How Music Sampling went from Trend to Lawsuit
Christie Lynch
MSS495
They say that imitation is the most sincere form of
flattery, but is this the case for music sampling? The Wikipedia definition of
sampling states, “In music, sampling is the act of taking a portion,
or sample, of one sound
recording and reusing it as an instrument or a sound recording in a different
song or piece.” Sampling used to be considered an art form in itself,
especially in hip-hop. Artists would see an opportunity to recognize one of their
favorite songs and honor it by creating their own version of it and mixing in
parts from the original track. In the late 1980’s, synthesizers and samplers
made it possible for artists to use vocals over records. This only lasted about
10 years until lawyers and record labels started to sue over fragments not
being paid for their usage.
Stay Free! Magazine conducted an interview with hip-hop
artists Chuck D and Hank Shocklee about how it has changed the way hip-hop
artists make their music from the issues sampling has brought. In the
interview, both artists made comments on how sampling went from being a
creative tool to a highly controlled mess. Shocklee explained the payment fees
associated with sampling and goes on to say that “Now you're looking at one
song costing you more than half of what you would make on your album.” (McLeod)
This makes me question why any artist today would bother sampling another song
if they are losing money from it. When sampling was overlooked, artists would
mix in a whole collage of other songs and now if they were to do this they
would have to pay tons of money. This is why if you hear a song that is sampled
today, it will usually only mix one element of the song in it.
The impact of sampling has hit home with many artists and
many are being sued for claims of copyright infringement. I am finding that the
way artists try to handle the issue out of court and try to slyly avoid the
fees associated with sampling comical. Just last year The Weeknd was sued over
his song “The Hills” from sampling a score from the film The Machine. I am not sure if The Weeknd (AKA Abel Tesfaye) was
thinking it would be okay because it was just from a movie score or because
maybe the movie wasn’t so popular, but it was a bad move. Emmanuel Nickerson, a
music producer who worked on “The Hills” had admitted to the sampling over a
direct message on Twitter. He said in a message to the score’s creator Tom
Raybould, “'I sampled your music might make it 2 the weeknd next album. Huge
fan of what u did 4 the machine movie!' ”(Gardner) This was just inviting a
lawsuit, and the song not only has been in the Billboard Hot 100 chart, it
topped it for several weeks and has been remixed by many artists. From
Raybould’s perspective, knowing how much money he could make off of this
lawsuit with evidence nearly handed to him, it makes sense for him to sue.
A controversial and more popular lawsuit for music sampling
revolves around Robin Thicke’s hit single “Blurred Lines.” This was an ongoing
lawsuit where Robin Thicke himself along with Pharell and T.I sued Marvin
Gaye’s family first hoping to settle the issue outside of the courtroom. Gaye’s
children then fired the lawsuit back at the artists, and after clear knowledge
of the songs use Marvin Gaye’s family was awarded 7.3 million dollars.
Even though artists are caught by these sampling scandals,
it does not seem to hurt their careers. The Billboard article says it all in
the first line, “The Grammy scorecard for artists places Kendrick
Lamar, Taylor Swift,
Alabama
Shakes and The Weeknd
among the big winners last night (Feb. 15) -- but a look at labels and groups
shows a tighter race.” (Christman) 3 out of the 4 artists named have been sued
for music sampling, and clearly are still doing well in their careers. What
does this say for the future of music sampling? I believe sampling will
continue to live on and have its troubles, because artists are always finding
inspiration in their favorite songs whether they consciously realize it or not.
Whether it will stop an artist from creating or put them out of a career is up
to the circumstance they find themselves in.
Works Cited:
Anderson, Kyle. "Kanye West Sued for 'Gold Digger'
Sample." Entertainment Weekly's EW.com. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Christman, Ed. "Grammy Scoreboard: Tallying the Major
& Indie Label Wins." Billboard. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Gardner, Eriq. "The Weeknd Hit With Copyright Lawsuit
Over "The Hills"" The Hollywood Reporter. Web. 28 Mar.
2016.
McLeod, Kembrew. "How Copyright Law Changed Hip
Hop." Alternet. 2004. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
Complexmagazine. "Robin Thicke's "Blurred
Lines" Copied Marvin Gaye's "Got To Give It Up," Jury Awards 7.3
Million." YouTube. YouTube, 2015. Web. 28 Mar. 2016.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wj86CJMQbKE>.
Lea Herlihy
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the title of your blog post I immediately thought of One Direction. It seems like every song they write has some piece of another song in it. However, I don’t have any recollection of them getting sued over it. I believe that the circumstances do play a big role as well as the prominence of the sampling in the piece. Even if they do sample a lot it hasn’t stopped them from growing to become one of the top bands in the world. According to the New York Post, “The English/Irish boy band has the highest grossing concert tour of 2014” (Morgan). This may also be due in part to their reputation in the industry. They love their fans, and they make a point to say it as often as possible. On the other end of the spectrum, they are also highly respected by other artists because of their professional and genuine demeanors.
Another sampling issue that comes to mind is with Sam Smith’s “Stay With Me” and Tom Petty’s “I Won’t Back Down.” This one irked me because in order to show the similarity pitch and speed had to be adjusted. This wasn’t as blatant as the “Blurred Lines” fiasco or several of Bruno Mars’ songs. The way in which the “Blurred Lines” situation was handled was not very professional in my opinion. It was almost like little kids getting into a fight in the sandbox over whose turn it was to use the bucket. The sampling was so evident that Robin Thicke should have handled the situation like the adult that he is supposed to be.
There is also another side to sampling. Some artists are more than willing to allow bands to sample their music. This is where One Direction comes into play again. They have sampled many songs, but because they are well-liked no one has really created an issue out of it. This shows that there are ways to skirt around the law – maybe.
These sampling issues also don't seem to have an affect on the artist’s audience. Granted there have been a few times when I’ve heard a “new song” and been frustrated with the blatant use of an older one, but it hasn’t deterred me from listening to the music. This ties into the millennial connection to artists. Due to social media, our generation seems to be more attached to artists. Now, even if a song is heavily sampled millennials will purchase it to support an artist, “that they respect and connect with” (Hillhouse). This connection is on a deeper level than just a love of music. Social media has contributed to people’s growing relationships with artists. They are able to witness a more personal side to the artists that produce the music they enjoy listening to.
Sampling will continue to happen, and I believe that as long as artists are up front about it that lawsuits will be avoided. However, that would only happen in a perfect world. Until that happens, I can’t wait to read about the next lawsuit.
Works Cited
Hillhouse, Allison. “MTV’s Music to the M Power.’” Blog.Viacom 5 June 2013. Web.
Morgan, Richard. “One Direction Rake’s in Year’s Highest Growing Concert Tour.” New York Post. 31 Dec. 2014. Web.