|
For those interested, this is the paper I concocted about the history and implications of sampling in contemporary media/society.
For an easier to digest word document
[[ LINK REMOVED ]]
I got an A-
Greg Pidcock
ARTT 398D
10/24/06
Sampling
Sampling is a concept which in theory has been around since the beginning of time, in one form or another. It entails copying one aspect of a finished work into another work. Sampling does not mean taking a work and producing an exact copy, it refers to only taking part of a work. This is what differentiates sampling with pirating. In modern times, the act of sampling has been used extensively in the art world, notably in various music scenes, which is where the term “sampling” is most heard.
The first act of modern sampling occurred in the 1920’s and fused music into poetry when child actor and recording artist Sally Hamlin’s readings contained music fade ins from other records (which were on the same record label). People speculate this was merely a cost cutting measure, as it was easier to throw in a couple of records from the label’s back catalogue than to get another orchestra in. That being said, this was a clear example of sampling.
The legal implications of this sort of practice were not investigated until the 1950’s, when Dickie Goodman and Bill Buchanan released their song “The Flying Saucer”. This unconventional track consisted of a news interview about a Martian invasion with snippets of pop songs chopped in as the responses to the questions asked in the interview. The judge at that time ruled in favor of the duo, saying the works were parodies and that they were original creations. The record companies were not bound by any court to either take the work off the market or demand any damages..
This instance set a president for how sampling would be looked upon by record labels and the legal system in the future. The major labels showed they wouldn’t tolerate this sort of behavior for fear of lost profit and would pursue financial damages against those who engaged in sampling. Sampling commercial media would not be tolerated by the companies who had control of the rights to that media. And as with many things in today’s society, the majority of the legal issues related to sampling seemed to only come up if there was money involved.
More interesting than the money fueled legal debates about sampling is the different stands the artists who endorse sampling have taken on the issue. To many of these individuals, finding samples and putting them together is same as playing any instrument. In their minds, any sound out there is to be used, and in the last 20 years more and more technology has been made commercially available to easily facilitate this practice.
Sampling has slowly evolved from an expensive and time consuming studio job, to a highly underground dub movement which used multiple turntables to sample records and more recently to a relatively simple, easy to use digital interface. This shift in technology has opened up new worlds for artists, who can easily incorporate studio quality samplers into any basic home studio. Prior to this, artists like John Oswald had to actually chop individual pieces of magnetic tape together in order to produce his own reworked versions of commercial recordings.
Oswald became somewhat of a musical cult hero with his project entitled “Plunderphonic” which true to its name only contained sounds which had been “stolen” from other works. This “movement” was characterized by the use of obvious sampling. The most referenced work from this album is Oswald’s rework of Michael Jackson’s “Bad”, which was cleverly re-titled “Dab”. While this work was never intended for a commercial release, Michael Jackson and his affiliates had the remaining copies of this 25 track collection destroyed. Another one of the contributing factors to their decision to destroy the works may have been the album art which portrayed a naked white woman’s body with Michael Jackson’s head “sampled” in place of hers.
The piece which I find most interesting off of the Plunderphonics EP is a rework of The Beatles’ “Birthday”, could be easily be confused with and compared to the work of today’s cult sampling hero, Danger Mouse, and the work he did manipulating the Beatles’ “White Album.” While both the intentions and style, as well as what was going on in music at the time are many different, sonically the two are similar. Everything about this work: the essay which inspired it (Plunderphonics, or Audio Piracy as a Compositional Prerogative), the sampled sounds, the means through which the songs were composed and arranged, the art, and the distribution clearly show that Oswald understood how his work would be perceived by the public and was well aware of the legal consequences of his actions – this was probably why he never made the move to sell any of it.
In many regards Oswald’s Plunderphonics perfectly foreshadowed what would begin to happen more and more often as the 80s began to take shape, and as sampler prices finally dropped below ten thousand dollars with the debut of the E-mu Emulator. Within the next 5 years, the Akai MPC (Midi Production Center) combined the power to sample sounds from practically any source as well as a means in which to sequence these sounds all in one device.
Now that artists can easily access the tools necessary to engage in sampling, the only thing holding many of them back are the legal issues associated with the practice. Few artists are willing to give out the rights to their work without some sort of compensation and this has turned record labels’ back catalogues into sample libraries all available for sale. When it comes to larger major label commercial productions, the money needed to license or “clear” the samples is readily available, while the independent artist is very often unable to pay the exorbitant fees charged by most artists and labels.
To properly address this topic however, one must look at society’s perspective of Intellectual Property and the different viewpoints associated with it. Today’s copyrights and protection of these intellectual properties has not in many ways evolved with the intention to accommodate this sort of practice, and in many ways has altered the manner in which this art form has advanced. Artists have had to shy away from using any obvious sampling in their works to avoid having to pay the fees.
| quote: |
In terms of this art form, the fact that the people who employ this technique have had to deal with these sorts of issues and the debates surrounding them in order to get their work available has really been in many ways, extremely beneficial. It has aided in educating people about some of today’s copyright laws and has also made people question their views on what art could consist of and whether or not using portions of other people’s works is in fact art. These sorts of thought processes are necessary in order for an alternate means of producing an art form to be accepted by society. One of the things that would facilitate this are the overhauling of today’s copyright laws which according to thinkers like Lev Manovich, are outdated and haven’t evolved with the times, which he basically states in this excerpt from his book, The Language of New Media,
The principle of variability also exemplifies how, historically, the changes in media technologies are correlated with changes the social change. If the logic of old media corresponded to the logic of industrial mass society, the logic of new media fits the logic of the post-industrial society which values individuality over conformity. In industrial mass society everybody was supposed to enjoy the same goods -- and to have the same beliefs. This was also the logic of media technology. A media object was assembled in a media factory (such as a Hollywood studio). Millions of identical copies were produced from a master and distributed to all the citizens. Broadcasting, cinema, print media all followed this logic. |
Modern day thinkers add much to the discussion about sampling and other “new media” practices which involve modern day technological advancements, which may not have been taken into consideration during the conception of said copyright laws. One of the main arguments in favor of allowing this sort of practice is either the redefinition or abolishment of today’s ideas about Intellectual Property (IP). One of the individuals with many concrete ideas about why current notions about IP as Contract and the reservation of rights (which are the sort of IP hurdles one faces in regards to sampling) is Stephan Kinsella.
Kinsella’s essay entitled “Against Intellectual Property” is an interesting work which often uses somewhat extreme examples to get his point across, yet by using these obvious examples really allows the reader to clearly see his point. One of his footnotes quotes Immanuel Kant who very logically lays out his view of why the traditional system of copyrights is simply unfit. He states,
| quote: | | “…and as there cannot be a distinct permission given to the purchaser of a book for, and a limitation of, its use as property, how much less is a mere presumption sufficient for such a weight of obligation?” |
Kinsella agrees with Kant in that the notion of IP is not something that should be policed, as it is a law which benefits no one. Even if wealth was maximized by IP, “it still imposes on an individual’s right to use their own property as they see fit.”
One of the main points raised about Intellectual Property Vs. Tangible Property which really piqued my interest was Kinsella’s point about the scarcity of information. This example he used about harvesting cotton really fits this situation,
| quote: | | If I invent a technique for harvesting cotton, your harvesting cotton in this way would not take away the technique from me. I still have my technique (as well as my cotton). Your use does not exclude my use; we could both use my technique to harvest cotton. |
In relation to sampling I think of it like this. If I made a song using a sample from a 1970s record I bought and you had the same record and wanted to use the same portion of the song in out works, you could, and there would be no problem as each of us could chose to do what we wish with the sample.
Essentially an argument like this outlines why basic sampled should not be policed and made into such a commercial affair and all the musicians I had a chance to speak with about the issue almost unanimously agreed that if a relatively small portion of their work was used in a creative manner, they would not oppose it. Sampling is an art form and like many others has been in the last 20 years often been seen as something negative yet little by little is gaining more acceptance in the public sphere because people are beginning to understand it is an original art form and should not be governed by today’s outdated IP laws.
Bibliography:
Kinsella, Stephen. "Against Intellectual Property." Journal of Libertarian Studies 15(2001)
Manovich, Lev (2001). The Language of New Media Cambridge, Masschusetts: The MIT Press.
Chronis, Iason. Internet Messenger interview. 16 Oct 2006.
John Oswald’s “Plunderphonics”, available free at http://www.plunderphonics.com/xhtml...l#plunderphonic
Danger Mouse’s “Grey Album”, officially unavailable to consumers.
DJ Shadow’s album “Entroducing”, available at record stores everywhere. (Entirely made up of samples)
The rest of the factual information on this page was sampled from various “free” content websites.
This paper and may be freely copied, redistributed and modified as long as all copies and derivatives are available under the same license.
___________________
Fortuna Favet Fortibus.
Last edited by Allied Nations on Nov-07-2006 at 21:39
|
