Eh, there's so much grey area with sampling nowadays. It really should be evaluated on an individual basis. There are some artists who will download a construction kit and just use a bassline or drum loop (sometimes both) without any post-processing. Which to me is a greater sin than say, sampling a vocal chop from a pop song.

I think the question was more about sampling material that was never meant to be sampled (i.e. other people's music) rather than using construction sets, but it's a good point. It depresses me that so many loops are being used in music these days. With the likes of Apple bundling loop libraries, non-musicians really can (and DO) create "original" music for their video productions without involving a musician like the old days.

If the library has enough thousands of loops to choose from, the average listener is never going to know any different. I think something is being lost here.

That said, I do use instrument samples, and synthesisers with samples in ROM. To some, that's a sin. I guess talented multi-instrumentalists and even entire orchestras must have felt the same way when they were replaced with electronics in the 80s. Why hire an orchestra when you can buy a box that will do it good enough for $999?

I think we are actually well past the point where it's possible to create anything completely fresh nowadays. There's just too much music being recorded. No matter what crazy genre you might dream up, there's probably already a loop for it. That golden age of originality that lasted up through the 80s is well and truly over.

Personally, I wouldn't say it this way. There is always new stuff coming up, new variations, new methods to create something the way you want it. You probably wont hear that stuff on the radio though :P
Everyone puts stuff together the way he/she imagines it and there will always be some new creations. The combination possibilities are pretty much endless :)
I think samples are a good way to create like a.. homage to another artist you like. If you just take a lot of things from someone elses art and play 2 more instruments over it,
its stealing. It always depends how creativly the samples are used. I think Daft Punk for example, did a great job with sampling all those songs. They used parts of tracks they liked
to create something new using them, not abusing them. They could have given more credit though, thats true.

So if you use samples in a creative way and credit the original artists, everything is fine to me. It will always depend on the personal point of view I guess. ^^

I haven't read the other comments yet, so this is my own opinion. I think of it as being similar to plagiarism. In general, I think sampling is more okay as long as the sample is mixed in with too many other things to notice it and you can't really identify it. For example, if it's a major part of the song (think "Indo Silver Club" by Daft Punk), then Karen Young or Sunshine Records or whomever should definitely get royalties. (Homework's liner notes mention the sample, so they gave credit, in case you are curious.) If it's something like "Face To Face" by Daft Punk, where the song is made up of so many tiny samples that it's difficult to tell where each comes from and yet their use is varied enough for the song to still be considered an original work, that's fine, though they probably paid royalties anyway. (I don't believe they credited anyone on this song, though.)

Think of it this way. Put all kinds of cookies in single bag and beat it senseless. Most of the bag will consist of generic crumbs---you don't know what brand this particular random crumb you've just chosen came from, and it's probably a useless exercise trying to figure that out---but there will occasionally be a piece large enough for you to say to yourself, "That is definitely from an Oreo."

Personally, I'd credit the artist regardless of how recognizable the sample was. In any case, though, ask them first. You can never be too sure. Plus, artists will appreciate it, or at least I'd like to think so, even if they might want a cut.

If I wanted to be a smartass, then I could technically release a song containing a sample from another song that's licensed under some Creative Commons variation that allows that and not be infringing on copyright, at least as long as they get credited. (Don't quote me on this.) Generally though, it probably would be infringing on copyright. If you're sampling something without permission (note that royalty-free implies you have permission), then you're metaphorically asking for it anyways. As far as using a sample without paying royalties, that depends on whether the sample is worth the cost of the legal case in royalties. Theoretically, every song sample is worthy of some royalties, but if it's something unimportant that lasts a quarter of a second, it may only be worth a crumb instead of trying to find more of the Oreo.

Actually, that should be Sunshine Entertainment, not Sunshine Records.

Ah, so it's more along the lines of the "If I break so much copywrite at once, no one person can take ownership of it" sorta thing? I've always just found sampling as both stealing and rather uninventive, in regards to chopping things out of another persons song and sticking them in somewhere. Though I see what you mean about the idea of making music like one would make a collage, with loads of bits, though it doesn't mean I'll take the song seriously if it's just full of bits where things are pulled out and stamped in. Quoting music, like they do in Classical music a lot, meaning playing a small section from another piece in the middle of a song in my opinion is different, because it requires learning the song in the first place and being able to play it yourself, same with covers. I still think credit and royalties (except classical as it's all out of copywrite) should be a thing, though it doesn't feel as uncreative to have learned some Bach and slipped it into a song naturally as it would be to just Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V something into the middle of a mix.

sampling has its uses but i believe as long as the sample is under 5 seconds you don't need to be worried by copyright after that if you want to use longer samples it is best to ask permission and from that they can say yer go ahead or ask for a one off fee to use it and then clam royalties on it if its played to the public from licensed venues with PPL PRS and sometimes MCPS venues with out these licenses can be fined a lot of money (urr well this kind of wandered off a bit but its all good info) but double check everything to be safe

If the sampling isn't gratuitous I don't see the biggest issue with it. While I do kind of think some royalties should be given. Like, there's one thing I wanna sample so bad for a song, but I don't wanna get in trouble for doing it. And the sample WOULD be throughout the whole song if I did use it so I'm definitely torn.

And this opens up another interesting question. The sample I want to use is the drum beat in the song Live On Stage - Ms. Melodie, and the question is...what happens if the singer is dead? Who can you contact? If possible at all? This is one thing that's made me a bit cautious to sample it. So I'm really not sure if there's a right or wrong answer. I do believe some royalties should be paid, but not a lot if the song is just sampled and not a cover or something. I'm just kinda dancing around the question cause I'm not sure, but I'll read the comments on this journal to see what people say x3

take samples from 40's music

nobody can stop you

they dead.


you make new genre from this