Nicki by Name

[MsD]

Nicki Minaj to pay $450 k to Tracy Chapman for using her song after permission was denied.

I do like Ms M, but the way the lyric suddenly goes galloping off here is hilarious.

[MsD]

I really am sorry about my massive pictures. I selected "Small".

[ursus arctos]

They aren't massive on an IPad or phone

[MsD]

Phew.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

It's not abnormally big on laptop either, but anyway worth it for the "Tinkerbell, Peter Pan" left turn

[diggedy derek]

This is an interesting and complex case which I'm sure OTFers more clever than me are well up on. From what I know, Minaj never denied she'd used this song, and asked Chapman to use it. When permission was not forthcoming, she (or someone close to her) leaked it to Funkmaster Flex to spin on air on radio.

So Minaj didn't directly profit from this song. However, she did use Chapman's intellectual property essentially to make a red-hot public promo for her forthcoming album.

Minaj tried to argue that, look, this is hiphop culture, we fool around with samples in the studio all the time, this is part of how this art is made. You cannot stop us doing that, it's a free expression issue. The judge agreed with the one part of that, you can do what you want in the studio, but they didn't agree that you could then use that stuff for your own financial gain.

[MsD]

Some of my favourite music borrows (VU, returned with thanks), this just made me laugh. It’s probably good for both parties.

[caja-dglh]

Some of my favourite music borrows (VU, returned with thanks), this just made me laugh. It’s probably good for both parties.

Not always. Sometimes the lines are blurred.

[Sits]

I’ll ask my daughter what she thinks. She’s a big fan of both.

[danielmak]

I admit that I am super inconsistent with my opinions about art and commerce. On one hand, I can see why Chapman would not want to sell her art to a pop star. On the other hand, I have no idea what kind of money Chapman is making these days (even pre-COVID). Before COVID she could tour on a performance of that first album (one of those retro tours) and I'd be shocked if she could play much larger than a small club on a tour like that. People who bought that record (I own it) and like the record but wouldn't identify as a Chapman fan aren't going to see her, so the market is small. But if Minaj released the song and it blew up, Chapman could be into serious money. Not only would she be paid for the use but she'd receive co-writing credit. As I posted in another thread, one of the huge advantages of streaming is the streams are counted. Record labels can't manipulate payrates like they did the past. Artists like Minaj are making big money from impression-based payouts. Chapman would have received a guaranteed piece of that pie if the song blew up. Moreover, it's not like Chapman fans are going to jump ship, feeling like she's abandoned who they believe her to be. I think you can tell, if I was Chapman, I would have sold provided I wasn't being offered a crap deal. And I would have milked that situation: look we have to do a video together (a la Aerosmith and Run DMC).

EDIT: I missed the 450K settlement. I don't know if this song did much but if it was allowed to do much, I think Chapman might have made more in the long run. Can't say it's a very good song, though. It's no Super Bass.

If Chapman was just starting and selling the song could get in the way of an attempt to start a career, I'd probably have a different response.

[ad hoc]

Your argument seems to assume that the only possible motivation Chapman could have is money.

[ursus arctos]

Ding, Ding, Ding

[ad hoc]

Ah, was that the irony detector?

<slightly abashed >

[ursus arctos]

No, that was the Winner, Winner, Chicken Dinner bell
Spot on

[G-Man]

I don't know whether requests for permission involve prior presentation of all lyrical content. But if so, I should imagine that the feminist Chapman wouldn't want her words associated with Nas' rap.

[diggedy derek]

I think I remember that Tracey Chapman has a longstanding position of never letting her music be used for samples.

[delicatemoth]

When I was younger I'd have sneered at that, now I'd respect it and find something else to sample. Great thread title.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

I think I remember that Tracey Chapman has a longstanding position of never letting her music be used for samples.

Mentioned in the BBC report on the case:

One of the clearance specialists working for Minaj was also said to have known Chapman was on an unofficial "do not sample" list.

[MsD]

Her music's been used a lot in film. Apart from being a good way to get heard, that's a real money generator, and no, I'm not assuming it's her only motivation, she's an artist first and foremost.

The several 80s/90s popstars I know have made most of their money from film soundtracks and ads.

[Snake Plissken]

Sting made 400k from I'll Be Missing You.

She took a sample from someone who is known not to allow samples, then built a track off it and when refused permission to release it, it suddenly magically got leaked. Uh-uh. Right.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

Before COVID she could tour on a performance of that first album (one of those retro tours) and I'd be shocked if she could play much larger than a small club on a tour like that.

According to setlist.fm she hasn't toured since 2009 (after her most recent album), when she was playing places like the Wiltern and the Filmore, and in London two nights at the Roundhouse.

I'm sure she can pay the bills, as well as the income from her own recordings the Boyzone cover of Baby Can I Hold You was a big hit in the UK and Ireland and Fast Car has been covered to death, including the Jonas Blue version which was a major hit internationally.

She seems to have been consistent in the no sample approach - Gabrielle's Dreams originally sampled Fast Car but was re-recorded because they couldn't clear it.

[danielmak]

Your argument seems to assume that the only possible motivation Chapman could have is money.

Not at all. That's why I started with this sentence: I admit that I am super inconsistent with my opinions about art and commerce.

Most artists making music like Chapman makes (made) are going to make very little money. That means their art is an artistic hobby. That's cool. But as someone with 0 music-making talent who loves music, I would like to see more artists be able to make money from their art so they don't have to have some other job where they basically help someone else become rich. If an artist like Chapman sells a song that streams millions of times on each platform, ends up in a film, a commercial, and other moneymaking outlets then that artist can focus more time on making music instead of managing a grocery store or doing data entry (or some other job).

BTW, I use the phrase an "artist like Chapman" because reports throughout this thread suggest that Chapman is probably doing just fine. So, my larger point is more about how artists find ways to earn some kind of living from their art versus having their art function as a hobby.

[Snake Plissken]

That’s veering very close to the “I don’t know why you won’t give me your work to me for free because I can give you exposure” argument.

[Fussbudget]

Most artists making music like Chapman makes (made) are going to make very little money. That means their art is an artistic hobby. That's cool. But as someone with 0 music-making talent who loves music, I would like to see more artists be able to make money from their art so they don't have to have some other job where they basically help someone else become rich. If an artist like Chapman sells a song that streams millions of times on each platform, ends up in a film, a commercial, and other moneymaking outlets then that artist can focus more time on making music instead of managing a grocery store or doing data entry (or some other job).

Why not trust her to make that decision for herself?

The idea that someone who doesn't monetise their creative output to the absolute maximum is automatically a hobbyist is bizarre. There's a pretty big middle ground between a hobby and making millions off one's art.

[danielmak]

That’s veering very close to the “I don’t know why you won’t give me your work to me for free because I can give you exposure” argument.

Not sure if the use of "That's" to begin your post is a response to my last post or just responding to the general context.

Fussbudget : we seemed to be typing at the same time. See below.

I would say that any artist who wants to sample another artist needs to get clearance, and copyright law says the same thing. I'm less versed in the laws surrounding copyright related to covers in part because different artists have different kinds of publishing deals if they have chosen to sell their publishing rights. The right thing to do is to ask about a cover. If the songwriter declines then the artist who wants to cover the song either needs to offer more money (same for the sample) or move on. Sampling or covering a song when the songwriter declined is obviously legally problematic (hence the $450K judgement) and ethically problematic.

Then there's the issue of career development. The music business is like a pyramid, which isn't radically different than the economy writ large. At the tip of that pyramid is the most money for the smallest percentage of artists (the mega stars are the 1 percenters to extend the society writ large argument) the further you go down to the base are more artists and at the floor of that pyramid are the largest percentage of artists, none of whom are making any money. If you are new artist, selling a song could be a huge mistake. Had Minaj sold "Super Bass" she might just be another artist at the base of that pyramid, for example. If you have been plugging away for a long time and getting nowhere, selling a song could be a huge financial windfall that will not come in any other way. And selling that song could lead to levels of exposure that won't happen in other ways. For example, maybe the artists is a snore on stage, doesn't have a vision for the kind of music they make. Then maybe what happens by selling that song is that a songwriting career opens up. That songwriting career is the only career option; the alternative is an artistic hobby (as I discussed above). Again, most of this is irrelevant for Tracy Chapman since she had a brief rise with a career. But for some other artist that's been plugging away and getting nowhere, selling a song to Nicki Minaj would be huge (provided the deal was fair). So, there is some truth to your post, Snake: *sell* me your work and I can give you exposure. Don't sell me your work and continue to exist on forgetify.*** BTW, nobody is "giving" their work away as long as they work with a half-way decent lawyer.

**I list that forgetify link. In 2014, one-fifth of Spotify's on-demand music catalog of over 20 million songs haven't been streamed once. I am sure that number is higher now. If you are a songwriter whose song has never been streamed, selling to Minaj would be the way to go. haha.