Equipping Your Home Recording Studio - A Free Guide from Audio Masterclass

An Introduction to Compression: Basic Compression - A Free Guide from Audio Masterclass

An Introduction to Equalization - A Free Guide from Audio Masterclass

Facebook social media iconTwitter social media iconYouTube social media iconSubmit to Reddit

Readers' Letters: The three microphone preamplifiers (one of them bad!) REVEALED!, and more...

"Record-Producer.com's recent blind test of three microphone preamplifiers produced some interesting comments. Now you can find out which models they are, and which one is the dodo bird."


In response to The three microphone preamplifiers (one of them bad!) REVEALED!, K.vanderschaeve@skynet.be writes...


There is something i do not understand from this article. Are these 4 tests respectively from the 4 preams as listed? Means, test1 yam AW1600 norm, test2 MBOX test3 yam AW1600 test4 DMP3 ??

I'm asking that because it seems as if yam comes out as the worst in the article. But i found the test3 (yam) being best sounding...


FREE EBOOK - Equipping Your Home Recording Studio

Equipping Your Home Recording Studio



RP response: This goes to show how subjective audio can be. Accuracy and transparency are objective matters, but when a preamp is anything different to accurate and transparent, then it is all down to the taste and judgement of the engineer (and whether the market likes what he or she does).

In response to Why multimike drums when the simple Glyn Johns four-mic technique gives great results? WITH INTERVIEW VIDEO!, Simon Perks writes...

as a pro drum tech (David Gilmours 2006 Tour as example) and owner of backline service switzerland, quite frankly all these mike techniques are absolutly useless unless the Drums the Drums are Properly tuned. Something that most Studio engineers know precious little about.

Get that right and the rest is easy......

Maybe an article explaning that would be better first.

RP response: Thank you for your input. Please note however that the article was about microphone techniques and not about drum tuning. That would be a topic in itself. If you would like to contribute an article on drum tuning, you would be most welcome.

In response to Folkies wanted - Help stop Looming Economic Depression - Worldwide, Ronald Jeff, AKA The Sole Proprietor writes...

Ok, Have taken your advice and "got uploading". It's an opportunity for Audio Masterclass readers to bash or cash in on analogue recording. I would love to hear comments, especially since one of the "retro" songs I uploaded is once again ticking up airplay per BMI stats. It just took a new package to get it kicking again. My next album is a rocker and will be more in line with today's technology, but I'll still use high speed tape as a starting point.

Thanks again.

In response to Can a plug-in improve your monitoring acoustics? , Tom Ghent writes...


The practice of using out board eq in the monitor chain has been a common one in even some very best recording studios for many years. Whether it is done with software or analog devices, this "correction" process is really the same old thing. The determining factor, as to whether or not this solution can help,is how far from being acousticly correct the room is before monitor correction is applied. Over-correction with an equalized monitor system can really mess with imaging,tonal adjustment,individual track volume,effects selection and placement etc.,and all other facets required for a good mix.On the other hand,a "small" amount of monitor correction in an already well constructed mixing environment can be quite helpful. I personally know of people who have purchased some of the new monitor speaker systems (JBL for one) with the included room analisis kits and self ajusting eq. Those who were were already getting very good ,"but not quite there" mixes have benefited. Those whose rooms yielded poor quality mixes to begin with, are now getting different,but still non-translatable mixes! The bottom line is to do a good room analisis (there are inexpensive software and anolog units available to help you with this)and correct your actual room acoustics as much as possible before you start employing eq based monitor correction. If you're not in the position to build a permanent mixing facility,portable defusers and/or absorbers are relatively inexpensive and easy to construct. The web has all kinds of info on how to build them.If you can't do it yourself,download some plans and find a local carpenter or a handy friend to help you.If you're going to spend your money on all manor of recording equipment,keep in mind that spending some on setting up a good mixing space, is ,at very least, an equally important investment.What good is a mix that doesn't sound good outside your "control room"?...T.G.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Sarah writes...

So...Songwriters shouldn't expect to get paid for their songs? OR have any creative control over how their songs are used in future?

I would seriously consider not releasing songs in the first place if that was the case! And then where would we be?

RP response: In the USA songwriters do not have total control over their works once they have been released. Any artist can cover any previously released song subject to payment of the statutory royalty rate.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Paul Hartley writes...

Is it me? What is this whole industry turning into?

Are you suggesting that any potential hip-hop artist worth listening to cant get that first foot on the rung beacause he cant use a sample written by someone else? Err... Hello. I thought that music of all types relied on a certain amount of individual creativity. You're saying it's impossible to even get going without nicking something someone else has done.

We're talking IP here. It's like me saying that I want to write a Crime mystery novel but I want to use a chapter/theme/charaters/method..whatever written by Ian Rankin rather than think of something myself. If I cant use his stuff then i cant do it?

Perhaps I'm missing something here but surely samples aren't everything. Sure they're nice to have around and to use from time to time but to think that they could make the difference between an "artist" doing it or not doing it leaves me feeling pretty cold.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Panagiotis Kouvelis writes...

Hello to all and Greetings from Greece,

In my country there is also the creator's right to choose if an artist can fulfill the creator's vision when he was writing the music and thus give him or her the rights to use or re-record any music.

Now on the subject I suggest to give all music in the form of sampling a license like the one used for "creative commons" and then if the artist makes money he will have to pay the money involved.

That's my two cents, sorry for my bad English.

Best wishes to all for a great and creative winter!


In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., The Nameless One writes...

I think you've got a strong argument in saying budding hip hop musicians have to be criminals before they can even become successful. What I don't really understand is why the system isn't based more on the use of the sample, and other important factors like record sales. Why don't we judge how the sample is being used, and then set aside a percentage of record sales for it's original artist?

I think everyone would agree that if I took someone else's song, and added only 1 new instrument and my lyrics over, that a large portion of my record sales for that song should be payed to the original artist. However, if I used a few sliced up drum samples or a note from a string part from another song to make my own creation, that a smaller portion of my record sales should be payed out to the original artist.

Doesn't this seem fair? If the sampling artist is successful, then the original artist gains success too. More people will begin to claim their samples because what they pay will rely on what they make, rather then a fee out front.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Rick Blank writes...

Uhhh, or Hip Hop artists could learn how to actually play their music rather than just cut and paste from someone else's. Look, is this really a problem? Every time I turn around there's some new, scowling face with some same-as-last-week sound at the top of the R&B charts. Poor Hip Hop artists? Good. Then maybe there will be something new to come out of the scene. (Remember what Nirvana did for rock music?)

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Grayce writes...

"Hip Hop Musicians"? I know a few. They went to music conservatories as children, became musicians, and now sit in studio and generate hip hop music. If they're music is sampled for a recording, they should be paid. They paid their dues in lessons, study, and practice, practice, practice. Why shouldn't they be rewarded for hard work, hard studying, good discipline, and focus?

We've allowed enough laziness to infuse a generation to the point they feel somehow entitled to steal others hardwork. "Hip Hop Musicians" can actually play the music you hear on the radio. Give credit where credit is due. "Talkers and Re-Mixers" are not "Hip Hop Musicians". We need to learn how to distinguish between the two. Whoever is playing the drum and bass, etc. for that infectious beat is musician/genius.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Psyclist writes...

I have a few comments about the sampling/hip-hop culture. To call heavily sampled hip hop tunes " music" is being very generous. These guys are basically thieves who steal from others' creations precisely because they lack the talent to generate decent music independently. Sampling is akin to the preschoolers who cut pictures out of magazines, glue them to a board as a collage, and call it "art". That hip hop has become so big is less evidence of it's artistic value than it is the lack of musical awareness on the part of the consumer. If one is required to copy another's work to produce music, the copycats should have to pay. I'm sure they'd be pissed if someone ripped off their work without payment. Welcome to the real world.

In response to Folkies wanted - Help stop Looming Economic Depression - Worldwide, Adrian writes...

If you do realise that our problem is based on too much regulation and not de-regulation. That a free market, free of grubby government hands ALLOWS you to buy a well made guitar. That it affords the maker a decent living to continue making his guitars without unfair competition. That this will enable YOU, the buyer, to decide which best man will win air and square. That our country became a super white light because of this and the unprecedented separation of state and religeon.

If so, then may the 1st capitalist "folkie" come forth.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Golden Ears writes...

Budding artists should create their own samples and not steal the works of other artists. The technology exists to make sampling and looping foolproof. I have even had to teach "rappers" who could not rap in rhythmn. Budding musicians should learn the basics of music. And forget the bling--keep it real.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Original Thinker writes...

This article is ludicrous on so many levels it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It implies and makes the assumption that sampling (COPYING) other peoples work - what we used to call PLAGIARISM or theft of an idea - is somehow a right, moral, inherent and necessary to making 'art', and that it's a shame we aren't all allowed to do it.

Whatever happened to the idea that an 'artist' or 'producer' was required to come up with his own sounds, produced by his own instruments, recording techniques, and years of study? Instead many of us ignore the great traditions of our community and now perceive 'music' to be a pile of mindless, rhythmic crap - strung together by someone who beats his chest and can't compose a tune, sing, or play an instrument.

Kids - if you want to be successful in music, learn to MAKE music. Start by listening to something, ANYTHING other than the current crop of cRAP artists this guy seems to think have something to offer...

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Mihail Aronson writes...

Interseting topic!

But aslong as you dont try to make "a hell loadof fastmoney", one dont REALLY have to be afraid of getting cought by using some samples!

Sometimes people come up with same inventions or sounds at the same time, sometimes artists or inventors have gone to the patent office with same inventions at the same time!

I dont think one can own sounds(samples) or making harsh rules to fine everyone who is using creating and remixing music. To be constantly on your "toes" and bothered with the tought that you´re not using or inventing "someones elses music" while creating music is no joy at all.

In the endthe music creation will just suffer from this nonsense!

Music has always been shared by artists and its listeners. SO ofcourse no one should have to be rich to make music, it is just a simple as it can get. Everyone understands naturally I hope!

Thank You/ mishka~~

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Ben writes...

First of all I question the use of the term "musician" when refering to Hip Hop performers. These people need to study music and learn to write their own songs...., and then maybe they wouldn't be relegated to a life in the poor house.

Seriously, we can't blame Mr. Sullivan for protecting his creative efforts..., and especially against someone too lazy to write on their own. He even used 2/3 of the title....., come on, really now.

By the way, did Mr. Gilbert or Mr. Sullivan ever object to Gibert O'Sullivan using that name, legally it may be an infraction??

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Scott writes...

I think the copywrite laws as they stand are just fine and leave well enough alone. People in the music business don't make that much money anymore to begin with.

This isn't any different than manufacturing, big biz just wants the little people to keep working for less until it's all down to free. The monopolies just continue to grow and now even the bigger fish are being swallowed up, it's called communism.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Jim Corona writes...

Hey, I like protecting creative rights, but big Hip Hop stars can easily afford, to buy a song from a writer, hire an arranger, musicians to play a "Real Music" loop and then let a great HipHop producer do his magic. When I hear Kanye using Steely Dan - I'm torn. Hire some players 'that' quality & you will be innovative & put value back in musicianship and in defense of him, my 16 yr old, is listening to my Steely Dan collection. Maybe future musicians, producers, engineers, songwriters etc, will find inspiration to combine present & past to make a better future. The thought of Kanye, Becker & Fagen in a studio together has great potential. Strange bedfellows, but would be musical!

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Jmi Corona writes...

answer to question.

What did Run Dmc & Aerosmith do? Combine forces to expand audience. Legal advise is always available. Find local musos to perform the section of music, use that until you get permission. Musicians will get exposure to a world they're not in, and HipHop writers/producers may be inspired to hire musicians for other tunes?

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Kevin Dorin writes...

"What we need is a change to copyright law to permit sampling, perhaps with payment at a reasonable statutory rate, or some other workable payment mechanism."

-It obvious that the Author of this article is semi educated in copyright law. Which is GREAT!! copyright law is a twisted lengthy and complicated issue that too few artist and managers themselves have any expertise in today.

the US does have a compulsory license law for all US copyrights that's in effect right now, but it is geared price wise to covers of songs and not sampling(contact the HARRY FOX AGENCY to obtain them). Which brings the question.. is a sample of a song 10 seconds long equal to covering the song... well that is what the law says at the moment in most countries, any amount of the song that is used requires a licence. and as a songwriter and publisher myself i strongly agree. copyright is the bread and butter of my meager income and if anyone is sampling MY creations to gain possibly even more profit than i myself have made off them.. you'd best be paying me, and i'm going to get as much in the contract out of you as i can if you have the $$ because i wrote the damn song and i control it. I live in Canada where there is no compulsory licence law, so everything here is done on negotiation and we DO NOT have to grant licenses if we choose not to; due in part to what the Canadian Copyright act calls Moral rights.

But this article still made me puke in my mouth a little....I have no sympathy for Hip hop artists who can't get samples, because even if you are not musical enough to CREATE YOUR OWN BEATS AND BACKING MUSIC(there is a proven track that there is no better was to make a hit song than to invent the hook yourself)... Absolutely everything that a music publisher does in the way of granting licenses is negotiable(even in the States it is my understanding that you can negotiate under or over the compulsory rate). My advice to budding artists is that you do not search out top charting songs to sample from if you haven't reached a point in your career where you can afford those licenses. A song's copyright value is measured by the market just like any other product. There is so much music out there nowadays by indie artists who own their own publishing or small labels, that you should search out these kind of people to purchase samples from IF YOU MUST. They are much more willing to negotiate to a substantially lower price, and if you investigate copyright law a little you will learn that by breaking down the contract into its term and territory ect. you can drop the costs on the license.

My company's business plan is based on providing artists or companies looking to license our material with quick and affordable licensing contracts and educating them on the angles involved in a licence contract. If you are Canadian i advise you to go out and get Entertainment Lawyer Paul Sanderson's book "Musician's and the Law in Canada"(which has been used time and time again as reference in Canadian Court). This is also a great book for Americans because it covers a lot of comparisons to the American laws as well, and there is an astronomical amount of amazing music in Canada that is just waiting to be used.

Good luck. you best chance as a Hip Hop artist, is intelligence and drive. So i tell you now LEARN THE COPYRIGHT ACT IN YOUR COUNTRY. it will benefit you your whole career. i promise you this!!!

Good luck again! but your luck can be escalated by you base of Knowledge

RP response: Interesting points here. To add a small clarification, in the USA you can make a recording of any song that has already been released, on payment of a statutory royalty rate. But this only covers the copyright in the song. To use a sample requires clearance for both the copyright in the song, and in the recording that is sampled - these are two distinct copyrights that might easily have different owners. Complex indeed.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Ken Norris writes...

There are many 1000's of copyright-free samples out there. Here's one site:


When my website is operational (I'm changing host and possibly registrars). When that's done I will begin posting free/low-fee loops and samples created here in my studio by local indie musicians ... everything from vocals to cello to sfx.

If someone can't seem to find what they want and needs something custom, why, of course, I'd say: 'Send them my way!' --


Ken N.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., D.Q. (Derek Quince) writes...

I have a problem with the underlying premise of the article. There's an erroneous assumption that Hip Hop artists have only one option. That is to use samples. There's another option. They can make music without the use of samples. Budding artists won't have to sorry about any legalities or sample clearances if they choose this option. They can save the samples for later when their budgets have increased to a point of affordability.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Charlie Mizza, 701 KLIK writes...

Yes, it is frustrating indeed. I used to be deathly afraid of sampling material, like the industry boogeyman was out there somewhere, looming, watching me at my MPC waiting for me to slip up (cue laughter). Now, honestly...I just don't care. I'll sample it if I damn well feel like it. Here's why:


Advances in software over the years has made sampling even harder for the powers that be to detect. For example, Celemony's Melodyne. With a program that can seemingly break the laws of physics, you can alter and rearrange the pitch, length, vibrato, and drift of any audio nondestructively. Their newest added feature has the ability to alter chords, such as the chords played on a guitar (really nice when you're sampling a guitar riff that ALMOST fits your song...with the new version it will ;). Then there's also "Tune", a Audiosuite editing tool in Pro Tools if you have the Waves Mercury Bundle. It works similarily to Melodyne. So basically, with the capabilities I have in my studio, I can get away with a LOT more than I could have before I learn of these products.


People are too scared of the boogeyman. Yes, you can get sued by whomever is on the other end of the deal, but hey - here's the real: YOU WILL ONLY GET SUED IF THE SONG BLOWS UP AND GETS POPULAR, IN WHICH TIME YOU MAY BE IN AN ADVANTAGE TO BARGAIN....IF your label or distribution company is an LLC, NOT a sole proprietorship. Remember a man named "Henry Van Winkle", better known as Vanilla Ice? His song "Ice Ice Baby" contained a sample from Sting so obvious that many people thought it was the original song the first time they heard it. Yes, he did lose his ass on that one, (thanks for being the bigger man Suge Knight...), but only after it was all over the airwaves. My company is an LLC. The business account attached to my LLC is usually around $1,000, give or take $100. I am not the only Officer of the LLC, there are two. On paper, my company doesn't make that much money.........

See where I'm going with this? Let's say they want to sue me for $3,000,000. "Oh...but I don't have that money, I don't even have $2,000 in my account" - then they'd likely take your business's name, and net worth ($1000). BIG F'N DEAL - rename the company, re-up and start over again! Besides, at worst you could negotiate that the party in question receive 50% (or more) of the mechanical royalties as a settlement. Simultaneously, depending how much buzz the song has, you made a name for yourself as a producer - here comes more business! ;)

The music business, as scary as it may be at times is still a business, and a business can be learned. If you know the ins and outs, with a little homework you can get away with a LOT. My production is out there - For obvious reasons I can't disclose examples of my work, but I guarantee you've heard it. There are a lot of people I'm sure that are wishing they could sue me, but they can't. Ha HA!

As far as either the Irish dude or Biz being to blame, it could have been anyone eventually. Cuz it was waiting to happen. I choose the Irish guy lol (jk).


In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Alex Diaz writes...

Am I reading right? Is the article Implying that sampling should be free and legal? When did sampling become a requirement to be a hip hop artist???

So, we are to believe that to be considered an "artist" and a "musician" you should be free to use someone else's work and claim it as your own to sell records. I do not believe that when you are using someone else's expression that you are creating art, you are merely turning it into an alternative karaoke version of it.

I believe that the best advise is not to use illegal samples, and not even to use samples legally, it is to CREATE something and forego the samples altogether. The only reason that samples are so widespread is that it is much easier to just say something over someone else's composition/work/recording and just chop it up and insert a groove in Pro Tools.

I think that using samples is ultimately lazy, and that it uncovers the true reason anyone is using them, money. It also negates the creative process, composing, arranging, rearranging, obsessing over the sound, the structure, the feeling. Of course you want and should make money from a recording, but at least put some effort into it.

And as the article says, you can buy a fine guitar for $1500, but it doesn't do anything by itself, and if you are a bad player it will sound bad no matter what. But when you buy a sample, you are not only buying the mechanical and the composition license, you are also buying the artist(s), the engineer(s) (recording, mixing and mastering) and the producers effort, work, talent, experience and time.

But, in reality the use of samples is not going away, so I do think there could be some solutions that would be both fair and effective:

- Limit the use of samples in an album (regardless of how big the artist is).

- Divide the rights of the song/album between the hip hop artist and the sampled artist based on sales (that way everyone receives revenues and the poor hip hop artist doesn't have to worry about paying for licensing the sample, just to clear it).

- Sample creatively (there are enough plugins and sound processing equipment to not need to sound the same and maybe not even need to sample).

- Cover the song, as the most expensive part of a sample is the mechanical license, and you can cover a song for, get this, free (you just need to pay the composer based on sales). And also, at least this way you are earnign the song as you are performing it.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Bob writes...

Sorry, stealing is stealing. It's copyright infringement. If you can't make up your own 'songs' then ya gotta pay to use other peoples stuff. This is not a free speech issue either. You're trying to make money off of someone elses work. I think your sensationalizing this and you could get someone hurt. Then you'll face a law suit for instigation. If gilbert and Sullivan have a problem with this guy, there's a lawyer who will sue him for them. If you want to blame someone blame the big record companies and lawyers. Remember a couple years ago they went around hasseling the music shop owners in England for royalties if someone tried out an instrument and played a copy written song?

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., David Winfree writes...

I think that it is only fair for the creators of songs, music, or any other artform, to be compensated for their creation. As far as samples go, I think that it should be allowed and controlled for everyone, the same way that a mechanical rights license is...by paying a reasonable fee for the license to use the sample. Maybe, charge by how long the sample is.

As far as Mr. O'Sullivan...I think that it is very hypocritical, for his publishers to complain of "Biz Markie's" use of their song...when it's clear that their artist used the "play" off of the names of "Gilbert and Sullivan" to create his own stage name.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Get Real writes...

Music created with samples is the same as Art created with clips or photos. They are collages.

It's not even "recording". it is mixing and syncing of existing art.

Why don't the "hip hop" artists create their own samples. Everyone else in the Music Industry creates their own music.

Are you saying if not for the work of people in other parts of the music industry, Hip Hop wouldn't or can't exist. If that's the case, it doesn't seem worth saving.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Nathan writes...

Perhaps a change to copyright laws that allow a small up front administration fee, that covers registrastion and a small contribution to the copyright owner/s, without breaking the bank for the up and coming artist. Combined with a pre-determined statutory royalty rate that gives the original copyright owner/s automatic writers credits and subsequent royalties.

If the song does well, so do all parties concerned. If not, no-one's loses.

You would have to have solid legaislation to make sure registration was the ONLY option.

Eg: 'Artist X' uses a sample from 'Artist Y' for a demo (my apologies if there is an actual artist calling themselves either 'Artist X, or 'Artist Y'). His choice is to register the demo and pay, say $100. Because he's done the right thing and regidstered the song, and aknowledged the input/inspiration of Artist Y, he is free to send that demo to any and all potential record companies, agents, managers etc without fear of legal action (the alternative is to risk getting caught when shopping the demo and being stuck with a $10,000 fine for not having registered it). . If Artist X is picked up, and the song has either minor or major success, all interested parties receive the correct payments via the usual channels. Open for debate would be the percentage amount, which I think would have to be a minimum of 10-20% to 'Artist Y'.

Let the games begin!

In response to "Treading Water" by Emily Asen, Ronald Jeff writes...

Emily is absolutely awesome. Multi-talented, great songwriter, producer and arranger. It's so nice to hear melodies sung on-key, high and low, and a mix of instruments all played by the same artist. Technically savy, but it still remains acoustic and alive. I take back everything I said about musicians using too many tracks .. she uses them carefully and the song still keeps your foot tapping. Bravo!

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., RJC writes...

Pay the clearance in points. If the record tanks, you don't have to pay much. If it goes platinum, you won't care.

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., Michael writes...

I wouldn't attempt an answer to the copyright issue. However, there are a few examples of musicians (eg The Roots) who don't always rely on sampling to make banging hiphop tunes. I saw the Herbaliser live a few years back and, though their records are sample-heavy, their live set was based on live instrumentation and the better for it. So...answer? Budding hip-hoppers: put a funkey band together! And then maybe others will want to steal samples from YOUR recordings!

In response to The Hip Hop rich get richer while the Hip Hop poor get poorer. And this man is to blame..., William Edgar writes...

Why not have some written agreement whereby the copyright holder would agree to some percentage (or even fraction thereof) of sales? Perhaps copyright law could set the percentage...

By David Mellor Thursday November 30, 2006