Music Sampling - Yay or Nay?

[WillRock]

I was having a discussion with one of my friends and I was curious about peoples thoughts on this.

Some people hate it because its making success of other peoples ideas, yet some people think its ok as long as you're correctly credited. However, there are so many factors involved here, and I think its something that deserves a little bit of group analysis so have at it.

Whats your stance on this? Ok, not ok, if not why, where is your personal line drawn etc

[Ethan Rex]

For me it's a case by case basis, but it mainly comes down to one question: Is the artist that is sampling something creating something new and original from the sampled content?

is a perfect example what is NOT okay. The whole song is more or less identical to

No new or original content is being used with the samples in Robot Rock. It's a rehash.

On the other hand, a song like

takes samples from

as well as many others and makes new and original content with it. This is an okay use of sampling in my eyes.

[Patrick Burns]

To me, it's all about the gray area where 1) the source isn't very recognizable and you didn't cause "damages" to that original artist but 2) you used enough of someone else's beauty to make your job a lot easier, and you didn't credit or pay them.

A song like 'Bangarang' at 0:34 -- the sample that goes "you feel the . . ." -- it's not like it's causing any losses to whomever made that slice he's sampling (if he is indeed sampling someone else's work, I don't know), but then again it is a really beautiful he didn't have to make himself. He just had to situate it. I'm not sure if credit and/or money should go to the sampled artist in that case.

[WillRock]

is a perfect example what is NOT okay. The whole song is more or less identical to

No new or original content is being used with the samples in Robot Rock. It's a rehash.

I use that song as an example of "not ok" sampling as well. However, I'd say their song Digital Love had a case of sampling done fantastically. However, I think that just makes Robot Rock all the worse, because we all know they could have put so much more into that track.

Personally, I think its ok if you add some of your own musical merit to the piece. Taking a sample and adding a drum beat doesn't make good creative sampling (something that OCR also is very strongly against as a remix site - this whole site is about changing and in some cases "improving" the works of others). However, with a band like Daft Punk, the name sells, so by sampling Breakwater, they've given that band more exposure, which is a nice thing to do for less famous bands than yourself that you enjoy listening to. The means is a bit on the debatable side tho, even if the thought is nice.

[JH Sounds]

I think context has a lot to do with it, as well as the crediting mentioned above. I recently did an experiment by making video representations of the sampled material I've used in my songs. Overall the reaction seems quite different when people know exactly where the sounds came from, and it makes for a very self-conscious listening experience. By contrast, listening to the music without any preconception mostly feels like the listener is hearing any type of music, sampled or not. I personally prefer to be upfront on the sampling I do, to the point where all my sample-based songs are spun off into my alias "Duosis". When I make something more "composed" I use my usual artist name.

[Antonio Pizza]

It's okay.

...and before it gets too far, let's just put out there that this whole site is derived from creating something new from something old. Sampling != plagiarism, even though to plagiarize you must sample.

For giggles, go to http://www.whosampled.com. Wonderful resource to lead you to a song's sample source. You might even buy the original (I'm looking at YOU, "Rigor Mortis" by Cameo!)

[Brandon Strader]

What we do here is basically "sampling" except instead of using the original audio we're recreating (to some extent) the original song.

OC REMIX IS EVIL AND SHOULD BE CLOSED DOWN BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES.

That is all.

[Gario]

What we do here is basically "sampling" except instead of using the original audio we're recreating (to some extent) the original song.

Nope, not even close - that whole "original audio" is pretty much the entirety of sampling, and unlike covers/arrangements, songs using sampling can be completely different from the source(s).

Anyway, if the samples really make something new and interesting, I'm all for it. Something like

is a very good use of sampling, imho.

(For you non-pony folks, here's an alternative, but the arrangement quality isn't as good)

For an example of something that's just no good,

. No credit to the source, virtually untouched (just sings over the source).

[Damashii!!]

Some of you already know that my answer is a definite 'yay.' I'm ALL about the sampling. But not Robot Rock type sampling, more along these lines:

I never knew who Todd Edwards was before Daft Punk's 'RAM' album that came a few months ago, but I think I've realized that that kind of 'melodic' phrase sampling is what I gravitate towards (as a listener and musician).

For giggles, go to http://www.whosampled.com. Wonderful resource to lead you to a song's sample source. You might even buy the original (I'm looking at YOU, "Rigor Mortis" by Cameo!)

^When I first started listening to people like Nujabes, Andre 3000 and JDilla I would spend weeeeeks on that site. It's quite eye-opening to see what some of the original sources were. Not too come across as overly opinionated about those 3, but I love how they'd sample some obscure jazz/classical/afro-latin stuff and then not just splice up the sample with a beat, but also record their own melodic stuff on top of it (ex., Nujabes played a bunch of beautiful flute lines on a few of his beats in addition to sampling some jazzy flute tracks).

[Garrett Williamson]

Yay as long as it's done correctly. There's some pretty awesome stuff out there that uses a heavy amount of sampling and it's genius. Sampling is an art that I seriously am heavily inspired by. I love it.

[Mustin]

I don't like it. I've done it a couple of time for clients, but it's very blatant. A customer had me make a beat of "Bad Company," by the band Bad Company, off the album Bad Company (no really) and it's very apparent that the sample is a sample on the hook. I still think it's cool, but I don't like to do it. I can re-create it in my own way and I prefer that.

That said, there are certainly pieces I enjoy with sampling. My favorite sampled beat has to be Jay-Z/Just Blaze's "Show Me What You Got." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qopwiGItevI) Awesome stuff. Also big fan of Lupe Fiasco's "Kick Push" (

) and Timo Maas/Kelis "Help Me" (

). The originals are just so good, you know? (Do check out the site Antonio Pizza linked, http://whosampled.com for great info).

So if you do it, cool. But I don't like to do it.

Just because it's so awesome, let's listen to Herrmann's "The Day the Earth Stood Still" now 'cause DAMN.

[Brandon Strader]

. No credit to the source, virtually untouched (just sings over the source).

That's your idea of a classic?!

of a classic sampling

[Damashii!!]

@Mustin: Just Blaze comes out with some really interesting things every now and then.

can't find the 'Making Of' video for that track anywhere (or I'm not searching too good), but it's pretty cool.

lol, I was joking with Black Panther that basically the only sampling that I can't stand or even defend is stuff like this:

I'm just not into that ratchet music sampling, but to each their own.

EDIT: oh yeah, not to embarrass this guy, but if you like more liberal, experimental, ambient sampling you folks should check out Rukunetsu. His stuff is the shhhhhhhiiiiz.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Damashii!!

[JoeTheLion]

my opinion in this: there are musicians who make music entirely out of, old, unknown samples and they create wonderful things which are totally original. (DJ Shadow)

I think the problem for me appears when the sample is taken of an entire melody or easily recognizable bit of a song that has already been created, like for example Big Time Rush's Windows Down ripped off of Blur's Song 2. (we could also use the Bittersweet Symphony example here but that song is awesome regardless)

Still sampling does not bother me at all at long as the song crafted on top of it is great.

An example of songs I like that sampled the same track would be:

Portishead's Glory Box

and

Tricky's Hell Is Around The Corner

They both sample Ike's Rap II in similar ways, though they create wonderful things on top of the song, I like both of them.

I personally think that modifying samples has created a new style of crafting music. A lot of genres have evolved from sampling such as Drum & Bass and Trip Hop. The Amen Break has been sampled countless times for every jungle and old skool D&B tracks such as the ones found in Goldie's Timeless. As a fan of those genres myself, I always find myself sampling bits of what I find and like, distorting them a bit to create the melody and ambience I desire. I sometimes create songs entirely out of samples and then throw in a pad or a drum machine or bass line to complement. After that, I hit the studio and replace any sample I can replace, be it guitar, drums, bass or keyboards. The finished song is a completely new, original song and the samples that remain are some that are left in the background and are usually reversed, distorted, filled with reverb and stuff so it's unrecognizable. That's my main method of creating songs so I am going to say YAY sampling. It's an awesome world to explore.

Edited July 24, 2013 by JoeTheLion

[Nutritious]

I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression Daft Punk licensed the music they sampled. So, I'm curious, does this change anyones opinion on a track that samples other music if they pay the original artist? Is your main concern with whether the original artist gets credited or paid or the lack of creativity inherent when someone heavily samples a work?

Personally, I'm only really for it if sampled content used in a creative way to make something new and different from the old. Liam Howlett from The Prodigy was

[DaMonz]

I generally think that overusing samples isn't an interesting way to make music, but I don't think there's a line. In my personal experience, sometimes it feels right and sometimes it doesn't.

I think that the most important thing though is that the artist should use the samples in order to achieve something *different* than the source, to really make a track of his own. Not to take the original directly and try to make it "better".

It's a very interesting topic though, because someone who doesn't know the source can't even know if a track has been sampled, so objectively it doesn't really make a difference. o___o Hmmmm

[Meteo Xavier]

To me, it's all about the gray area where 1) the source isn't very recognizable and you didn't cause "damages" to that original artist but 2) you used enough of someone else's beauty to make your job a lot easier, and you didn't credit or pay them.

A song like 'Bangarang' at 0:34 -- the sample that goes "you feel the . . ." -- it's not like it's causing any losses to whomever made that slice he's sampling (if he is indeed sampling someone else's work, I don't know), but then again it is a really beautiful he didn't have to make himself. He just had to situate it. I'm not sure if credit and/or money should go to the sampled artist in that case.

I think this sums it up as well as it can go.

[timaeus222]

The thought of sampling to me brings the idea of laziness or the inability to recreate something well enough to satisfy your tastes. Even though I've never sampled anything before nor will I ever (aside from granular synthesis), I'm not entirely against it occurring elsewhere. As long as it's different "enough" from the original and shows a significant effort to modify it, I'm okay with it. After all, if sampling were automatically wrong or illegal, granular synthesis would be kaput, right? If someone can tell it was sampled, though, that's when I say it's not done well enough to warrant an "OK", but if the artist is credited and/or negotiated with when necessary, I don't mind that much.

Edited July 24, 2013 by timaeus222

[AngelCityOutlaw]

For me, it's a question of "why did you sample it?"

The only acceptable answer to me is when it is used in an original song for remakes or homage. For example, I've heard a few metal songs which are written about the metal genre and the lyrics are about bands from the genre. So they'll include some famous riffs by those bands. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense and is the product of knowing nothing about writing music, is the "rapper" approach. You know, like how Vanilla Ice stole Queen's bassline, MC Hammer taking from Rick James etc. There is absolutely no reason these artists could not have created their own melodies in place of the ones they "sampled". They were just lazy and slapped some new lyrics over it and called it a day.

It's like with these sample packs you can buy. I get using drum loops, built-in sequences in some VSTs like Nexus, and chord progression recordings; but not melody. The melody is the heart and soul of the song and even children can come up with their own instinctively.

In short: Using samples, loops and sequences that come with a product you purchase to use in your own original music is fine because everyone who purchases the product is allowed to use those same sounds. Fair. Going out of your way to license, or for some people, blatantly steal existing melodies from other works is just stupid unless you are intending to make your own version of the song; like what OCR does.

Edited July 24, 2013 by AngelCityOutlaw

[Salluz]

For me it's a case by case basis, but it mainly comes down to one question: Is the artist that is sampling something creating something new and original from the sampled content?

Cola Bottle Baby:

Harder Better Faster Stronger:

The atrocity Kanye made from a sampled sample:

Edited July 24, 2013 by Salluz

[WillRock]

Cola Bottle Baby:

Harder Better Faster Stronger:

The atrocity Kanye made from a sampled sample:

I've always found these songs interesting because of what that dude said in the top comment of Cola Bottle Baby. Daft Punk sample so many artists, Daft Punk can do no wrong blahblahblah, but anyone samples daft punk? no no no no, THIS CAN'T HAPPEN! Daft Punk seem to get away with it because they sample tracks that not as many people have heard, and we as a culture don't really seem to care if the sample wasn't famous in the first place. Ignorance is bliss so they say.

Just look at

by fatboy slim. That sample is a silly piano tinkering from some demo tape of an artist I can't even remember the name of - which honestly, if you want to sample something, do it with an idea that the original artist threw away and never offically released because lulz. I bet some people don't even realise its a sample because no one knows or really cares who came up with it. Edited July 24, 2013 by WillRock

[Gario]

Cola Bottle Baby:

Harder Better Faster Stronger:

The atrocity Kanye made from a sampled sample:

... I actually kind of like all three versions, for what they are. The original is funktastic, the Daft Punk version has some sexy vocoded robovoice that I can't hate, and to be honest there are some neat harmonies that Kanye spices things up with, and he breaks up the samples in some interesting ways, to boot.

If you ignore that it's Kanye, it's not THAT bad.

[Salluz]

... I actually kind of like all three versions, for what they are. The original is funktastic, the Daft Punk version has some sexy vocoded robovoice that I can't hate, and to be honest there are some neat harmonies that Kanye spices things up with, and he breaks up the samples in some interesting ways, to boot.

If you ignore that it's Kanye, it's not THAT bad.

You have a point, and I love the harmonies, but listen to that stale beat loop! A person could make a better beat from some shitty FL default drum samples, or by beating on different parts of a homo sapien skeleton. Wait, that would be awesome.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Salluz

[BlackPanther]

I basically had written out a thesis, but I figured I wouldn't go that deep in the discussion. I'll just say that I'm down for it and don't mind when I hear it in other songs. There isn't a song that I've made where there hasn't been a bit of sampling in it...

[Radiowar]

I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression Daft Punk licensed the music they sampled. So, I'm curious, does this change anyones opinion on a track that samples other music if they pay the original artist? Is your main concern with whether the original artist gets credited or paid or the lack of creativity inherent when someone heavily samples a work?

i dont think we can just take for granted that sample-based music inherently lacks creativity. the whole premise is that musical recordings (ie. commodified music) can yield interesting musical results when they are treated simply as sound objects. sounds are not ideas, but the results of ideas. to understand post-homework daft punk you gotta put it in a context where thomas bangalter was putting out shit like

. does it really make any difference to the experience of the music whether or not we know where the sounds come from? you might as well tell miles davis to credit the guy who sold him his trumpet.

obviously there exist examples of "lazy" or "uncreative" sampling, but i dont think its fair to say that laziness is endemic to sampling (the

comes to mind). there hasnt been an increase in hacks or imitators because of sampling, any more than there were because of the twelve bar blues.

edit: FURTHERMORE i would argue that crediting is not only unnecessary to justify sampling, but there have been cases where the act of giving credit was used to cover up or excuse honest to god theft. a recent example that comes to mind is

by zomby. it was the lead single from dedication, and it was probably the most popular track on the album - and then it came out that the track was based on

by a producer called reark. the story (as i understood it) was that reark had contacted zomby with his track, and the two agreed to collaborate. then zomby puts the track out as his own, reark raises a fuss and gets an official credit. the point being that giving credit does not actually have any bearing on a piece of music's artistic merit, particular in cases like this where there was an actual deception (of both the audience and the original artist) taking place. Edited July 25, 2013 by Radiowar