The Amen Break - Break Beat, Sampling History Lesson

Here's an interesting film about a classic drum groove.

Find the film here:
http://nkhstudio.com/pages/amen_mp4.html

Find my transcription of it here:
http://homepage.mac.com/polyostinato/

The film is long, but informative.

I Love that, history of a drum beat or drum break is Very interesting [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Man! very interesting!

You learn something new everyday!

A bit dry, but it was very well done IMO.

Funny how the actual drummer of The Winstons was never mentioned! I mean you would think that this video essay would credit the guy who "invented" and first performed the break beat! I found that odd... quite a MAJOR detail that was absent.

Awesome - cheers! [img]smile.gif[/img]

The drummer's name is G.C. Coleman. I'll forward that info to the guy who made the video. I'm glad you guys found it interesting.

and here all along I thought I had made that beat up myself......yeah Iam kidding.....
I agree with Chris....it would have been nice if the orginal drummer had gotten some props....ahmen

OK, Vdrummer, that was frickin' awesome. As someone who loves both the acoustic and electric permutations of drumming and rhythm (breaks, jungle, drum&bass, hip-hop, etc.) it was very cool to get a breakdown/history of this particular sound. I had no idea that so much of the sampled/break-oriented music I've heard came from these few seconds of *one* song. I always thought it was wider than that. Funny for him to call Squarepusher a "chin stroking" bohemian though--that was a little damning. Probably says the same thing about Richard James/Aphex Twin who makes some really amazing, interesting music that has in turn influenced a number of non-electronic artists (i.e., Radiohead).

I love his conclusions about intellectual property as well--and I agree. People who draw too strict of a line about this actually stifle what's possible in terms of creative growth. Perhaps I shouldn't get started on intellectual property tirade though, becuase I could (especially how it applies to software, media distribution and useful/life-saving technologies like pharmaceutical knowledge). All I want to say is that creative and intellectual folks need to get their share but there has to be a balance, and the distribution system isn't quite working. His example of how someone has copyrighted this particular break after stealing it from a record sounds stunningly like the history of much so-called intellectual property (or even "property" in general). As in, someone either stumbles across something, or gains controlling influence--or even steals it--then says "no one else can use this without my permission, world without end." I know there are sunset provisions on most copyrights before something goes into the public domain but these seem to be shrinking as well. Perhaps a better analysis of intellectual property laws is who benefits, and who suffers?

Of course, G.C. Coleman never saw a dime and remains a forgotten yet important figure in the history of modern music. The guy who created the video wasn't aware of who the drummer was until I informed him. But we've all heard of Squarepusher and the Aphex Twins who profited hugely from his work and creation. Zero G stole his performance, claimed it to be royalty free, and continues to sell his uncredited, sampled performance as their own creation.

They benefit, he suffers.

But then drum parts aren't copyrightable. Just a particular recording of a performance is. Which is why, if someone chose, they could reperform the Rosanna groove note for note on a hit song, but would be under no obligation to credit Jeff Porcaro or give his estate one penny.

Hey VDrummer,

Cool analysis.

I would argue, however, that by the time the Amen break got through hip hop, breakbeat, jungle and drum&bass to Squarepusher and Richard James it was almost unrecognizable except for the actual sound. The beat had been sliced to its most basic hits. They might benefit from the sound itself, which summons the feel (almost "phenomenon" at this point) of the original track, but has been rearranged to the point that it's almost drum machine programming. Plus, it's not like Squarepusher is wildly famous or mainstream, like Public Enemy. He surfed on a sound, quoted it, rearranged it even further, for modest recognition. Did ZeroG make a huge amount of money on it? Did G.C. rip off the lick from one of his friends, only to get it on a b-side of a top-20 record in 1969? Did G.C. acknowledge his source material, teachers, etc. and pay them for what success he was able to have? (I'm playing devil's advocate--I acknowledge your points.)

It also begs the question though of how long (and with how much modification) a drum track retains its "thusness" or signature vibe. When does it stop being music that G.C. Coleman played, and (as the author of the piece mentions) a virtual public domain "sound" that is free for Jeep commercials to use without any reference to the original object? This few seconds spawned an entire sound, and informed the drum programming of an entire tradition. That's kind of weird. Is there a progenitor of the rock sound like this, or of whole movements of jazz?

Anyway, just miscellaneous thoughts.

You make some good points too. I agree in general about Squarepusher, etc. The sliced and diced sound of the altered pattern changes it a lot, true. I don't know if it's right to assume it's okay for something to be considered public domain after a certain amount of time, especially if the original guy didn't get any compensation for it. He may have based his pattern on something else or someone else too, as you point out, but he's the one who played, and I can only assume, created it.

My main reason for getting into this, is if we can't give him any money, we should at least acknowledge G.C. Coleman's name as an important drummer as worthy of recognition as say Clyde Stubblefield, and his role (and perhaps unintentionally), his contribution to modern music.

Brad

I know there are rules around when and how a piece of music or literature enters public domain though I don't know what they are. It's not based on public opinion, though it does all seem a little out of control at the moment how those rules can be countermanded or circumvented. I also know of a standard of limited "fair use" of intellectual property that includes quotation, or non-commercial use for educational purposes.

On recognition: yes, definitely. I totally agree that at very least a person should be recognized for a contribution that ended up shaping so much of the future. Give the drummer some! Maybe we should start a G.C. Coleman recognition fund and encourage all those ravers and hip-hoppers to spend 2% of their clubbing budgets to give props to the initiators. With a fraction of the amount of money that was made using these ideas (or even the drum sound!), or spent on the events that rose from them, Coleman and his family could have lived for a while I imagine.

The puzzle of concepts around property is that the people who figure out the money end reap the lion's share of the benefits. Often this gets really concentrated--as in that "Shadows of Motown" documentary, talking about the musicians who made all of those Motown hits. For those who haven't seen it, it's worth checking out! The original players often do it for love and make enough to get them through the week, while some industry mogul controls the channels for distribution and is eating steak and lobster. And now that those Motown records have all been made, who in 2005 is making the residuals? It's not Pistol or any of the drummers, or the other musicians. Their contribution was paid for (poorly) on the spot and then back to figure out how to pay the m'f'n rent for most of them, despite that these guys contributed some of the greatest and most recognized drum tracks in American history. No, some corporation or conglomerate owns the rights to those, I think. Correct me if I'm wrong.

As Courtney Love pointed out in her famous speech on the subject, the intellectual property laws seem to serve the industry types way better than the artists. I suspect--though don't have a strong argument to support this at the moment--that this relationship goes a long way to creating the system that keeps most musicians un- or under-employed, and the successful ones in the contractual pocket of the industry.

OK, too much for my head tonight so I'll quit. Peace all.

Fascinating. That really (honestly) has opened my eyes.

Thanks so much.