Music Sampling: Daylight Robbery or Art Form?

With the development and progression of the digital age, the music industry has been bombarded with potentially problematic issues. Concerns over piracy and streaming are near-constant topics that are brought up when discussing the impact of technology on the industry as a whole, but they aren’t the only two issues that are discussed. More and more people are debating whether sampling should be allowed in everyday music. Is using someone else’s hard work in your own music a form of copyright breach, or is it a perfectly acceptable way of breathing new life into older tracks?

The act of sampling music is typically described as “the use of portions of prior recordings which are incorporated into a new composition” (McReady, 2007) – in other words, samplers take pieces of older songs and add them into their own songs. In an age where almost anyone can set up their own music studio at a moderate price, sampling is something that is becoming increasingly popular in commercial music of our time. Artists from all genres are trying their hand at sampling to varying results.

One of the main arguments against the use of sampling in modern-day music revolves around copyright law and the distribution of music royalties. From a legal standpoint, sampling is acceptable if the artist has “added something new to further the purpose with new meaning or expression” (Collie and Gorman, 2011) meaning that as long as the sampled piece of music is used in a larger body of music that takes the primary focus, the sampling cannot be considered an act of theft or copyright breach. However, the idea of royalty distribution is a rather difficult one to pin down. Legally, the rights of the sampled piece lie with the original song and henceforth, a portion of the money should be delivered to the original artist. For some people, this is acceptable. Other views, however, have samplers as criminals – getting money for work that is not their own and as a result, stealing money that should be earned by the original artist.

An example in practise is the case of iTunes and sampling artist Girl Talk. Initially, his songs – described by iTunes as “sample-based dance tracks” – were unavailable on iTunes due to the dispute over whether the mash-ups he was producing were classed as his own works or not. Despite the songs exhibiting the technical accuracy of Greg Gillis, many believed that he was simply piecing together old songs, rather than creating a whole new piece of music. However, Girl Talk’s music can now be purchased on iTunes, which could very well signify a shift in people’s attitude towards whether sampling is an art form or not.

Conversely, some people believe that the use of sampling artists is “helping them” rather than “hurting them” (Gillis, 2007). It is almost impossible to deny that including music samples in popular music is a good source of publicity. For example, take MIA’s track “Paper Planes”. The riff that plays throughout the song is sampled from “Straight to Hell” by The Clash. Although this is not instantly apparent, many people familiar with the latter will hear the similarities in the former. A clearer form of this would be with Jason Derulo’s “Whatcha Say”. Derulo liberally samples areas of Imogen Heap’s “Hide and Seek”, cleverly interweaving the original song with his own song. The original was released in 2005 and the song is still one of Heap’s top singles to date (iTunes, 2014). From a promotional perspective, sampling can bring back the popularity of a song years after it was originally released and showcases one of the positives that sampling can bring.

For many however, the argument is not a law-related one nor is it one that pertains to looking at sampling as a promotional tool. It boils down to authenticity and the act of defiling a song. A common opinion related to sampling is that the act can “destroy the original” (Edwards, 2010). To a certain extent, this can be justified. Taking MIA as an example again, you could easily argue that the transference of a classic punk rock riff to a hip-hop song is a crossover that shouldn’t ever exist, simply because the two genres are at separate ends of a musical spectrum. The inclusion of the riff in a hip-hop song could be seen as a destruction of what was a legitimate and ‘authentic’ piece of music. On the other hand, inquisitive fans may find the connection and be opened up to a whole new world of music and in a day and age where music is becoming increasingly easy to access, this could be of massive benefit to the original artist.

Arguments both for and against music sampling are strong and as a topic that is debated heavily amongst musicians and music listeners alike, it isn’t difficult to realise that each and every person will hold their own positive or negative view on sampling as a whole. However, with the music industry rapidly accepting sampling as a legitimate art form and technology progressing to allow sampled tracks to be created in the comfort of your own room, it may be something that the people who believe it is destroying the industry will have to get used to.

Sources:

McReady, M. (2007) The Law Regarding Music Sampling [online] Available at: http://www.copynot.org/Pages/Music%20sampling.htm [Accessed: February 25, 2014]

Collie, C and Gorman, E. (2011) Digital Sampling of Music and Copyrights: Is It Infringement, Fair Use or Should We Just Flip a Coin? [online] Available at: http://bciptf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Gorman-Collie-IPTF.pdf [Accessed: 25 February 2014]

Gellis, G. (2007) GOOD COPY, BAD COPY [online video] Available at: http://blip.tv/good-copy-bad-copy/good-copy-bad-copy-full-feature-364089 [Accessed: February 25, 2014]

Edwards, H. (2010) Is Sampling Music Good or Bad for the Business? [online] Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/coventry/hi/people_and_places/music/newsid_8909000/8909151.stm [Accessed: February 25, 2014]