@@somekek6734 Agreed. I don't have any inherent ethical problem with the use of short samples because I regard that as a form of quotation that creates a musical dialogue between two songs. That _should_ be regarded as a form of transformative fair use. But it is always ethical to cite your sources when quoting someone, no matter whether you are writing an essay or sampling another artist. I think sampling should be legal on the condition that due credit is given.
Abid, You are an amazing communicator. As you already know this has been one of the largest discussions in the music industry for over a quarter of a century. You managed to define, illustrate and show an example of this within 15 minutes. Absolutely Outstanding! I wouldn't be surprised if this video demonstration is used by a judge someday in order to explain to a jury on what they need to consider when making copyright infringement decision. You may have just lifted the burden of some young music creator, and given them the ability to create the next No. 1 hit that will have all of us humming for many years. Thank you for your commitment to this subject!
I dont mean to be offtopic but does any of you know a trick to get back into an Instagram account? I was dumb lost my login password. I appreciate any tricks you can give me.
This is true but like the speaker mentioned, this can take some of the artistry out of sampling. My favorite part of sampled music is when I hear a sample I recognize but it is being used in a completely different way to make something brand new.
the point is 7:40 you can sample if you're at different genre, different market. For example, you sample jazz for hip hop, just do it. Make sure to make some chopped, dont use it straight long.
The message in this video makes me realise how fucking greedy The Human Animal is. “Whats mine is mine, absolutely nothing for you”. Even with such an ethereal thing as music. The lengths and breadth corporations will go to crush their opposition is nasty. Sampling laws need to be changed. World needs a reboot. Bring back the dinosaurs 🦖
It's the feeling we want, sampling is the way to it. If musicians were in music, it be no need to sample. If musicians were putting there feelings into a track, going broke, getting high to ease the pain of a relationship gone bad or getting high and writing music, we would all be happy. But let's face it, everyone has a machine now and machines do one thing humans can't and that's copy. Cut and paste,stretch, bend pitch up down or whatever. No more jam sessions after getting a good buz. So we do the next best thing, sample that feeling. So we can get that high and re-live that jam session. Just my two cents on sampling. It's the only way to catch a buzz off music these days.
Or you know actually put in the effort to learn how to play instruments or learn some theory. Nobody wants to put in the actual work they just wanna profit off other ppls art
Great, great insight. You NAILED it. The issue becomes "is that fair to the artists concerned?" but that's another question. Your point "copy, paste, stretch," is the way it is. For good or evil. I hate the cliche "it is what it is," but in this case, it's true!
Two questions: #1 What if you sample something non music? Like for example someone from a speech. #2 What if you sample something that was from a country that does not respect U.S. copyright law? For example, sampling a chinese prayer from a chinese prayer box into a song in the U.S.?
#1 Well, it depends on a lot of thing (Is it a speech from a movie, somebody who's reading ? If so, I think not. But other than that you can look at speech that are in public domain. #2 Look at the Berne convention, Genève Convention, Roma convention, ADPIC and OMPI which kind of universalises rights about lot of artistic stuff for a lot of country in the world. For exemple, in France there some differences about moral and patrimonial rights that are not regulate with these convention. So be careful :)
The sample clearance system needs to be replaced with something more closely resembling the way a cover song is licensed. That means compulsory licensing, (because a true flip of a tiny sample is as much one's voice as an acoustic guitar cover) and money is only a factor if and when money gets made. This seems to me an equitable and common-sense solution, and yet the current system super-pays middlemen under the false mantle of getting artists paid (which is of course a noble endeavour!). As it stands, if one were to sample a cover song, they would owe two parties rather than make a clear comment on the nature of authorship and originality. And imagine if one were to sample a plagiarist! The incongruity piles up.
No one knew the song = new work = protected. There are 8 billion minds on earth, are there 8 billion snares sounds? And if there are... none will sound similar? This means that only a few will control ALL music!
There are an infinite amount of snare sounds Every recording of a snare would be a unique snare sound Either way, I highly doubt anyone will go after you for sampling a drum one shot
I’m no lawyer, but the example given with the collage artwork, the original was recognisable, but the court considered it transformative, so not a copyright infringement. The tracks played in the video are making the originals completely unrecognisable, which is in a sense is transformative, but to make music using samples which can easily be recognised without clearance is a far harder path to tread. To successfully argue fair use or that what you make from uncleared samples is transformative is folly. The art world is a far different animal in terms of copyright infringement, with many cases where artists have successfully argued their work is transformative, despite on the surface it seeming like an obvious infringement of someone else’s work and being immediately recognisable. Take another Richard Prince case of the Marlboro cowboy for example, where he cropped and enlarged a section of a Marlboro print ad, and the resulting artwork has sold for millions. Court ruled in his favour. The musical equivalent example could be taking half of Let It Be by the Beatles and releasing it as your own on Spotify and thinking you stand any sort of chance arguing in court it is transformative.
There's no fundamental reason why transformative fair use should exist in one form of art, but not in another. I can agree that (practically speaking) it's a far harder path to tread in music compared to visual arts. This may just be due to the fact that transformative visual art has existed for far longer than sampling and thus has had the time necessary to achieve widespread social acceptance and accumulate the legal precedents that justify it as legitimate. But that doesn't mean that sampling and visual arts *should* continue to be treated differently in the future. I would recommend an article published in the _Missouri Law Review_ (which you can look up online) titled "Digital Sampling v. Appropriation Art: Why Is One Stealing and the Other Fair Use? A Proposal for a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Digital Music Sampling." It argues that it's time for copyright law to be treated more consistently across the different forms of art.
So how do people actually sample vocals nowadays?? I’ve heard A LOT of of “new” songs that use vocal samples of old songs. Can someone explain the “how to”, please. I wanna do things right. Thanks in advance.
So wait yes I understand sampling from a recording is wrong but if you have your own sample library where does that put you? How will you get credit for the piece? hence you bought the library and composed a piece?
You will not be able monetize off of it. If your song blows up with the sample that you have used and you're making lots of money off of it and the original artist recognize the sample, be prepared to show up on court. So what's he saying, don't do it.
The general rule is that it's legal to use copyrighted material created by others if you pay for it or the owners give you permission to use it. So if you have paid a one-time fee to acquire royalty free samples, then there is no problem because you now have the legal right to use that material (subject to any licensing conditions associated with the sale).
Hi John, the content in the Live Core Library, and the majority of the sample packs are royalty-free. This is true for all Live versions, including EDU serials. This means you can use them in your commercial productions no problem. Please find more details here: bit.ly/2Q5YagC Hope this helps and let us know if you have more questions!
@@Ableton Can you list the "minority" of the samples in the sample packs which are not royatly-free than? I always thought sample packs frim Ableton are ALL royalty free. If not does not much sense for me to buy it.
It's pretty severe. You can get fined for each copy sold, and I can't even imagine what happens if your sample-infringed hit song is streamed a bazillion times. But to get to this stage takes a series of scary escalations, usually by threatening lawyers. The point is, when you're in that game, you're focused on playing defense, and not focused on the thing you want to do: make more music.
@@abidhussainlaw Super late to this party but I just watched this video and was wondering does it matter if you put it out for free? Will you still be fined even though there is nothing sold? Thank you for what you do for the community, we appreciate it!
@@joemorales4288 Whether you make money or not is not relevant to the damages caused by infringement. You can still be fined. Your worst nightmare is where you release a song for free that becomes a hit. Then you'll pay for every stream or every download. Always get a sample cleared!!
If i made a song that was widely sampled and used over and over id be extremely proud of that achievement. How far must humans fall into greed before realizing there are things worth more than the dollar.. such as humanity in itself. would we fall so low as to lose our humanity to pursue greed and whats the real cost of that.
What's the point in sampling if the artist is not recognizable. The jewel of early hip-hop was in taking a known artist that we know and love and giving there vibe a new life. His example did not highlight this aspect.
There needs to be a second video, because logic kinda hints at 'how the fuck do we clear samples the right fucking way?' and I'm coming from the perspective of using cinema one liners, i.e. 'if he falls fine, if not, the sword'. I'm just not sure copyright is good for humanity, I have to assume it has saved lives somewhere...given its aggressive proponents...
Unfortunately, due to how the courts have interpreted the law, there are two bad solutions: 1) Don't sample or 2) transform your sample to the point where there is no reason why you would sample. Sorry, I don't make the (crappy) rules.
Abid Hussain I recently attended a seminar where they lightly touched on the topic of some companies online who clear samples for you. Trying to learn more about this. Can you or any viewers here point me in the right direction? Thanks!
I do not understand why so many producers illegally sample from other artists when you have millions of legal samples, one-shots, loops and all kind of sounds that you can buy from hundreds of online libraries for almost nothing. It´s so cheap... Why go and steal and be on risk of being caught and fined if it´s almost free in the legal market. Can anyone explain that to me?.
It's explained actually in the video @14:20, people want to pay homage to the original artist. It's the reason why copying is often considered the biggest form of flattery. There are more reasons of course. Besides less creative -driven reasons people can genuinely feel inspired by a sample to do something creatively with it themselves. There is simply no way whatsoever for copyright laws to kill off this fundamental creative drive. Anyone who's making music knows this.
because sampling is about finding something great in a place you don't expect to, and transforming it in a way you can't predict, not limiting yourself to some collection of loops. Not to mention those loops/sound libraries don't come close to comparing to a well-sampled piece from a finished song, with all of its sonic artifacts and rich palettes. Samples aren't supposed to sound clean and simple, they're supposed to fill the sonic space up with all kinds of little details. If something is made with the purpose of it being sampled, chances are it's not gonna be as interesting as a piece of music that's made to be listened to on its own.
Cuz that's the cornerstone of hip hop production. To do it well isn't easy. Listeners want it. Mcs want it. It's a lot of fun. And rap made with dopey synth sounds is terrible.
all the above answers are great but just speaking as a producer who occasionally samples, there's just something inspiring about certain samples that can rarely be found in sample packs, and from that spark that that little clip elicits, a whole new song can be made. And that's beautiful.
Not sure I'd agree with that. A sound is a sound, whether it comes from a synth or a sampler is only relevant to the type of music and art form you are creating. The question is whether the sound you are using is ok to be used in your song, and that's where it becomes very murky very fast.
To be clear, infringing a copyright is not a crime. It gives the copyright holder a civil claim. No one will go to jail, though you may feel like it after you get hit with penalties, fines, and judgments.
I certainly know that things are not that simple. The so-called: "a good artist copy, a great artist steal", fundamentally, this sentence does not apply to the court. The main problem is that people always feel that the law only protects those who are willing to pay to sue you, right? By the way, thank you the reminder : "infringing a copyright is not a crime."
A sample really doesn't actually "harm" anyone by taking away sales and the profits those generate. Nobody is going to not buy a song because another artist sampled a few seconds of it. If anything, sampling is free publicity and increases the chances of the artists whose songs were sampled being discovered and appreciated by fans of the sampling artist. Illegally downloading songs via BitTorrent is far more unethical than sampling because that actually does hurt artists through lost sales. A sample could be viewed as a form of quotation that creates a musical dialogue between two songs, and viewing it that way makes it arguably a form of fair use. As long as credit is always given when sampling occurs, the benefit to harm ratio is positive rather than negative. P.S. I can agree though that a mature artist will not do anything that is likely to incur civil (or criminal) liability, so I'm not endorsing unauthorized sampling as long as it remains legally perilous.
Sampling is a great way for unknown acts to get discovered.
Then it bothers me that so many artist don't credit
@@somekek6734 Agreed. I don't have any inherent ethical problem with the use of short samples because I regard that as a form of quotation that creates a musical dialogue between two songs. That _should_ be regarded as a form of transformative fair use. But it is always ethical to cite your sources when quoting someone, no matter whether you are writing an essay or sampling another artist. I think sampling should be legal on the condition that due credit is given.
@@somekek6734 It's the fault of the labels for being greedy assholes.
@@photios4779 yeah short samples are fine but people who just sing over full songs and call it thier own that’s straight stealing
He fact that this is an official Ableton conference and he is wearing multiple festival wristbands fully completes this for me. I love this man.
Abid, You are an amazing communicator. As you already know this has been one of the largest discussions in the music industry for over a quarter of a century. You managed to define, illustrate and show an example of this within 15 minutes. Absolutely Outstanding! I wouldn't be surprised if this video demonstration is used by a judge someday in order to explain to a jury on what they need to consider when making copyright infringement decision. You may have just lifted the burden of some young music creator, and given them the ability to create the next No. 1 hit that will have all of us humming for many years. Thank you for your commitment to this subject!
Is it just me or did this entire video pretty much just say, “Well it’s only illegal if you get caught 🤷🏻♂️” 😂
pretty much.
Ahhh ok
In retrospect, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that a lawyer just spent fifteen minutes basically telling us that we should get a lawyer.
I dont mean to be offtopic but does any of you know a trick to get back into an Instagram account?
I was dumb lost my login password. I appreciate any tricks you can give me.
@Marcus Blaze Instablaster :)
I’m gonna sample this video and make lots of money from it
Mission: Accomplished
😆
Finally, I'm tension free. Thank you Ableton
If you alter a sample to the point where it cannot be recognized, no one will bat an eye.
Yeah I usually just throw a sample in a simpler and compose something entirely different.
pussycrusher6669 I lol'd at your username 😂
the "Crime is only illegal if you get caught" mentality.
This is true but like the speaker mentioned, this can take some of the artistry out of sampling. My favorite part of sampled music is when I hear a sample I recognize but it is being used in a completely different way to make something brand new.
Bradley I agree, that’s why I like using samples.
He went through all the work of getting a law degree and hosting a conference just to plug his Soundcloud. Un-fucking-real.
Don’t be a dip, remember to flip
- Safe Sampling PSA
Abid, you wonderful, wonderful man
*hugs* back atcha my dear Ableton Certified Trainer friend!
the point is 7:40 you can sample if you're at different genre, different market. For example, you sample jazz for hip hop, just do it.
Make sure to make some chopped, dont use it straight long.
This could not be more incorrect, how the fuck did you get that from this?
Thank you so much for this eye opening talk, I've been wondering just that for ages
now the Loop gave me something useful.
Thank you Ableton and Abid.
Valuable content.
The message in this video makes me realise how fucking greedy The Human Animal is. “Whats mine is mine, absolutely nothing for you”. Even with such an ethereal thing as music. The lengths and breadth corporations will go to crush their opposition is nasty. Sampling laws need to be changed.
World needs a reboot. Bring back the dinosaurs 🦖
I feel ya
I was lucky with a remix I did "Dreams Come True" on my channel, it got done for copy-write but the label let me split the monatization with them 🙌🏼
Interesting! How did you split the monatization? Is that possible directly throigh youtube?
It's the feeling we want, sampling is the way to it. If musicians were in music, it be no need to sample. If musicians were putting there feelings into a track, going broke, getting high to ease the pain of a relationship gone bad or getting high and writing music, we would all be happy. But let's face it, everyone has a machine now and machines do one thing humans can't and that's copy. Cut and paste,stretch, bend pitch up down or whatever. No more jam sessions after getting a good buz. So we do the next best thing, sample that feeling. So we can get that high and re-live that jam session. Just my two cents on sampling. It's the only way to catch a buzz off music these days.
Lamont Reid bro you killed it
Or you know actually put in the effort to learn how to play instruments or learn some theory. Nobody wants to put in the actual work they just wanna profit off other ppls art
Great, great insight.
You NAILED it. The issue becomes "is that fair to the artists concerned?" but that's another question. Your point "copy, paste, stretch," is the way it is. For good or evil.
I hate the cliche "it is what it is," but in this case, it's true!
Brilliant talk, answered all the questions I had in my head throughout - thank you for this!
Two questions:
#1 What if you sample something non music? Like for example someone from a speech.
#2 What if you sample something that was from a country that does not respect U.S. copyright law? For example, sampling a chinese prayer from a chinese prayer box into a song in the U.S.?
#1 Well, it depends on a lot of thing (Is it a speech from a movie, somebody who's reading ? If so, I think not. But other than that you can look at speech that are in public domain.
#2 Look at the Berne convention, Genève Convention, Roma convention, ADPIC and OMPI which kind of universalises rights about lot of artistic stuff for a lot of country in the world. For exemple, in France there some differences about moral and patrimonial rights that are not regulate with these convention. So be careful :)
Oh ok, thank you
10:40
Actually “Ali Love - Emperor (Maceo Plex Remix)?
Just wondering if Eric sampled Uptown Funk.
I wonder if anything has changed law wise, since this was released.
The sample clearance system needs to be replaced with something more closely resembling the way a cover song is licensed. That means compulsory licensing, (because a true flip of a tiny sample is as much one's voice as an acoustic guitar cover) and money is only a factor if and when money gets made. This seems to me an equitable and common-sense solution, and yet the current system super-pays middlemen under the false mantle of getting artists paid (which is of course a noble endeavour!).
As it stands, if one were to sample a cover song, they would owe two parties rather than make a clear comment on the nature of authorship and originality. And imagine if one were to sample a plagiarist! The incongruity piles up.
Very informative and a little confusing, so good job. I needed this video
No one knew the song = new work = protected.
There are 8 billion minds on earth, are there 8 billion snares sounds? And if there are... none will sound similar? This means that only a few will control ALL music!
There are an infinite amount of snare sounds
Every recording of a snare would be a unique snare sound
Either way, I highly doubt anyone will go after you for sampling a drum one shot
Who carries the burden of proof? Can the accused artist say "well, prove it then! Prove I stole that from YOUR song, and not someone elses." ??
I'm gonna Sample the sample, Sample squared. that way I'm even further from being caught
smart move 😂 that way if they check the hard drive or original file #notrace
Really informative
Thank you! :)
thank you, sir!
Very well spoken.
I’m currently waiting on an email for permission to use short vocals from a song, is an email enough from the label?
Did they reply? How did manage to get in contact with them?
@@cotonnetee83 I got permission. Had to agree with a 50/50 royalty split. When I finished the song I grew to hate it so I took it down 😂
@@djjameshayes9766 so you ended up not even using it? lol did you have to pay anything advancement?
@@cotonnetee83 Didn’t have to pay anything just an agreement of royalty split.
Bring back " Fun Fun Fridays!"
haha, wow, now that takes me WAY back! LOL!
I’m no lawyer, but the example given with the collage artwork, the original was recognisable, but the court considered it transformative, so not a copyright infringement. The tracks played in the video are making the originals completely unrecognisable, which is in a sense is transformative, but to make music using samples which can easily be recognised without clearance is a far harder path to tread. To successfully argue fair use or that what you make from uncleared samples is transformative is folly. The art world is a far different animal in terms of copyright infringement, with many cases where artists have successfully argued their work is transformative, despite on the surface it seeming like an obvious infringement of someone else’s work and being immediately recognisable. Take another Richard Prince case of the Marlboro cowboy for example, where he cropped and enlarged a section of a Marlboro print ad, and the resulting artwork has sold for millions. Court ruled in his favour. The musical equivalent example could be taking half of Let It Be by the Beatles and releasing it as your own on Spotify and thinking you stand any sort of chance arguing in court it is transformative.
All excellent points. This is a murky topic.
madness
There's no fundamental reason why transformative fair use should exist in one form of art, but not in another. I can agree that (practically speaking) it's a far harder path to tread in music compared to visual arts. This may just be due to the fact that transformative visual art has existed for far longer than sampling and thus has had the time necessary to achieve widespread social acceptance and accumulate the legal precedents that justify it as legitimate. But that doesn't mean that sampling and visual arts *should* continue to be treated differently in the future. I would recommend an article published in the _Missouri Law Review_ (which you can look up online) titled "Digital Sampling v. Appropriation Art: Why Is One Stealing and the
Other Fair Use? A Proposal for a Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Digital Music Sampling." It argues that it's time for copyright law to be treated more consistently across the different forms of art.
Thanks dude
hey the second example song is really nice!!
So how do people actually sample vocals nowadays?? I’ve heard A LOT of of “new” songs that use vocal samples of old songs. Can someone explain the “how to”, please. I wanna do things right. Thanks in advance.
i think that you have to clear the sample by asking the record label. this usually comes with a fee or them taking a portion of the profit
clear as mud !!
Do you think that any of these laws will change?
Greatness.
Can i make music like daft punk "for fun" without having troubles?
So wait yes I understand sampling from a recording is wrong but if you have your own sample library where does that put you? How will you get credit for the piece? hence you bought the library and composed a piece?
great guy
I don't give a fuck I'm still gonna sample. Its apart of the hip hop culture and ain't no laws is gonna stop me
You will not be able monetize off of it. If your song blows up with the sample that you have used and you're making lots of money off of it and the original artist recognize the sample, be prepared to show up on court. So what's he saying, don't do it.
what about royalty free samples?
thats why there are royalty free. means no one will sue you for royalties so you good brother
The general rule is that it's legal to use copyrighted material created by others if you pay for it or the owners give you permission to use it. So if you have paid a one-time fee to acquire royalty free samples, then there is no problem because you now have the legal right to use that material (subject to any licensing conditions associated with the sale).
Why was there no analysis on whether those examples constitute fair use?
The guy has told you if you can't connect, you're good
Is it illegal to upload a song composition with Ableton drum loops and samples to youtube or spotify?
Hi John, the content in the Live Core Library, and the majority of the sample packs are royalty-free. This is true for all Live versions, including EDU serials. This means you can use them in your commercial productions no problem. Please find more details here: bit.ly/2Q5YagC Hope this helps and let us know if you have more questions!
@@Ableton Can you list the "minority" of the samples in the sample packs which are not royatly-free than? I always thought sample packs frim Ableton are ALL royalty free. If not does not much sense for me to buy it.
Hi there, please have a look at our EULA to answer your question here: bit.ly/3m5mQog Hope this helps. Cheers!
No.
10/10 great video great talk
What are the repercussions of sampling? Is it just a $x fine? or what legal actions are taken from the suing party usually?
It's pretty severe. You can get fined for each copy sold, and I can't even imagine what happens if your sample-infringed hit song is streamed a bazillion times. But to get to this stage takes a series of scary escalations, usually by threatening lawyers. The point is, when you're in that game, you're focused on playing defense, and not focused on the thing you want to do: make more music.
@@abidhussainlaw Super late to this party but I just watched this video and was wondering does it matter if you put it out for free? Will you still be fined even though there is nothing sold? Thank you for what you do for the community, we appreciate it!
@@joemorales4288 Whether you make money or not is not relevant to the damages caused by infringement. You can still be fined. Your worst nightmare is where you release a song for free that becomes a hit. Then you'll pay for every stream or every download. Always get a sample cleared!!
@@NebulaeAbletonCertifiedTrainer oof, that's rough, but thanks for the swift reply and clarification. Cheers!
@@joemorales4288 I wish I had a better answer for you. Thanks much for watching my video and for the kind words.
AbLeToN > Fl GaY
If i made a song that was widely sampled and used over and over id be extremely proud of that achievement. How far must humans fall into greed before realizing there are things worth more than the dollar.. such as humanity in itself. would we fall so low as to lose our humanity to pursue greed and whats the real cost of that.
What's the point in sampling if the artist is not recognizable. The jewel of early hip-hop was in taking a known artist that we know and love and giving there vibe a new life. His example did not highlight this aspect.
Agreed!
Lol I thought the first track was Art Of Noise! 🤣🤔🤣
Same premise for GENETIC splicing, and the annoying MIDI PACK
Wow Uptown funk
Spoiler alert! :)
No one else recognize "Brimful of Asha," by Cornershop at 12:26 ? :-)
There needs to be a second video, because logic kinda hints at 'how the fuck do we clear samples the right fucking way?' and I'm coming from the perspective of using cinema one liners, i.e. 'if he falls fine, if not, the sword'. I'm just not sure copyright is good for humanity, I have to assume it has saved lives somewhere...given its aggressive proponents...
Sooooo.... The solution was what again? 😶
Unfortunately, due to how the courts have interpreted the law, there are two bad solutions: 1) Don't sample or 2) transform your sample to the point where there is no reason why you would sample. Sorry, I don't make the (crappy) rules.
3rd solution: pay for the rights to use. (Big artists and producers I guess)
That's not a bad idea. DistroKid has a similar solution where you pay up front for a cover you're doing, and they pay any fees to the song writers.
Abid Hussain I recently attended a seminar where they lightly touched on the topic of some companies online who clear samples for you. Trying to learn more about this. Can you or any viewers here point me in the right direction? Thanks!
@@cristopherbrown2633 secure.harryfox.com/public/Licensing-GeneralFAQ.jsp
👍
I guessed the song.
Let me help you all out. Sample the shit. Make a hit record. Let the rest settle itself.
I do not understand why so many producers illegally sample from other artists when you have millions of legal samples, one-shots, loops and all kind of sounds that you can buy from hundreds of online libraries for almost nothing. It´s so cheap... Why go and steal and be on risk of being caught and fined if it´s almost free in the legal market. Can anyone explain that to me?.
It's explained actually in the video @14:20, people want to pay homage to the original artist. It's the reason why copying is often considered the biggest form of flattery.
There are more reasons of course. Besides less creative -driven reasons people can genuinely feel inspired by a sample to do something creatively with it themselves. There is simply no way whatsoever for copyright laws to kill off this fundamental creative drive. Anyone who's making music knows this.
because sampling is about finding something great in a place you don't expect to, and transforming it in a way you can't predict, not limiting yourself to some collection of loops. Not to mention those loops/sound libraries don't come close to comparing to a well-sampled piece from a finished song, with all of its sonic artifacts and rich palettes. Samples aren't supposed to sound clean and simple, they're supposed to fill the sonic space up with all kinds of little details. If something is made with the purpose of it being sampled, chances are it's not gonna be as interesting as a piece of music that's made to be listened to on its own.
Cuz that's the cornerstone of hip hop production. To do it well isn't easy. Listeners want it. Mcs want it. It's a lot of fun. And rap made with dopey synth sounds is terrible.
all the above answers are great but just speaking as a producer who occasionally samples, there's just something inspiring about certain samples that can rarely be found in sample packs, and from that spark that that little clip elicits, a whole new song can be made. And that's beautiful.
Simply put, these artists like to steal a certain feeling created by anothers work but are to lazy to cover tracks
what a ball ache!!!
lawyer
Lawyer by day, producer by night.
Synthesis > sampling
sampling is a form of synthesis tho. one of the most popular techniques to synthesize a sound
Not sure I'd agree with that. A sound is a sound, whether it comes from a synth or a sampler is only relevant to the type of music and art form you are creating. The question is whether the sound you are using is ok to be used in your song, and that's where it becomes very murky very fast.
Anyone sampling Beyonce should go to Alcatraz, never mind getting a fine. Why would you even?
Drinking Game: Everytime he says Uh or Umm take a drink.
Pass the blunt Everytime he says right and... You know...
You would get drunk very quickly! Agreed, this is my worst aspect of public speaking.
@@4wishes2begranted Oh boy, that might be illegal even in Seattle or Boulder.
Crime is based on an act, right? So we should focus on the root of the problem. I believe that a mature artist will not do anything that harms others.
To be clear, infringing a copyright is not a crime. It gives the copyright holder a civil claim. No one will go to jail, though you may feel like it after you get hit with penalties, fines, and judgments.
I certainly know that things are not that simple. The so-called: "a good artist copy, a great artist steal", fundamentally, this sentence does not apply to the court. The main problem is that people always feel that the law only protects those who are willing to pay to sue you, right? By the way, thank you the reminder : "infringing a copyright is not a crime."
A sample really doesn't actually "harm" anyone by taking away sales and the profits those generate. Nobody is going to not buy a song because another artist sampled a few seconds of it. If anything, sampling is free publicity and increases the chances of the artists whose songs were sampled being discovered and appreciated by fans of the sampling artist. Illegally downloading songs via BitTorrent is far more unethical than sampling because that actually does hurt artists through lost sales. A sample could be viewed as a form of quotation that creates a musical dialogue between two songs, and viewing it that way makes it arguably a form of fair use. As long as credit is always given when sampling occurs, the benefit to harm ratio is positive rather than negative. P.S. I can agree though that a mature artist will not do anything that is likely to incur civil (or criminal) liability, so I'm not endorsing unauthorized sampling as long as it remains legally perilous.
Sampling is bad, m'kay..
no offense Abid but stick to the legal field...I'm sorry but your music is not captivating