The Copyright Criminals documentary and The Amen Break recording are two useful tools for understanding what sampling is and how copyright comes into play in the sampling process.
The Amen Break video I found to be interesting in terms of content, but rather boring in presentation. The video was dry, containing limited imagery and I felt the tone was rather monotone. However, it may have been intended to be this way so that the audience was sure to listen to the message and not distracted by imagery. It’s strengths lie in the number of songs referenced involving the “6 second clip” of the Amen Break over decades, the explanation of how sampling evolved, and the complications involved. I found the following statement to be of great insight into the issue:
“To trace the history of the Amen Break is to trace the history of a brief period of time when it seemed digital tools offered a potentially unlimited amount of new forms of expression. Where cultural production, at least musically, was full of possibilities by virtue of being able to freely appropriate from the musical past to make new combinations, thus new meanings.”
Copyright criminals tapped into this idea of created something new of something old to better suit the current generation. It creates a type of nostalgia of what was great in the past in a modern way. It was interesting to learn how sampling evolved and when/how copyright really became a huge concern. I enjoyed listening to all of the experts talk about the issue of copyright, even if I did not agree with all of them. One producer mentioned that sampling is cheap, lazy, and easy. I think there is some truth to this, but not much. This man comes from a background of instrumental music, naturally it is likely he frowns upon electronic music relying mainly on turn tables and samplers. Some tracks could be considered cheap or lazy if they lack creativity or are not well executed. However, I think to sample a track and make it your own to the point of an entirely new masterpiece which has a slim foundation of a sampled song is neither easy or lazy. The amount of imagination and work required to master a sample and create a track of one’s own I feel is as much work as created an instrumental track, just the approach is different.
In fashion, music, and methods styles come and go. For example, the resurface bell bottoms in the 1990s or skinny jeans in the last few years. They are not quite the same as they once were- bell bottoms in the 90s tended to be not as wide, but resembled the same thing. Music does the same thing by taking an old idea of sound and giving it a modern spin. It makes no sense to me that reproducing someone’s entire song can get you in less trouble than using a 3 second segment. I would have liked to know more detail about the legal process of copyright. I do think that the original artists should receive credit for the sample, but the question becomes what should be considered copyright infringement? A 3 second piece? A segment that has been altered beyond recognition? If it has been altered that much, is it still copyright?
The last thing I wanted to mention is that sampling does not always involve using other people’s music. I visited a friend at Berklee School of Music in Boston who’s roommate had just gotten a sampler and we walked around the city just sampling random noises. You can sample the sound of a door closing, a soda pop opening, or almost any sound.
If you’d like to see someone who combines sampling, layering, beat boxing, and the majority of his own material check out Beardyman. All of his composition is done right in front of you and fascinating to watch. He makes it look effortless, but I don’t think any of us could rightfully call it easy or lazy.