Read on Twitter
My comment on the sampling discourse currently going about.
If your work is so transformative as to turn a music sample into a brand new piece you can absolutely claim it as original. Several entire music genres would not exist if that were not the case.
If your work is so transformative as to turn a music sample into a brand new piece you can absolutely claim it as original. Several entire music genres would not exist if that were not the case.
The original tweet that started this was worded really poorly and I feel like you can't get upset that people are taking you at face value. You need to be clear and think things through before you post a contentious opinion.
Sampling as an art form has a long and rich history that has defined genres like electronic dance music and hip hop.
I get the point about crediting, but saying you can't make a new song with a sample and then call it an original is absurd to me.
I get the point about crediting, but saying you can't make a new song with a sample and then call it an original is absurd to me.
Now there are some situations where tracks have been outright stolen with little to no alteration and those cases should be absolutely called out.
But music as a whole is essentially one long unbroken chain of borrowing from previous generations, with sampling being one example.
But music as a whole is essentially one long unbroken chain of borrowing from previous generations, with sampling being one example.
Now as for crediting, again thats a case by case basis really. You can't really say "you should ALWAYS credit" because you'd end up getting so granular you'd be crediting "Vengeance Essential House Snare 5" and "Bugs Bunny Laugh 1987 short no fx".
Sometimes samples are so ubiquitous crediting becomes redundant. Other times, crediting is absolutely required, especially if the sample comes from a current creator in your own community.
This is a multifaceted issue and painting it with one big brush is foolhardy.
This is a multifaceted issue and painting it with one big brush is foolhardy.
You have to be specific and clear with what you mean when it comes to issues like this, because this sampling discourse is not new. Its been debated since the first producer hooked a record player up to an MPC.
Don't throw everyone under the bus when thats not your intention.
Don't throw everyone under the bus when thats not your intention.
Sampling can be so transformative that it becomes the main way most people know about a piece of work that would have otherwise fallen into obscurity. Is having older media die worth it just to protect "originality"? These are the questions you have to ask yourself.
I feel like the original point of all this was to go after people who just copy tracks with minimal alteration, but in the process they accidentally targeted every hip-hop head in the pony community.
I don't believe they meant to do this, but again...be careful with your words!
I don't believe they meant to do this, but again...be careful with your words!
In the end you can absolutely make original works using samples. Its polite to credit but not always required, depending on the nature of the new composition. Don't steal tracks, put a reverb on the master, and call it your own without any clearance.
PS: As mentioned by others, getting the official clearance and right to use samples usually involved labyrinthine legalese that only wealthy, established artists can navigate with the help of record labels.
I will not begrudge smaller artists from just "winging it" tbh
I will not begrudge smaller artists from just "winging it" tbh
