You rarely hear anyone cover the Beastie Boys. Is it because their songs rely so much on samples that they’re impossible to recreate legally without making a profit? How did they not get sued into oblivion with hundreds of samples used? Where do those royalties go today?

  • A_Union_of_Kobolds@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    Paul’s Boutique was a landmark record in music law. The Beatles did sue them. It’s largely thanks to that album that sampling isn’t a legal liability and allowed the practice to continue. It’s one of the most important records of all time IMO.

  • SanguinePar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t think hip hop songs in general tend to get covered, or at least not that I’m aware of (am absolutely open to being corrected on that).

    I guess a lot of the rhymes are often very specifically about the person rapping, so someone else doing it might be a bit weird.

    That said, I do know of one good example in eLZhi’s Elmatic a remake of Nas’ Illmatic. It has significantly rewritten lyrics though.

  • RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t think you could produce a punk album in the late 00s if it didn’t include a cover of “Gratitude”.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    Maybe they are so bad or nieche that it does not make sense to cover them?

    I mean, a piece is usually either covered because it is extreme popular, or because someone has a serious idea of how to improve it.