Sampling ... the easy option?

lumphammer2

A while back this thing was heard everywhere :-

Moby - Find my baby - YouTube

This 'song' features in long list of white acts ripping off obscure and long dead African American blues singers .... this is the original and better version ...

Joe Lee's Rock - YouTube

.... Only the vocal on both are the exact same ... Moby does not even sing but uses the exact vocal from the original ... welcome to so called sampling ....

The original singer prob worked in a menial job and played music part time ... died in poverty ... yet a white DJ can take his song and make millions with something he stole ....

What is the general consensus on this 'sampling' ?? ... ripoff or homage ... this example is far from the only one ... but it always seems to be some modern act ripping off the songs and original vocals of old blues records that have expired copyrights ... sampling to me anyway is just fancy plagiarism ....

The Princess Bride

I wouldn't think it's an easy option, by any stretch of the imagination.

Have a read of this article, it's very interesting. Certainly 'easy' isn't the word I'd use.

https://www.okayplayer.com/music/de-la-soul-samples-deborah-mannis-gardner-interview.html

I'd like to think that the intention of the artist sampling, is complimentary. Of course, it could be that they're taking a well known & liked song, purely for those reasons, in order to be heard by an audience they might otherwise struggle to find.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

iamstop

I think painting all sampling as lazy is ...well, lazy. Sampling is a huge catch all term with a long history. It can mean anything from taking practically whole songs like Puffy did with The Police or it can be taking multiple little tiny slices and creating something completely new and far removed from the original. Something someone like J Dilla mastered.

To dismiss sampling as fancy plagiarism, to me, just shows that you have little to no understanding of what is involved. Which is fine if you are open and willing to delve a little deeper and actually try to get your head around it. I feel that might be the case since OP started a thread about it. There are several documentaries and even whole web series based around sampling.

You would do well to invest 3 minutes to watch this nice little doc called Secondhand Sureshots.

https://youtu.be/eSb_aLSF6oU

They give 4 established producers $5 and set them free in a charity shop. They each have to use use those records and those records only to make a beat. No added instruments, no drum machines, no external samples. Only effects and chops allowed.

Myself and a few lads from irishhiphop.com did and online competition version of this years ago. You can check the tracks here:

https://soundcloud.com/tsbw

Like most technology, it can be used for good and bad, depending on the hands it's in.

iamstop

Just to add to this regarding the financial aspect. The majority of sampling does not reap millions for a white DJ off of a poor black person's back. In the early days of sampling there was no precedence for financially compensating the original artist. There is now and most of the sample done by mid to big name artists get cleared. If they don't there is the possibility of being sued for far more than you make on the song, so most artists do their due diligence.

There was some horrible record deals back in the day (and still to this day) by record companies that exploited black musicians. If Moby sampled a track that the copyright ran out, then it's in the public domain and he's free to do so.

There is a much darker force in the music industry. I read an article a number of years ago about companies that go around hoovering up the licensing contracts for music from popular musicians to the point where they can and do charge the original musician for performing their own works. It's madness. To add to that, sometimes these contracts are gotten under unscrupulous means and even fraudulently. I'll try to find the article or another one similar.