I decided to look into critical theory and readings of sampling and the ideas of copying or stealing, I was curious after my exercise of attributes and creating the song from the same attributes as MADVILIAN’s song Meatgrinder. What does it mean to sample music? What do people consider is right or wrong within it as well as the philosophy of using samples. Here are some quotes and ideas that I found interesting within the book.
The practice of sampling without permission has all but ended. However, this move to protect established songwriters at the expense of emerging ones runs counter to both the intent of copyright law and the best interest of society
It’s an interesting way to think that protecting the old artists can stop the new, I suppose it doesn’t speak on the right of old artists as well, why do we prioritise the more modern ones and disregard the older established artists?
American culture and politics would function better under a system that guarantees “thin” copyright protection. Just enough protection to encourage creativity, yet limited so that emerging artists, scholars, writers and students can enjoy a rich public domain and broad “fair use of copyright material “
While “thick” copyright has had a chilling effect on creativity, thin copyright would enrich American literature, music, art, and democratic culture.
The ideas presented around thin and thick copyright laws can make one consider where the opposing law can do. Thick copyright laws present extreme restrictions on ideas being shared, no sampling, no closeness to ideas presented. Whereas thin copyright law is more towards the idea of hive mind, that ideas should be on a public domain, or somewhere in between with a more lineant approach, to allow more to be used before being considered stealing.
Copywright was intended to protect artists literature musical etc enough to encourage creativity, the law is based on creating distinctive work, to render it original. Originality displays a skill of his or her own skill labor and judgement.
All creativity relies on previous work, builds “on the shoulders of giants”
This idea that all creativity relies on previous work speaks out to me in volumes, I couldn’t see any other view on this, I believe it’s stupid to act as if art is made in a vacuum, how can one not be inspired by others, on the shoulders of giants is a great metaphor to explain that reliant that creativity has on inspiration and the sharing of knowledge and expression.
But because twentieth-century copyright law has been a battle of strongly interested parties seeking to control a market, not a concentrated effort to maximise creativity and content for the benefit of the public, we have lost sight of such a formula along the way.
Again the idea of public domain, that the idea is to control a market rather than maximise creativity. The intent behind these ideas of intellectual property and copyright laws are there for a reason, to make sure whoever creates gets what is owed. But creativity is something that should be prioritised. Although there are arguments against this, Elvis Presley used the song hound dog. The song, which was previously released to little success, he then released it himself and it went on to become hugely popular and commercially successful. It was inauthentic. He reaped more rewards than the contemporary black artists, Chuck D leader of public enemy said “Elvis was a hero to most, but he didnt mean shit to me.
Tricia rose has argued, whiteness maters in the story of the commodification of black cultural expression. By virtue of their whiteness, many artists participated in styles and “crossed over” what was until only recently a gaping social and economic chasm between black music and white consumers.
Even when blacks could cross over, white artists have had better opportunities to capitalise on the publicity and distribution systems. For instance many “alternative” or “rock” radio stations will occasionally play rap music, but only if it is by white artists such as the beastie boys, limp biz kit, or kid rock.
Rap didn’t come from blues but from “Afrodiasporic” black culture,
Early rap composers weaved samples from familiar songs into a new montage of sound.
Rap for a moment revealed gaping flaws in the premises of how copyright law gets applied to music and showed the law to be inadequate for emerging communication technologies, techniques and aesthetics.
It is in fact a struggle between the established entities in the music business and those trying to get established. It is a conflict between old and new.
As the market for rap and the industry that supports it grew and matures through the 1980s and 1990s, the law shifted considerably in favour of established artists and companies, and against emerging ones. So by the late 1990s, rap artists without the support of a major record company and its lawyers, without a large pool of money to pay a licence fee for samples, had a choice: either don’t sample or don’t market new music.
I think these last few quotes and extracts really paint an idea around white dominance in copyright law and the approach that it applies for one and not the other. Also disregarding other cultures and workframes within communities, that because this works for the western world or white cultures that it applies to others.
In non western cultures, South America and Africa, ownership of ideas and expressions isn’t as important, one could argue that copyright laws are a white cultural idea imposed into law.
Why do rap artists sample in the first place? What meaning are they imparting? Some songs grab bits and pieces of different pop culture signposts, while other, such as tone loc’s “wild thing” or Hammer’s “U Cant Touch this” which lays lyrics upon a backing track made up almost entirely of rick’s “super freak” intstrumeuntals, hardly stand alone as as songs, but try “versions” of someone else’s hits. Sometimes, as with schooled d’s sampling of led zeppelins “Kashmir” for his song “signifying rapper” it can be political act— a way of crossing the system, challenging expectations, or confronting the status quo. Often, the choice of the sample is an expressions of appreciation, debt, or influence. Other times it’s just a matter of having some fun or searching for the right ambient sound, tone or feel. Certainly rick Jame’s funky hits of the late 1970s and early 1980s influenced not only artists of the 1990s but their audiences. Sampling is a way an artists declares “Hey I dug this, too”
I find the way of discussing using samples as a way of challenging expectation, confronting the status quo, and having fun or in other means describes the varied approaches in sampling, it’s a different knowledge that is imparted when using these tools.
Music belongs to the people, and sampling in hip hop isn’t a copy cat act but a form of reanimation. Sampling in hip-hop is the digitised version of hip-hop DJing, an archival project and an art form unto itself. Hip-Hop is ancestor worship.
Sampling can be transgressive or appreciative, humorous or serious. It gives a song another level of meaning, another plane of communication among the artist, previous artists and the audience.
Digital sampling also had a powerful democratising effect on American popular music. All a young composer needed was a thick stack of vinyl albums, a $2000 sampler, a microphone, and a tape deck, and she could make fresh and powerful music. She could make people dance, laugh, and sing along.
Hip Hop as ancester worship and renaimation of the past. To show respect and admire the past. An archival project. To think that one can communicate with others over time is beautiful. as well in the last quote discussing the advantages that samples have given towards people who don’t know musical theory. Anyone can become a composer with a sampler. To a certain extent ofcourse.
The digital sampling device has change not only the sound of pop music, but also the mythology. It has done what punk rock threatened to do: made everybody into a musician, bridge the gap between performer and audience.
The power of such a tool that it allows people who are untrained to become composers through ideas.
Sampling is just a longer term for theft. Anybody who can honestly say sampling is some sort of creativity has never done anything creative.
I thought this was an interesting argument against the idea of sampling presented in the book. That sampling isn’t creative its just stealing. Something I disagree with but have considered.
For Chucked D, a sample is a “mineral.” It is raw material for a new compostion. Sampling is a transformation: using an expression as an idea; using what was once melody as a beat, an element of rhythm. Sampling is not theft. It’s recycling. If we define an expression by what it does, instead of what it did, it no longer counts as an expression in the new context. The expression does not do the same work in its new role. Content matters to meaning. An old expression is no longer the same expression, and note even the same idea, if the context changes radically.
Thats how creativity happens. Artists collaborate over space and time, even if they lived centuries and continents apart. Profound creatiivity requires maximum exposure to others works and liberal freedoms to reuse and reshape others material, Martha Graham
This has really made me consider critically the practice of sampling in a whole. I will be contextualising my work more after reading this and reflecting on the important notes I’ve taken from the book.
