The ethics of sampling

[vostek]

i like doobah's stance on this.
i think the act of resampling is a beneficial exercise in understanding the fundamental nature of waves. I can take a note, c4 for instance, and play it on a synthesizer. Or, i can find an isolated c4 in a recording (or isolate it with filters and tricks), sample that, and then play in on my keyboard. Practically speaking, theres no difference between the two, but some would call the latter illegal. if a sample is removed from original context and modified beyond recognition with different intentions, did it really originate from the original work? I say no. It originated from the intention of the creator of the new work. Sound is sound, it is everywhere, It is no more than a wave stream captured in time. Generally just a fundamental, some overtones, and a noise signature. Some people will have you believe it is more than that, but its not. Just a pattern. I can go into fruity loops and make a simple beat and then find 1000 songs that use that exact beat pattern, but i'm not infringing copyright by making that beat. it is ever-present just like all of sound. just like that beat pattern, the wave itself is also a pattern. The world would have much less problems if we stopped nitpicking and claiming property on these patterns. Its like how the Native Americans couldn't understand when we came over to their land and then claimed it as our own. In their minds no one 'owned' land. It belonged to the Earth, just as sound belongs to the Universe.

of course, there is an obvious line that can be crossed. As already mentioned, you don't want to profit outright from anything with 'obvious' (meaning undoubtedly originating from a single copyrighted source) samples, without first receiving consent from original artist.

correct me if i'm wrong, but music was born out of celebration. Somehow those lawyers in suits with breifcases full of money have lost sight of that.

[blue hell]

[Doobah]

This also brings up the question 'Is music worth money?'

It's uses as a tool of manipulation are clear (Consumerism - Britney Spears vs Macdonalds) Also war-time songs show distinct levels of propoganda. In a way, music has been stolen from the musicians and audience, in the same way that water is being stolen from people (flavoured/high-energy, addictive water 'drinks') or food for that matter (salt, sugar, msg, 'lowfat alternatives'). We live in a world of manipulation and conspiracy, yet there is so much potential for the freedom of humanity from the evils of corporate/political tactics - for example, the potential uses of the internet or song lyrics. I don't want to sound like a rebel anti-capitalist, I think that capitalism is a direct consequence of the human condition - it's quite fair on certain levels. However, I am very anti towards the manipulation techniques and possible aims of the manipulators.

Any way, I don't think music is worth money, it's not a consumerable product, as for example painting or literature is, it exists on the air (however, this statement is in question, with regards to 'recording technologies'). Though, we have to reward, and support our artists/musicians/politicians in their life and work, as all are vital to our society. Considering the facts of life, financial reward is maybe the only option.

[mosc]

[ryansupak]

Great discussion...

One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a "generation gap" where sampling is involved.

I don't think you can put an exact time span on it, but I've noticed that many people who grew up, during or after the advent of hiphop/cheap computer technology don't have a problem with sampling. (There are exceptions, just a tendency I've noticed.) I think something about "infinite copies/infinite manipulation" is a sensibility that was silently ingrained in the zeitgeist of people born during the P.C. age.

One criticism of sampling I've heard is something like "if the producers were truly talented they'd play the part themselves". For my part, I don't see a distinction between sampling a bassline and playing it yourself and I play and have formally taught a few "real" instruments, and taught "real" music theory.

I play many gigs as a "DJ"; though what I do I wouldn't really call DJing or "playing live". It's not "mashups" either (to me those are still too attached to the novelty of "Ha Ha! I'm mixing two pop songs together! Aren't I a precocious young man?!")

It's some still-unnamed hybrid -- one I suspect people all over are exploring -- and until I see a discussion like this I don't really stop to think about what it "is", or its implications.

To me, the phrase sampler is an instrument in its own right -- and it is my favorite instrument, a special one that can "play culture".

I understand that uncompensated, derivative, work is against the law -- but if you look at the way that information exchange and manipulation is headed, then soon, such laws will look almost comically outmoded.

$0.01,
rs

[mi_dach]

[mosc]

[vostek]

haha, great points everyone.
I agree with ryansupak on all points. It is an amazing thing, being able to do real-time remixing of bits and peices of culture. Thats the essence behind sampling. I know I already said that sound is just patterns, and it is, but that is not to say sound can not have a spirit. Some recorded music out there has an indescribable essence that can't be reproduced exactly. The spontaneity of impvrovisation can easily have this quality, as if one can tell the musicians are conjuring it up right on the spot, and an unspoken synchronicity is bringing it all together. That coupled with nuances in the recording itself, like a soft hiss or gentle distortion, create a truly unique sound that tells a larger story beyond the notes in the song. I can understand why people are so drawn to sampling these recordings. Indeed, I feel it is much more a compliment to the original creators than it is blashemy.
With that said, should this generation just stop being lazy and do more work to create that essence out of the same instruments their parents used? YES. However, thats not going to happen. It is a different world, and there is already an (over)abundance of source waves in which to pull music out of. This, in contrast to the musicians of yesteryear that pulled music right out of thin air.
I believe Copyright will change when the young generation comes to power. An artist's work will mean the entire work as a whole, not a 1 second portion of the wave that ends up being used in a completely different context. If one takes a 16x16 pixel sample of another artist's copyrighted picture, and then uses it as a basis for a new peice of abstract art, there is no way that could considered infringement (not that anyone other than the artist can tell). Same goes with audio.
I really just wish this whole thing wasn't even an issue because if it wasnt, i would be spending this time making music right now.

[navethechimp]

Someone who is sampling too much (and by that I just mean using it as a reliance) is probably going to be making very weak music in the first place, which would be unsuccessful and fade away into existence. And if the artist successfully created a new value out of something's new context, that is an art of its own. Something that would make me feel guilty though is if someone sampled my own music and made it better. Heh.

Not to sound like a hippie, but art is art and lifes not worth worrying about such prefabbed "ethics".

And to be completely honest I feel more realiant on "prerecorded sound" using really expansive synthesizers presets than sampling obscure noises from other songs.

[Ponk]

I think it's a bit odd that sampling is suddenly an unethical thing to do when we talk about music or video, but within literature taking small parts from other people's work is considered "intertextuality" (is that a word?). The same applies to collages made of, say, photos and paintings. For some reason only the users of newer forms of communication get accused of stealing.

Intertextual references are everywhere. That's why I think the current copyright legislation follows a double standard. According to the laws, references and borrowing is sometimes completely okay, but sometimes an awful crime.

Ripping off other people's work is a different issue. That is unethical. But most of people who have been in court because of sampling haven't been ripping off anyone, but creating new works of art.

[destroyifyer]

It is generally O.K. to just go ahead and make a song with whatever samples you want to, however, this can be a mistake, on account of the fact that you will have to remix-the song or whatever if the (party sampled) declines you the sample rights.

Perfect example: Left Hand Shake by Skinny Puppy. This song features samples from the Timothy Leary movie ("drift within...this is your body"). Tim Leary gave them permision to use the samples himself...but they still couldn't legally release the song! This was on account of the fact that the samples themselves were owned by the person who produced the movie or whatever. And he gave Skinny Puppy an arrogant "no" on the samples. So be weary when sampling leary!

I would probably be in debt if I had to give royalties to everyone I sample...I don't think that there is any big risk running "illegal" samples into your music, unless you sell tons of CD's and actually plan on having a clean musical career.

good luck folks

[heater]

i'm surprised no one has really mentioned plunderphonics, although it isn't really sampling.

and consider the AMEN BREAK... the original composers themselves have said NO ONE ever asked for permission, it's pressed and released on vinyl, cd, tape, everything almost daily - it's one of the most sampled songs in history - and all illegally.

i don't want to get into philosophy, since most of how i feel has been covered by other people (if you're going to get money for it, and it's an obvious sample, then get permission. if it's only online, then do whatever you want, no one will ever hear it ) so this will be the last part...
i'm sure some people will remember a certain duo of major sampling artists from the early/mid 90s, who had sampled practically everything and everyone. one of which is a friend of mine... and he had this to say (edited for anonymity, though it may be obvious to some):

[mi_dach]

[wyleu]

Music sits rather beautifully between technological enforcement and creative expression.

With the present situation it i possible to foresee the day when your electric piano will allow you to learn to play a piece but as soon as you have successfully played it the keyboard will not allow you to play it again till you pay the 'original' piper.

Mind you the plus side of this is 95% of legal work will have been automated by this stage so there wouldn't be anywhere as many lawyers to pull the plug, and if the solo needs a break of silence then you could get through it without John Cages digital rights management sending a MIDI song stop with a higher priority.

Who said Genius's steal?

[mosc]

[Oskar]

I seem to remember an interview in "Musician Player And Listener" where the interviewee (I'm more than slightly embarrassed to say that I've clean forgotten whom) said something like;
Q What does a japanese man do if his son is a ne'er-do-well?
A make him a lawyer!