5 ms·
the final product of the sample taken produced a newly created track. at least for sake of brevity, created seems acceptable in this context. it also probably
by elvinmelvin 13y ago
the final product of the sample taken produced a newly created track. at least for sake of brevity, created seems acceptable in this context.
it also probably is a good way of conceptualizing the legal issues involved (©) when an artist manipulates a sample enough to create a new derivative work so distinct that it ought be deemed a separate entity from the original. These legal limits are still being tested but after watching the video, i like the idea of looking at this manipulation as a form of creation rather than simply "taking". your legal millage may vary.
- 3stripe 13y agoAgreed, so the sample is taken/used to create something new. I'm not saying that sampling is not creative, and I've done it myself on plenty of tracks. But a sample only becomes creative after it is taken. You can't 'create' a sample because it is just a snippet of audio. As the article says, it's about "building songs from samples". I'm not being pedantic by the way.. I just see the person who 'created' the sample as the original recording artist.
- 001sky 13y agoI just see the person who 'created' the sample as the original recording artist. This is a perpetual debate =D. Although I'm not sure its black or white. A good artist can use a "sample" in the same way a panatone color is used by a pointillist painter. At that stage, its all about the spectrum of color, the contrast, and the entire effevt of many points of color...not just the quality of the sampled pigments in any one brush-stroke.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- catshirt 13y agoDaft Punk is using samples to create a new sample. so i think everyone is correct in this argument; they are using samples to create samples.