Adding small "speeches" to your music

[ShadowRaz]

You guys know how EDM music nowadays usually has those "tension" pauses into which people (myself included), tend to add some small vocals or yells, just people saying something (usually) or something similar? 

it does bring certain kind of.. content or a message into the track itself beyond just music, but it can also "ruin" some stuff in my opinion.. So i am constantly struggling to choose whether to add some of those small speeches or not. I do want to add them sometimes IF they are of some value in it and carry a meaning but if i am forcing them (as in searching some vocal pack through for something random), the nit seems.. well... odd.. How do other people hear them like yourselves? Anyways, did add shit ton of small "speeches" to a recent track..  Just wondering about it.. Of course i should do what i want but still i wonder this

For example i recorded myself snapping coins into a mug and table, and then added it as a effect, and also recorded me counting to four etc.. those are at least totally my own, but adding something like Carl Saga's speech (Peace part.1), Clip from Jak and Daxter's intro (My shitty old 'Of a new day' track which i should delete or remake 8especially the "drop"), Clip from Psychonauts (Whatever).. is that like.. wrong..? And even more importantly, do they sound good at all or would it be better to stick with only instrumental throughout the track and with other sound designs?

[AngelCityOutlaw]

This post hurts my brain.

I think what you're asking, is the legality of adding vocal samples to your music. Electronic music has done this since the earliest days, but if you haven't licensed said audio clips, then it is technically copyright infringement. 

As to whether or not it "sounds good", that completely depends on the song and clips used. In general, most EDM doesn't have much in the way of melody so the vocal cuts add something to it to break up the monotony of beats and basslines. Case in point.

 

[ShadowRaz]

8 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

 

This post hurts my brain.

 

So basically, let's just say i used lines from Penn and Teller show, i should take them out and publish the music i made without them? Since i did not get permission from Penn and Teller to use those clips? And i'm talking about this track: https://shadowraz.bandcamp.com/track/shade

On the second drop towards the end. As you can hear, i used several other speech audio clips from several different places also in it. Should i just cut them out and add something else, other sound designs (more dubstep sounds or leads) for example?

what about on this?

Carl Saga's "It is only a tiny part, of the worlds, yet untold" clip. Should i just take it out and re-publish? Did not get any copyright thingies from it though. By the way, fun fact: Clark Kent used the same speech on his Yinyues - Cosmos Remix

[The Nikanoru]

I think AngelCityOutlaw mostly answered this for you already, but I'll take a stab.

If the audio clips are from any recording under licence then it is copyright infringement; should you ever make money with said track, then you would be all kinds of liable. That being said, lots of other remixers use copyrighted audio clips for tracks posted on this website (case in point Brandon Strader's Bringing Out the Dead, Vampire's Kiss, or Season of the Witch), and because all the music posted here is for free, no licence agreements are technically violated. (I live in Canada - someone correct me if the laws are different elsewhere)

In terms of effect on a song, I think it depends entirely on the composer and the sound the composer is trying to create. I personally don't like authentic voice clips in tracks because I think it takes away from the originality of the music, but sometimes (BONKER's Zero and the Plight of Iris) it can have a powerful effect on the rest of the song. I did listen to your track Shade, and I have to say, the audio clips do make it sound really cluttered and doesn't add anything to the song itself, in my opinion.

If you are really worried about it, or think you might want to market the track sometime, one suggestion I would have is to take the lines you like from an audio clip and record them yourself or with a friend. XPRTNovice recorded lines in his own voice in his recent remix The Power from BadAss III, and it sounds pretty darn awesome. I truly believe that originality is the best course of action in any situation where this kind of concern comes up.

[ShadowRaz]

Well, i agree that a track can truly lose it's originality by adding those audio clips. I have kind of marketed my music.. i guess.. what does marketing mean anyways? but they have been for free.at first in Bandcamp (although started up on uploading couple of my first and recent EP's for distribution and they did not have any options for free distribution so they be costing money at iTunes, Amazon, Google Play)

So i shall basically leave them out on my upcoming music, especially if they are more instrumental (virtual instruments) than electronic (dubstep, house etc) anyways.

Fun fact: i found a speech generator online for free, Alter/Ego (Daisy voice) plugin which allows quite accurate pronunciation of English words, although some weirdness in some words as it sounds like some last letters are left out (if something ends with t for example) and s's are weird and it's still pretty robotic even though it's more humane than some speech generators.

Also i kind of hate hearing my own voice so speaking something myself into the music seems odd, even though i did do it on Shade. Should most likely just leave out all the words and speeches.

 

Into another matter which is related to this: using slicex (for example) to slice up some vocals and adding them all high pitch and stuff, a demonstration of what i mean:

I suppose it isn't copyright protected, even if one were to use something that is copyrighted to make them (in that video i used the acapella which i got from the Spinnin' Records contest thingie) as they sound almost nothing like the original song/singing (therefore of course did not get the copyright claim for Spinnin' Records, which i got for the remix in which i used the same vocals as they are, at youtube, which was genuine, but on that clip did not get), they be more like random letters one after another so no wonder that it did not get copyright claim.

[ShadowRaz]

Did not get any copyright claims on this either:

Try to guess who's vocals i used? This is an easy one.. i suppose.. or not.. depending on the listeners familiarity with the singer.

edit.

I think my main question would be: should a producer provide the name of the original singer who's vocals are chopped in the song? Even if there aren't direct copyrights violated per se. What if there are several different vocals? Should they all be on feat or description? 

Personally i can already answer how i see it at the moment: If the vocals aren't chopped until the point they are nothing like the original and are basically random or something, the producer should then tell the singer of course in the form of feat as the producer did not sing them so the singer should get recognition, but if they are basically nothing like the singer sang anymore and are series of letters "sang" one after another and pitch is different on the vocals, then it is not necessarily required to "feat" singers, maybe not even necessarily to start rambling on, on the description about it although maybe i would.. ? but should i? For example when i upload that full track to somewhere (second drop will be ridiculous by the way, i will make it my life's mission to design a lot of stuff into it (for example try to come up with cool new sound designs as i have re-used some Serum patches over and over nowadays (although in this one i did design couple of sounds in Zebra2 already, but have re-used the old serum designs because they sound cool already and it's easier to build new music fast (along with the mood or flow or whatever) with old sound designs rather than design new ones for every single track) but will still try to keep some balance in them), so should i mention the vocals that i chopped in the description at least? (no need to guess anymore from whom they are though, as no one wanted to: Ellie Goulding - Burn (acapella) chopped and hella lot)

 

Also now imagine the possibilities when a producer can basically take any vocals and turn them into singing vocals.. more or less.. although it helps when it is already singing so they are much more tonic..? You know some vowels are prolonged properly and stuff without the need for some weird stretching etc)

[Rux Ton]

There really is only one way to answer your question. No matter what it is, it's going to be a liability issue. You can still get in trouble without permission no matter how different it sounds because legally it wouldn't be your property.

Here are two examples. Mr. Bill and Skrillex use vocal chops from random Acapellas. Skrillex SPECIFICALLY for example did that song Sorry with Justin Bieber. The "oooo oo" vocals are not actually Justin, but its from an acapella he had. I believe he had those samples cleared because of course, it's a liability issue and he could have gotten sued for it.

No matter if its sung, or talking, yelling etc and no matter what kind of manipulation you end up doing, if it isnt your voice, its not your property. Dance music for decades has been known to be bootleggish in the sense of people still release stuff without getting it cleared. That still happens today. Its up to you to judge if its enough for you to get caught doing it, but if you have the chance to clear it, i'd choose to do that before anything else.

I hope that kinda clears things up for ya.
 

[ShadowRaz]

Well yes. I will by all means add the name of the acapella to description to be clear about that. Not sure should i even feat her which one would be correct? it doesn't matter all and all, as long as i can make what i want in the form of music as i mostly do anyways, but in this case adding vocal chops and then publish the track.

Last question: Feat or Description in case like this?

[Rux Ton]

I mean since you aren't goin to have full permission it's entirely up to you at that point. I usually don't because I'd liek my chances of getting caught doing that to be slim, even if my music is free. My view on sampling in that sense is very much oldschool where I believe its totally okay to sample stuff (thats why I like artists like Elton John who publicly announced he didn't care)

But in the end-all grand scheme of things its totally up to you.

[ShadowRaz]

I prefer to be clear about certain amount of rights so i will add it to description, but maybe not feat as they aren't direct vocals added as they are in the form of original singing, more or less, and it does take certain amount of effort to slice the vocals, find the right pitch, and adding them to "correct" spots in the song so that they would fit to the music. Still i did not sang them myself (my voice would just sound shitty as hell) so description is good.

29 minutes ago, Rux Ton said:

since you aren't goin to have full permission

I assume i would have to ask Ellie Goulding for the permission, one does not simply randomly ask from someone popular: "can i use your voice in my track for chopping some letters in high pitch?"  

Also can people make remixes without asking anyways? Assuming that they do get the copyright thing on youtube, then i assume it's legit at that point since the "profit" from the videos would go to the original artist as well and it's clear that it is a remix and the original name is on the title

By the way, for example when Spinnin' Records remix contest supplies vocals for the remix, have they then given the permission to use them?

And this traces back to the original purpose of this thread a.k.a speeches, should i have asked Penn & Teller, Carl Saga (deceased), Emma Watson, Creators of Jak & Daxter (whoever voiced Samos) etc the permission to use their voice on some of my tracks.. And on that i got the answer, that yes i should have.

If i were complained about something that is not permitted, at that point i would take it down though (such as the moment i took down the Adele - Hello remix which is the only remix from me that was totally declined (except in soundcloud but i took it down there too on my own because i assumed it wasn't right to have it there either))

Personally still i prefer making sound designs and composing with virtual instruments totally and not adding some ready to go samples at all (apart from few crashes and couple of effects here and there that also sometimes require some additional reverb or side-chaining, by the way, designing effects on Massive for example is totally more tweakable and one can design cooler effects too anyway even though it is virtually impossible to try to create a crash (you know drum set type of crash).. i guess.. haven't tried though, maybe it could be done with certain amount of effort though, for example checking out the waverform of a crash and trying to get something similar in Serum)

[Rux Ton]

In all honesty man it doesnt matter because it mostly depends on if the artist will care or not that you've bootlegged their voice. Truthfully its a hit or miss honestly.

And for remix contests yeah, they have to have permission since that is incredibly illegal. And in the agreement when you download the stems its stating that you ONLY use the stems for the contest and nothing else. But thats up to you to follow really.
Regardless if you put in the description, you can still get in trouble. I find it really just is best to not even worry about it. Let the people figure it out and not make yourself an easy target. This is how electronic music culture kind of always has been as far as bootleg remixes or sampling really.

Its pretty crisp and clear in this sense so, i hope that helps. I mean you can ask but, it may or may not happen. So just do it, don't take note to it, and let it be. Or if you REALLY wanna put it in the description by all means do it. A bootleg is still a bootleg so remember that.No matter what, itll technically be illegal. Depending on the length which is a smallll section of a song i forgot the length but its literally small, but change it up enough and no one is going to care

[Slimy]

As long as you're not profiting, won't any "bootlegged" vocal samples count as fair use?

[Rux Ton]

In a sense yeah. Some people however still go after other artists because of popularity's sake.Its kind of a grey area.

[ShadowRaz]

Ok so as long as i won't make profit out of the song, it's all good? After all i don't intend to profit from the song anyways if it's not permitted and would be a "bootleg" (never have i ever profited from any of my music anyway) BUT i could take the vocals out for another version and then "sell" the track as other sounds are totally my own designs and it is my composition otherwise except the vocal chops which are kind of my composition too as they aren't in their original form, i kind of re-composed them, as you can hear, the singing does not go like

" We, we don't have to worry 'bout nothing
'Cause we got the fire, and we're burning one hell of a something
They, they gonna see us from outer space, outer space
Light it up, like we're the stars of the human race, human race "

It goes more like:"i-ee aa-u-i-ee, u-a-a  aa-a fyyyaa, bass, satsumaa" 

had to search meaning of Bootleg:  In EDM, and possibly other music genres as well, bootleg is a term used for a remix of a song in which the producer made the remix using only the original song in its finished condition. This differs from a traditional remix in that in a remix (not a bootleg), the producer has access to the individual tracks (vocal, bass, melody, etc.) that make up the original song and uses them to create the remix.

I have never bootlegged according to that explanation (i did do couple of mashups a long time ago but they aren't bootlegs either) I have only made remixes and used only vocals in them. Scratch that, i did in fact make a bootleg, kind of, when making the Adele - Hello remix and recently started making more music around the original Celine Deon feat Lindsey Stirling - Show must go on

2 versions of Habanero for publishing, one with and one without vocals

Also about the vocal stems then, i was going to contribute to the Spinnin' remix contest via Madi - Touch remix but the timeline went far past, so i should not continue the track and publish it anymore as it is not permitted to be published anyway because the contest is over? Or can i still finish it and publish it?

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

As somebody who worked in digital distribution for over 5 years, I can chime in.

Any recording is copyrighted, unless you happen to re-mix Johnathan Coulton or Nine Inch Nails as some of their work is creative commons. There are a number of sites that provide creative commons music. If you use someone's voice recording, you have to get permission and no doubt pay a fee. Some of those famous lines generally come from film or TV sometimes, so you'll have a doozie even getting their attention. There however are public domain recordings you can use. Some government recordings for example all at the Library of Congress.

Remixing songs follows this too, if you happen to actually re-mix and use original audio from the original song you'll need permission.

If you happen to cover it instead, that is a licensing issue that can be solved with something like Song Trust. Which requires you to pay an amount based on sales, and streams as well. It actually isn't terribly expensive if you are a starting artist.

Also if you happen to be copyright matched on Youtube that isn't necessarily an agreement that you are in the clear. It's a fail safe measure to maintain some kind of revenue from copyright infringement (or ..what Youtube determines copyright infringement to be) they could still pursue you if you ended up making enough for it to be worth the court fees. And frankly I feel that system was created for the blatant posts of direct music, and not re-mixes or covers.

Also, copyright infringement is still a thing even if you don't make a cent off of it. Fair use doesn't apply to non-profit use.

 

This is all especially important now, after the Gaye vs Thicke case, with more coming (such as Spirit vs Led Zeppelin).

So my advice would be to either license properly OR just not bother with it. You could also record public domain writings yourself, as the sound recording rights don't apply. But then you lose the novelty and recognition that you were looking for.

[Rux Ton]

10 hours ago, Nathan Allen Pinard said:

As somebody who worked in digital distribution for over 5 years, I can chime in.

Any recording is copyrighted, unless you happen to re-mix Johnathan Coulton or Nine Inch Nails as some of their work is creative commons. There are a number of sites that provide creative commons music. If you use someone's voice recording, you have to get permission and no doubt pay a fee. Some of those famous lines generally come from film or TV sometimes, so you'll have a doozie even getting their attention. There however are public domain recordings you can use. Some government recordings for example all at the Library of Congress.

Remixing songs follows this too, if you happen to actually re-mix and use original audio from the original song you'll need permission.

If you happen to cover it instead, that is a licensing issue that can be solved with something like Song Trust. Which requires you to pay an amount based on sales, and streams as well. It actually isn't terribly expensive if you are a starting artist.

Also if you happen to be copyright matched on Youtube that isn't necessarily an agreement that you are in the clear. It's a fail safe measure to maintain some kind of revenue from copyright infringement (or ..what Youtube determines copyright infringement to be) they could still pursue you if you ended up making enough for it to be worth the court fees. And frankly I feel that system was created for the blatant posts of direct music, and not re-mixes or covers.

Also, copyright infringement is still a thing even if you don't make a cent off of it. Fair use doesn't apply to non-profit use.

 

This is all especially important now, after the Gaye vs Thicke case, with more coming (such as Spirit vs Led Zeppelin).

So my advice would be to either license properly OR just not bother with it. You could also record public domain writings yourself, as the sound recording rights don't apply. But then you lose the novelty and recognition that you were looking for.

Hey thanks a lot for chiming in btw, this is REALLY useful information that I feel every electronic producer or musician should definitely read about. I hope you don't mind me screenshotting this for future reference as I know some people that would benefit from this information. (Some dev teams that want to use samples in their work that might hurt them, specifically)

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

No problem. Just please note that I'm not a lawyer, though the public domain thing and the Song Trust thing is pretty solid as the company I worked for (Bookbaby which is part of CDBaby) works with Song Trust. Also I dealt with copyright situations for e-books (such as fan fiction) but not the music side. They generally work the same way though.

[ShadowRaz]

I too, thank you for this useful information. Basically have gotten all the answers i was looking for by this thread. By the way, just searched public domain definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain

Interesting, i have one project which is still work in progress phase, in which the piano melody is based on Moonlight Sonata by Beethoven (the basic piano melody structure but composed new chords for it), i will of course mention it in the description and according to this, it's totally legit to get inspired by or remix or whatever, Beethoven. It will be basically orchestral track:

But currently i was thinking of making several versions, you know dubstep, maybe even house version. I do love making all sorts of music though, fun times ain't it.

People, do not get limited into single genres when DAW producing allows to make em all. Go with the flow

[Nase]

i'm confused. the thread wasn't intended 2 b about copyright, right? i think the question was, do you think it's lame/cool to use voice snippets. i would say it can sound awesome and/or cheezy. i happen to like the cheeziness in psytrance/goa, for example. overuse is a problem, but that can be funny in some genres and even a perceived quality of it.

Wutz with the copyright topic fetish

 

ok nvm i see it now, at the end of the post (not even clear if OP was thinking about copyright versus work ethic or whatever.)

idk, i'd rather talk about good and shitty examples of sample use or whatever. I YAWN AT this ever recurring legal 101 topic that is almost completely irrelevant to amateurs and aspiring technotarncers. EVERYONE SAMPLES STUFF FOR FUN ANDVOICE IS FUN

[The Nikanoru]

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2016 at 5:08 AM, Nathan Allen Pinard said:

Also, copyright infringement is still a thing even if you don't make a cent off of it. Fair use doesn't apply to non-profit use.

I understand that the violation is for COPYING copyrighted song material, such as complete and/or partial quotes of copyrighted material. Any modification to the original work so that it is different from the original - ie. a parody - is not technically copyright infringement. How different it needs to be depends on the laws of the land. Apparently this is how Weird Al and other parody artists can do what they do.

What's your opinion on this, Nathan?

On ‎6‎/‎28‎/‎2016 at 7:20 AM, Nase said:

EVERYONE SAMPLES STUFF FOR FUN ANDVOICE IS FUN

True - but it's all fun and games until someone loses a potential buck.

 

[Slimy]

32 minutes ago, The Nikanoru said:

I understand that the violation is for COPYING copyrighted song material, such as complete and/or partial quotes of copyrighted material. Any modification to the original work so that it is different from the original - ie. a parody - is not technically copyright infringement. How different it needs to be depends on the laws of the land. Apparently this is how Weird Al and other parody artists can do what they do.

I would think so, since it's being incorporated into your original music, you're legally being "transformative" with it.

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

2 hours ago, The Nikanoru said:

I understand that the violation is for COPYING copyrighted song material, such as complete and/or partial quotes of copyrighted material. Any modification to the original work so that it is different from the original - ie. a parody - is not technically copyright infringement. How different it needs to be depends on the laws of the land. Apparently this is how Weird Al and other parody artists can do what they do.

What's your opinion on this, Nathan?

Parody is fair use. However even Weird Al asks for permission.

[Nathan Allen Pinard]

It really comes down to this: If you don't make money, the worst that will happen if you get the video/song taken down. This is why a ton of artists just post covers on Youtube and don't bother with licensing. They just don't monetize it and allow monetization on copyright matches.

 

What's this thread about again? Oh yeah..

 

Is it cool to use voices in songs: Yes. Especially if it's Bill Pullman's speech from Independence Day.

[The Nikanoru]

13 hours ago, Nathan Allen Pinard said:

Parody is fair use. However even Weird Al asks for permission.

It's true, he does, but only out of respect for the original artists. He doesn't legally need permission to parody anything, as was proven when Coolio's agent tried to take him on over Amish Paradise. Atlantic Records tried to take him on over You're Pitiful too, but instead of fighting them he released the song online for free ... no lawsuit ever materialized.

Full disclosure: big Weird Al fan here.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

As Nase says, everyone samples stuff and has since the late 80s. They are fun to use and it can sound good if used right ... but not my cup of tea.  

 

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I think whether it's lame or not depends on if it sounds like it was just plugged in there to break up the monotony or, if in just a few words, it speaks to the vibe of music itself or gets you pumped for what comes next.

SUPERSTITION, FEAR & JEALOUSY!