3 comments

• 

  Glen

  4 years ago

  Entertaining? Definately. Professionally presented? Absolutely. And I'm glad you put me on to it, I'll listen to it again and again.
  
  But as for being able to publish it without paying the due royalties? I dont think so.
  
  Some tracks may be poignant, and the arrangment is unique, but it still doesn't forgive the fact that in most of these tracks the success of the tune is based on the very hard work of others - in this case Queen. Just because Kleptones provide a dub and lay tracks and lyrics over top to alter the meaning of the tune, doesn't alter the fact that the tune still belongs to the original artist (or record company).
  
  Some of these tracks "Save", "Sniff' and "Listen" are not much more than Karaoke. With the verses of the original tune removed and these guys rapping over top.
  
  Just because the original tune is old, and some perceive it has lost it's meaning when played as is 20 years later, doesnt mean that it doesn't have value.
  
  Should Kleptones pay royalties for this use? Or perhaps, the fact that the tune is SO recognizeable as Queen, it may be enough to point the consumer in the direction of purchasing Queen's music (or Vanilla Ice's). If so, have the Kleptones done enough of a service? The problem being that there is no direct link to Queen, such as a blog may provide, so that consumers have a choice. http://www.queenonline.com/
  
  If, in a blog, you reference someone elses work, a pic or a statement, and provide a link to the source - driving the all-important traffic - many feel this is good enough service. Some - The Toronto Star - dont agree, as one beer league hockey team found out. http://www.geocities.com/sixteenguysnamedmoe/ho... And these guys were driving traffic TO the Toronto Star, not taking traffic from it.
  
  The owner of Queen's music deserves something. Just because it is old, doesn't mean it's free.
  
  Just because the meaning of the tune has changed doesn't negate the value of the previous hard work that provides the tune's base.
  
  Just because the Kleptones are polished, and damn good at what they do, and obviously pumped in a lot of hard work themselves, doesn't give them full ownership. They are reaping benefits from the familiarity of others work.
  
  Imagine a large beer company, taking the song of a local artist, using that song in their ad to promote their product, and refusing to pay the local artist any royalties to use the song, because the lyrics of the original song have been removed, because of all the hard work the production crew did on the commercial, and because now the meaning of the song has changed from unrequited love to "buy beer."
  
  Now excuse me while I go listen to the free copy of the Kleptones album I downloaded on company time using their resources. But the music is being pumped over my personal speakers I brought into the office, so it's okay.
  reply
• 

  kishkash

  4 years ago

  I thought Queen were getting something? They're getting 50% of the profits, surely - i.e. zero ;)
  
  Besides, do the Kleptones really have to provide a hyperlink to one of the biggest bands in the world, whose records are available in almost every record shop on the planet?
  
  Better would be to give up some links to some of the lesser known rappers on the album, who have probably reached a whole new audience of unknowing ears through this.
  
  Either way, this is a hell of a lot of free, pro-Queen music publicity that's been generated - I'm sure quite a few of their albums have been bought or at the very least dusted down and replayed as an indirect result of "Hip-Hopera". I've certainly seen bloggers mention that they got into the Flaming Lips purely through the Kleps version of "Yoshimi"...
  
  But underneath it all remains, for me, the main argument. Exactly how much would the Kleptones have to cut up, process and remix their source material before it becomes more of their art than the originators of the samples they use? 10%? 40%? 75% ???
  
  How far do you have to go before it becomes "your" art created, and not "their" art stolen? I think this album, and several recent others are proving that it is for the eye (or ear) of the beholder to decide.
  
  According to recent court rulings (as I'm sure you're aware) it doesn't matter any more anyway - a sample is a sample is a sample. So it's all illigal now - Use three notes. Use three seconds. Use three minutes!!! It doesn't matter any more...in law it doesn't make any difference.
  reply
• 

  Glen

  4 years ago

  It seems that other forms of art allow a similar "sampling" to produce original pieces. Warhol's Campbell's Soup can. Marcel Duchamp's "fountain" which was nothing more than an upturned urinal.
  
  As a music lover I would like the Kelptones to have this freedom.
  
  Duchamp's work is classified as Objet d'Art (Found Art), art created from common objects not normally considered to be artistic. Kleptones are using art within art, so this doesnt apply.
  
  Warhol's pop art, taking popular culture and presenting it as original work is closer to what Kleptones do, in that the object derives its significance from the context into which it is put.
  
  Kleptones alter the significance of Queen's or Flaming Lips' art. But it's in the same context - music.
  
  A rough road ahead for artists like the Kleptones, but I sincerely hope they somehow succeed.
  reply