make a profit. There is no money made from them to compensate anyone. They are sold to A. pay for themselves being made, and B. to keep the site online. We are beginning work on a comp that will be pressed in greater quantity and we are going to ask permission to use tracks and pay for them if a profit is made.
Crink, I think your argument is flawed though when relating the difference of your mixes/comps vs. any other mix/comp. Only because A. Unless you ask the artist/owner to use their song, they have never given you permission to put it out there (for all you know they may not want to be associated with your site?) and B. I don't believe you can technically charge anything, even the cost of the CDs or use the money for the site and really have the opportunity to be sued for doing so. Any money that would be made off these comps anyone sells technically needs to go to the original artists first and then you get your cut.
I am not mad at the mixes, just sayin a bootleg is a bootleg is a bootleg no matter how good or bad your intentions are or how mixed or unmixed it is.
Co-sign. I also don't see how a little fade-in/fade-out/mixing/scratching will turn the music on any mix into something of your property. If I steal a car but then I make my own custom paint job on it (with a big eagle and flames coming out of the engine), will that make things right? No, it would be my pimped but still stolen car.
Co-sign. I also don't see how a little fade-in/fade-out/mixing/scratching will turn the music on any mix into something of your property. If I steal a car but then I make my own custom paint job on it (with a big eagle and flames coming out of the engine), will that make things right? No, it would be my pimped but still stolen car.
Yeah that was why my mom said you couldn't come round to play anymore
the difference is im using my skills as a dj to put it together, mixing, remixing, blending etc. putting my own spin on it.
So this makes it yours? I think it still comes down to how it's being sold. If it really is just for promotion then I think it's ethically justifiable - but, if it's making you a decent amount of money and being widely sold then it really does not matter if you play the songs backwards on the CD - it's still someone elses music.
the music is not mine, the mix is. i can see why you cant understand that, your mixes are probably more comp style. 2 different animals really.i could break it down more for you but i dont think its necessary, at least not in this post. that doesnt take away the fact that that has got to be the worst cover i have ever seen in my life.
Look - I understand what you are saying, and I understand that you speak of a stylisticly different type of mix. That however does not change my point. If you are using someone's existing music to make a profit then it is ethically right to pay for it. It doesn't matter how creative you think you are being with it.
as i said the music is NOT mine, the actual mix IS. if somone takes one of my mixes and throws their name on it they are stealing MY mix. not to mention being some biting ass motherfuckers. much the same as what happened to dante, although instead of putting their name on it, they threw some second rate porn on the cover. i wonder if this was maybe a subliminal diss?
i think you would be hard pressed to think of a hip hop artist that would object to being on a mixtape. mixtapes ARE hiphop. i knew when i made my initial post that you would reply to it, thats why hiphop was in quotes. i didn't however know that you were making and selling a mixtape comp from your site. just because you are using the money made for "upkeep of the site" doesnt mean you're not profiting from it, it just means you are using the profits to pay for upkeep of your site.
for the record i put my mixes up for free on the internet.
Co-sign. I also don't see how a little fade-in/fade-out/mixing/scratching will turn the music on any mix into something of your property. If I steal a car but then I make my own custom paint job on it (with a big eagle and flames coming out of the engine), will that make things right? No, it would be my pimped but still stolen car.
This was my original point. thank you.
I am not condeming illegitimate comps/mixes - I don't know how I can make that any more clear. I am also not trying to split hairs. If it would make everyone happy I'll find all the waxidermy artists and I'll write the each checks for 3 cents. Because, like most mixes, there isn't any money to be had in the first place. I understand this. All I am saying is that IF[/b] something becomes popular and profitable enough then royalties should be paid. Period. Regardless of how Hip Hop it is is or how wicked your scratching is.
Some of you people need to go back to fucking Jr. High cause you clearly didn't learn how to read.
All I am saying is that IF[/b] something becomes popular and profitable enough then royalties should be paid. Period. Regardless of how Hip Hop it is is or how wicked your scratching is.
Essentially we do not disagree. I think Dante has a proven history of making the correct predictions about which of his releases are going to be popular and profitable enough for licensing.
Can a sandwich be made from a loner folk record with xian psyche underpinnings and a hip-hop record with scratching that could only be described as "wicked"?
Because such a sandwich might just be a panacaea for this thread.
Co-sign. I also don't see how a little fade-in/fade-out/mixing/scratching will turn the music on any mix into something of your property. If I steal a car but then I make my own custom paint job on it (with a big eagle and flames coming out of the engine), will that make things right? No, it would be my pimped but still stolen car.
I don't believe in the absence of hierarchy implicit in statements like "a bootleg is a bootleg." For the sake of clarity, let's vastly oversimplify and say that artists get deprived of income when people don't have to buy their records. A comp that features, say, Jim Sullivan's "Rosey" untouched and in its entirety, could be said to negate the need for me to actually purchase the Jim Sullivan record. The same cannot really be said of a dj mix that doubles the intro loop and then cuts in a Masta Ace "accapello" (Mo'Preme: where is he now?) and then lets the song play for one verse and then blends into something else.
And your analogy is a poor one. Painting concerns the cosmetic; mixing and scratching and fading concerns the structural.
...
In Akron, I saw an mid-80s Citation with a homemade blower. Ohio soul.
Comments
You're certainly making a lot of assumptions about the motivations and money involved in other folks mixtapes...
I have nothing against Dante, and I honestly have no idea how well his CD sold of if he paid royalties. I wasn't referring to his mix. I took issue with the dude who seemed (to me) to be saying that by working "turntable artistry" or whatever you guys call it, and rendering songs somewhat differently than a straight "comp", that you then no longer need to pay for using tracks. That is ridiculous.
dude, I'm not making assumtions about anything.
because hip hop always wins.
FUCK HIP HOP
Now, excuse me - I'm going to go crawl back into my worst xian music ever hole...
I am now a proud Frisbee owner. His fusion of "cheesey hill street blues cop show jazz" and typewriter sounds rock my world.
is she being paid?
that is one serious set-up. how many amps are in that pic?!
You're mistaken two ways:
1) You are talking about Dante's mix, in a thread about his mix, and
2) R*b is not an asshole. Never has been. Never will be.
Bud: I have no personal issues with you (I rarely have personal issues with anyone), but you're a little turned around here. C&BE was never meant as a "money-making" venture; it was a mixtape for a couple of friends that blew up unexpectedly within the confines of an extremely limited market. Your Waxidermy mixes are, if without the same inauspicious beginnings, exactly the same as C&BE in that they are "help the family" mixes (served up fish-fry style). I fail to see the distinction between the two products.
There is an art to a solid compilation, especially when the mix is intended as one big you-haven't-heard-it-and-you-can't-top-it assemblage. The artists on C&BE - save for a few names - would likely never have had their sole 45 dug up and played by anyone if not for stumper mixes like this. And Dante certainly doesn't profit from folks re-selling his mix (which listed for, what? maybe $12.99 when it dropped?) for exorbitant sums.
And I'm not even going to go into Brainfreeze.
Je**
I doubt seriously that the folks who's music is being used in Waxidermy mixes would necessarily be willing to make those distinctions. Whether certain, self-righteous (borderline psychotic) fryermantis posters like it or not, "bootleg" comps/mixes are part of the process of keeping old music alive. Nobody's making a mint putting these things out.
When people have the wherewithal to do comps like that in a completely legitimate manner, including proper licensing, annotation etc. that's obviously better all around, but not everyone has the resources to do so.
L
damn, guess i should have saved the cover...
Crink, I think your argument is flawed though when relating the difference of your mixes/comps vs. any other mix/comp. Only because A. Unless you ask the artist/owner to use their song, they have never given you permission to put it out there (for all you know they may not want to be associated with your site?) and B. I don't believe you can technically charge anything, even the cost of the CDs or use the money for the site and really have the opportunity to be sued for doing so. Any money that would be made off these comps anyone sells technically needs to go to the original artists first and then you get your cut.
I am not mad at the mixes, just sayin a bootleg is a bootleg is a bootleg no matter how good or bad your intentions are or how mixed or unmixed it is.
Co-sign. I also don't see how a little fade-in/fade-out/mixing/scratching will turn the music on any mix into something of your property. If I steal a car but then I make my own custom paint job on it (with a big eagle and flames coming out of the engine), will that make things right? No, it would be my pimped but still stolen car.
Yeah that was why my mom said you couldn't come round to play anymore
That's a cliche right there. I'm a family man, my dream is a Mondeo with flames.
More amazingness
http://www.topgear.com/content/timetoburn/sections/carbage/pages/0214/
i think you would be hard pressed to think of a hip hop artist that would object to being on a mixtape. mixtapes ARE hiphop. i knew when i made my initial post that you would reply to it, thats why hiphop was in quotes. i didn't however know that you were making and selling a mixtape comp from your site. just because you are using the money made for "upkeep of the site" doesnt mean you're not profiting from it, it just means you are using the profits to pay for upkeep of your site.
for the record i put my mixes up for free on the internet.
This was my original point. thank you.
I am not condeming illegitimate comps/mixes - I don't know how I can make that any more clear. I am also not trying to split hairs. If it would make everyone happy I'll find all the waxidermy artists and I'll write the each checks for 3 cents. Because, like most mixes, there isn't any money to be had in the first place. I understand this. All I am saying is that IF[/b] something becomes popular and profitable enough then royalties should be paid. Period. Regardless of how Hip Hop it is is or how wicked your scratching is.
Some of you people need to go back to fucking Jr. High cause you clearly didn't learn how to read.
Essentially we do not disagree. I think Dante has a proven history of making the correct predictions about which of his releases are going to be popular and profitable enough for licensing.
Can a sandwich be made from a loner folk record with xian psyche underpinnings and a hip-hop record with scratching that could only be described as "wicked"?
Because such a sandwich might just be a panacaea for this thread.
I don't believe in the absence of hierarchy implicit in statements like "a bootleg is a bootleg." For the sake of clarity, let's vastly oversimplify and say that artists get deprived of income when people don't have to buy their records. A comp that features, say, Jim Sullivan's "Rosey" untouched and in its entirety, could be said to negate the need for me to actually purchase the Jim Sullivan record. The same cannot really be said of a dj mix that doubles the intro loop and then cuts in a Masta Ace "accapello" (Mo'Preme: where is he now?) and then lets the song play for one verse and then blends into something else.
And your analogy is a poor one. Painting concerns the cosmetic; mixing and scratching and fading concerns the structural.
...
In Akron, I saw an mid-80s Citation with a homemade blower. Ohio soul.
Sannies