TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Music Discussion
-- Crediting sampling... are you for it or against it?
Crediting sampling... are you for it or against it?
Ok, i got into this argument with tony montana (Montana) a while ago and i just want to see everyone else's perspective. Should artists credit who they sample and go the extra mile to get the permission. Or should they keep it anonymous for the listener ?
My opinion is that an artist should give credit to previous artists in which their work was used. Its only fair and just.
I realize that the house scene was kept underground due to sampling and recirculation of uncredited disco music in the day. And if it wasn't kept anonymous it probably would not have spread in the way it did.
A couple of examples i could think of off the top of my head are
Three drives - Greece 2000 (sampling Cruisin' gang's - chinatown)
Alex morph- maximum overdrive - (stacey q - two of hearts)
lifelike nad kris menace - discopolis (kano another life)
madison avenue - don't call me baby (pino d'angio - ma quel idea)
anyways theres probably hundreds of examples. Do you think the original artists should be credited? Or should everything be kept hush hush and underground?
what are your opinions?
It depends on the situation.
A cheeky white label. Mr. producer runs off 500 copies of a track sampling some 70's glam rock. Couldn't really care less if he gives credit or not.
A Trance cracker gets a MIDI file and remakes a "classic". He names it with his name first and gives no credit to the original artists. This is annoying, it should be called a remix or remake.
But 99% of the time credit is being given via a nice fat wad of cash, even if the name of the original producer is on the record credits. 
i'm split in this nowadays, i like sampling in all way & forms, even lazy sampling (well, just when it's done really right). sometimes i give a shit and sometimes i don't, however, when it's a blatant sample/reproduction/remake, the original artist deserves artist credit. in the case of smaller fractions, it's just fucking silly.
Yes. Producers should always get their samples cleared, and they should always share writing credits with the sampled artists. It would make people think a hell of a lot more before they used a sample.
I'm all for sampling done well- a la DJ Shadow or The Future Sound Of London for two different ways it can be done- but I'm definitely against artists sampling:
1. And not changing or using their sample in a way different to its original form.
2. In place of writing a good melody.
3. And building a track entirely around the sample (hello Daft Punk).
All of the above constitute lazy sampling, which means easy sampling, which means more common sampling. If producers didn't have to clear their samples and surrender much of their money, we'd be awash in a sea of shit house records with no originality or creativity whatsoever.
And, if I'm being perfectly honest, artists who rarely sample are usually the most talented composers. There's a difference between the sample artists and the mere samplers.
Yes, but not for purity or respect to the original artist (though those are great too), but simply because I like to hear the context of the original sample!
meh...i guess i don't really care as long as it's done creatively.
The only problem I have with sampling is when an obscure sample is uncredited so that no one even realizes it's a sample. (see Kaycee - Escape)
For it! Especially with the rock song samplings/remixes.
Only so it can reduce the number of Linkin Park remixes on the market 
and stop the damn vocal BS nonsense!
For it. Only so people will realize how much classic house tracks are sampled and/or remade today. Will.I.Am sampled an older house track (early 90s I believe) and Booka Shade v. M.A.N.D.Y. - Body Language (which I know sampled something else) on his new album. I'm willing to bet kids that bought that cd have NO clue about the sampling and just think he's a genius.
For it.
But not if sampling credits mean tracks wont be released due to stuff not getting cleared. Bootlegs etc dont hurt anyone really and artists who dont allow clearance dont deserve credit anyway.
I'm for the crediting.. so people would know their fav artists might not have come up with absolutely every bit of the music by themselves.
Then again there are hundreds of those who surely have got permission for the use of samples but yet don't necessarily credit the original artist. So these kind of things must be just done deals between the sampled artist and the sampling artist i guess. I doubt all, even some of the massive tunes out there, would have been using the unauthorized samples and get away with it without getting sued unless they really have got permission for the samples.
Whitelabel bootlegs are a whole another story.. they're made mostly for fun and in most cases don't bring any real profit for the bootlegging artist/remixer so the sampled artists shouldn't mind them and if they do, they should look in the mirror and show green light for the bootlegs to be released as they are if they're any good.
Pirate bootleggers who sell fake releases as real things should die tho
If its identifiable- yes.
if its mangled/flipped or you think there is no way anyone is going to recognise it, then its your call...
You will generally only get sued if you have something to lose- ie, youve sold shitloads and/or are established as an artist, or its on a label that can pay out.
Why do you think so many come out on whites?
'Wasn't me...'
| quote: |
| Originally posted by GrimReaper I'm for the crediting.. so people would know their fav artists might not have come up with absolutely every bit of the music by themselves. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Nrg2Nfinit My opinion is that an artist should give credit to previous artists in which their work was used. Its only fair and just. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.