{"id":3465,"date":"2020-02-15T14:46:55","date_gmt":"2020-02-15T13:46:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hucbald.nl\/?p=3465"},"modified":"2021-12-21T16:07:53","modified_gmt":"2021-12-21T15:07:53","slug":"redefining-sampling-in-digital-audio-workstations-the-case-of-dirtycircuit-and-deadmau5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/2020\/02\/15\/redefining-sampling-in-digital-audio-workstations-the-case-of-dirtycircuit-and-deadmau5\/","title":{"rendered":"(Re)defining Sampling in Digital Audio Workstations: the Case of DirtyCircuit and Deadmau5"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Re)defining Sampling in Digital Audio Workstations: the Case of DirtyCircuit and Deadmau5<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sonja Hamhuis<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In 2008, amateur musician DirtyCircuit used two samples of Deadmau5\u2019s \u201cFaxing Berlin\u201d (2007) in one of his tracks. The samples were included in the database of FL Studio, a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) used by many early-career EDM producers. However, in contrast to other samples in the database, the Deadmau5 sample was not copyright-cleared for FL Studio users. Deadmau5 thereafter accused DirtyCircuit of stealing his music and threatened with legal actions.<\/p>\n

On the online forum of Image-Line, DirtyCircuit sought advice from users and moderators.[1]<\/a> The forum thread received over 500 responses and became a site for lengthy debates on DirtyCircuit\u2019s case and other sampling practices. In the end, DirtyCircuit was not persecuted because FL Studio\u2019s policy was unclear about which samples were and were not free to use. FL Studio subsequently removed the samples from their pack in the next update.<\/p>\n

This case exemplifies an ongoing change in music sampling practices. Originally, sampling was based on what Mark Katz theorizes as an idea\/expression dichotomy: artist A transforms a musical idea into an expression, artist B then extracts the idea from that expression and uses it to create a new expression.[2]<\/a> However, following the Grand Upright Music Ltd v. Warner Bros Records <\/em>lawsuit of 1991 that set the precedent in the legal field, sampling has become increasingly difficult for musicians without the necessary financial resources.[3]<\/a> DAWs and external parties began to offer sample libraries and therewith provided an alternative to the active search for samples. The origin of these samples is unclear, since the idea is already extracted from its original expression.<\/p>\n

In scholarship, research on music sampling has often presupposed the existence of a blurred idea\/expression dichotomy.[4]<\/a> However, the implications of skipping the process of extracting an idea from a specific expression have received little attention. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate what is meant, but not explicitly defined, in sampling practices: what constitutes a sample? And what then, is considered sampling? Moreover, to what extent does the intent to sample a specific expression matter, and what does this say about the presupposed blurred idea\/expression dichotomy?<\/p>\n

In this paper, I examine how sample libraries in DAWs redefine the practice of sampling as a compositional technique of musical borrowing. I research to what extent the intention of referencing to a specific expression is part of the sampling process. Through a discourse analysis of FL Studio and the Deadmau5 v. DirtyCircuit case, I argue that sample libraries challenge the idea\/expression dichotomy as proposed by Katz. I reveal how oversimplification of sampling practices by not acknowledging the full range of practices has led to confusion about what can be understood as a \u201csample\u201d and \u201csampling.\u201d Hence, I end with the suggestion to broaden the definition of sampling to the process of taking a piece of recorded music and using it in another piece<\/em>. By using a broader definition of \u201csampling practices\u201d whilst simultaneously making a distinction between the different processes of sampling that it encompasses, this paper provides new insights into the myriad of methods underlying digital sampling practices.<\/p>\n

Practices of Musical Borrowing<\/em><\/p>\n

Musical borrowing, which includes a range of practices, has been part of music production for centuries. Medieval chants often adapted melodic patterns from other chants; many Renaissance masses found their origin in \u201cL\u2019homme arm\u00e9\u201d; The Beatles used Bach\u2019s Two-Part Invention 8 in F and the French national anthem \u201cLa Marseillaise\u201d in \u201cAll You Need Is Love\u201d; John Coltrane\u2019s \u201canti-jazz\u201d borrowed melodies from Maurice Ravel, Morton Gould, and Bert Schefter; and Kendrick Lamar incorporated Janet Jackson\u2019s \u201cAny Time, Any Place\u201d in his song \u201cPoetic Justice\u201d.<\/p>\n

While all of these examples are forms of musical borrowing, Lamar\u2019s use of \u201cAny Time, Any Place\u201d is the only case of sampling. In music, sampling is commonly understood as reusing a portion of a sound recording in another recording<\/em>.[5]<\/a> This points to a form of musical borrowing that remains untouched in the other examples. Whereas most forms of musical borrowing cite a work, samples cite both the work and<\/em> the specific performance of that work. Katz calls this performative quotation<\/em>, \u201cquotation that recreates all the details of timbre and timing that evoke and identify a unique sound event.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

The abundance of sampling methods available today stems from the development of a series of technological tools. Foundations for the sampling practice date back as early as the 1940s, when artists of the musique concr\u00e8te<\/em> made experimental music by splicing, manipulating and looping tape. However, it was only decades later that the term sampling would be introduced.[7]<\/a> In the late 1970s, the Fairlight CMI reached the market as one of the first sampling devices. Although the Fairlight became widely used in 1980s popular music, it was the release of the Akai MPC that made the sampler more affordable and thus more accessible to musicians. Producers began to sample funk and soul records \u2013 particularly drum breaks \u2013 and rap over them. It became a craft to find the best samples and put them to creative use. Some artists even went as far as to create entire albums made out of samples.[8]<\/a> It is precisely this practice that would later become the foundation for the genre of hip-hop.<\/p>\n

The rise of hip-hop to the global mainstream in the early 1990s resulted in major debates on technical, aesthetic, ethical, and legal perspectives aspects of sampling practices.[9]<\/a> Underlying these debates is the assumption of both scholars and musicians that while a quotation is simply a representation of another piece, a sampled passage of music actually is<\/em> that music.[10]<\/a> Hence, the degree of copying that sampling involves appears to be higher than other practices of musical borrowing. In Capturing Sound<\/em>, Katz theorizes the sampling practice as an idea\/expression dichotomy.[11]<\/a> In intellectual property law, an idea is often understood as a \u201cconcept, principle, process, or system that is independent of any form.\u201d[12]<\/a> An expression, on the other hand, is a particular embodiment of the idea.[13]<\/a> In the practice of sampling, Artist A would thus think of an idea and incorporate this into an expression (the resulting track). Artist B then extracts the idea of Artist A (in the form of a sample) from the expression of Artist A and uses the idea in his own expression (the track of artist B).<\/p>\n

In practice, the distinction between an idea and an expression is not very straightforward. In hip-hop, for example, where having an idea for the expression by using a sample is regarded as a highly valued composition process, specific rules apply. Joseph Schloss defines these rules according to four recurring terms in hip-hop: biting; flipping; chopping and looping.[14]<\/a> Biting is the appropriation of intellectual material of other hip-hop artists.[15]<\/a> A hip-hop artist can bite another artist by either sampling their hip-hop track or by using a sample in a way that has already been done by another hip-hop artist. Generally, biting does not refer to sampling material from outside hip-hop communities.[16]<\/a> Biting is frowned upon because finding a sample yourself and altering it in a novel way is vital to the appreciation of hip-hop artists. This process of altering the material both creatively and substantially is referred to as flipping.[17]<\/a> The underlying thought is that one creates added value through the creativity of the alterations. Chopping and looping refer specifically to these alteration process.[18]<\/a> Chopping means dividing the sample into smaller segments and reconfiguring them in a different order. Looping is sampling a longer phrase and repeating it with little or no alteration.<\/p>\n

Schloss identifies three generally accepted exceptions to the \u201cno biting\u201d rule: flipping the sample; parodying the original and biting unintentionally.[19]<\/a> Since these exceptions are difficult to measure, the main feature of evaluation is the reputation of the individual artist.[20]<\/a> In general, people with a relatively high reputation within hip-hop communities face fewer accusations than others. After all, Schloss writes, a producer who has violated the sampling codes in the past is \u201cmore likely to do it now.\u201d[21]<\/a> However, regardless of the type of musical borrowing applied, musicians always sample musical elements from previous works they know.[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

At least in hip-hop. From the 1980s onwards, sampling practices were adopted in other genres as well, particularly in electronic (dance) music and pop music. At about the same time, the range of sampling practices increased in both software programs and hardware. In addition to samplers as hardware devices, DAWs in the form of software made their entrance as tools for music composition. Moreover, the affordances of DAWs expanded over the years. By the 1990s, artists were able to loop, slice, and splice recordings with one single software program.[23]<\/a> Moreover, the software was financially more affordable for amateur musicians than the samplers of the 1980s. DAWs eventually became vital tools for kick-starting the careers of upcoming (electronic dance music) artists. A game-changer in the field of sampling was the introduction of sample packages, accumulations of samples collected in sonic archives that artists can use in their music. Nodusk, a commercial provider of sample packages, advertises that<\/p>\n

\u201c[h]aving an extensive sound library is essential to a productive and professional work
\nflow. Think about it \u2013 you\u2019re brainstorming your next project and out of nowhere, the
\ninspiration hits. At this moment you want to be prepared so that you can surround
\nyourself with the tools and building blocks that you need to transfer what is in your
\nhead, into the DAW. Without an extensive library you\u2019re at a disadvantage.\u201d[24]<\/a><\/p>\n

Music libraries are presented as tools to, in the words of NoDusk, \u201cbetter your overall production and to spark creativity.\u201d[25]<\/a> In addition to the sample packages offered by external parties, many DAWs have integrated music libraries themselves. Several artists argue against the use of these tools, asserting that the use of sample libraries is \u201ccheating\u201d and \u201ca limitation of the creative process of sampling.\u201d[26]<\/a> Whereas that is a discussion beyond the scope of this paper, the debate does imply that this new way of sampling challenges the notion of sampling \u201cas we knew it\u201d. The sample libraries of FL Studio and other DAWs, as well as the sample packs of external parties like Nodusk, allow users to sample material without having to extract an idea from its original expression. These recent developments call for a reflection on what is \u2013 and what is not \u2013 part of a sampling process. To get a deeper understanding of this practice, we turn to the rather peculiar case of DirtyCircuit and Deadmau5.<\/p>\n

DirtyCircuit v. Deadmau5<\/em><\/p>\n

On November 18, 2008, amateur musician DirtyCircuit created a forum thread on Image-Line titled \u201cI am an unwilling pirate. Please help me out here!\u201d.[27]<\/a> After using two samples from the FL Studio sample library in one of his tracks, DirtyCircuit received a message from EDM producer Deadmau5. The particular samples turned out to be demos of Deadmau5\u2019s track \u201cFaxing Berlin,\u201d that had not been copyright cleared for FL Studio users. Deadmau5 accused the amateur musician of stealing and threatened with legal actions. In the forum thread, DirtyCircuit sought advice from users and moderators:<\/p>\n

\u201cI used the loop \u201cBerlin\u201d in one of my songs on a cd I recently finished only to be
\ncontacted by an angry deadmau5 threatening legal action. WHY ARE THESE
\nAVAILABLE AS LOOPS AND WHY AREN\u2019T THEY CREDITED OR NOTED AS
\nHIS?? I would NOT have used it had I known it was his. Also what am I to do at this
\npoint. the cd is on iTunes and Amazon, so i can\u2019t just take it off myspace and forget it.
\nI\u2019m really upset with the FL team over this. Now I look like an a-hole.\u201d[28]<\/a><\/p>\n

Other forum users, consisting of people working for Image-Line\/FL Studio and users thereof, joined the discussion in large numbers. With a total of 534 replies, the thread became a site for lengthy debates on the case of DirtyCircuit, and on sampling practices more broadly. Many replies were concerned with the aesthetic and creative value of the sampling practice. Tearsoftechnology, for example, replied that<\/p>\n

\u201ctaking any loop that you yourself did not create is setting your own self up……ANY
\nLOOP…….. That is why you stay away from loops, and be original. [\u2026] If ya want to
\nbe an artist, then create….people who use others music to make their own
\nis not creating. That is copying…….Inspiration is one thing, and mimicking is another.\u201d[29]<\/a><\/p>\n

However, it is not the notion of sampling as a form of musical borrowing that evoked the argument between Deadmau5 and DirtyCircuit. Instead, it is the specific method of sampling that brings new questions into the debate: does the origin of the sampled material matter? To what extent does one need to have the intention of sampling an idea from a specific expression? In other words, what exactly is sampling? An analysis of the DirtyCircuit v. Deadmau5 case helps answer this question in multiple ways. First, it reflects on the difference between diverse types of samples offered in sample libraries. Second, it examines the specific use of these materials in the resulting expressions. Third, it explores the variety of sampling processes afforded by sample libraries.<\/p>\n

DirtyCircuit used two different samples from the FL Studio database, both originally from the track \u201cFaxing Berlin.\u201d The first is a drum loop titled LP_Faxing Berlin A_128bpm.ogg and the second a melodic loop named LP_Faxing Berlin C_128bpm.ogg.[30]<\/a> DirtyCircuit used the drum loop as an intro and then went on to use the melody loop throughout the rest of the track.[31]<\/a>\u00a0 Indeed, the resulting track inevitably shows significant similarities to Deadmau5\u2019s \u201cFaxing Berlin.\u201d[32]<\/a> Image-Line forum user Nuclean notes that when you<\/p>\n

\u201c[p]ut them together without much editing and of course it\u2019s going to sound similar. The
\npoint is a user assumes the samples that come with a DAW software that are placed
\nready to use, are royalty free and you can use as you like in a song, as long as you
\ndon\u2019t redistribute the individual samples as they are.\u201d[33]<\/a><\/p>\n

Still, DirtyCircuit\u2019s use of the samples did not sit right with a lot of people. Some forum users found it similar to biting in hip-hop sampling practices. User L.M., for example, writes:<\/p>\n

\u201cAnd for those who then list about HipHop sampling there is a vast difference in
\nsomething as current as this style of music and using a whole phrase loop within a
\ntrack of its exact same genre and releasing it side by side, as opposed to and digging
\nold small sections from beaten up wax from over 40 years ago that are so obscure no
\none would even blink at it.\u201d[34]<\/a><\/p>\n

In addition to the genres of the sampled material and the new expression, L.M. raises two other elements that commonly surface in the forum thread. The first is the creative and time-consuming process of finding a suitable sample. Sample libraries command a redistribution of labor in the idea\/expression dichotomy of Katz. In this redistribution, the person extracting an idea and the person incorporating it in a new expression are no longer the same. The second factor raised by L.M. is the length of the sampled material. By opposing the use of a \u201cwhole phrase loop within a track of its exact same genre\u201d to \u201cdigging old small sections from beaten up wax from over 40 years ago\u201d, the forum user implicitly suggests that DirtyCircuit\u2019s use of the Deadmau5 samples is a form of biting.<\/p>\n

However, L.M.\u2019s remark disregards the role of intention: to what extent does a musician have to be aware of the fact that s\/he is sampling a particular idea? In hip-hop, biting is generally excused when it occurs unintentionally. Sample libraries evoke such unintentional sampling through a lack of transparency in disclosing the origin of its samples. Moreover, samples in sample libraries are often not distinct enough to be recognized as a part of a previous expression. The burden thus lays on DAW-users to distinguish samples that have been extracted out of a particular expression from samples that were composed especially for sampling libraries and thus do not belong to any previous expression in the first place.<\/p>\n

Before (re)defining practices of sampling, we should thus ask a more pressing question: what is a sample? Following the Grand Upright Music Ltd v. Warner Bros Records<\/em> lawsuit of 1991, governments have attempted to capture sampling practices in terms of intellectual property law.[35]<\/a> However, none of these laws provide any definition of a \u201csample.\u201d Moreover, they do not clarify when a sample \u2013 whatever that may be \u2013 is granted copyright. It is thus unclear for musicians when samples can and cannot be used royalty-free. Or as forum user jc62 defines it, \u201csamples are like legal landmines.\u201d[36]<\/a> Even employees of Image-Line appear to be confused by the ambiguity of \u201csamples.\u201d Jean-Marie Cannie, Managing Director of Image-Line, responded in the forum thread that \u201cas far as we [Image-Line] were told by our lawyers it\u2019s even impossible to sell material that holds \u2018intellectual property.\u2019\u201d[37]<\/a> Several other forum users rightfully pointed out Cannie\u2019s flawed reasoning: if one sells over the samples, including loops, a license is granted to use the musical material in other compositions without any further royalties being owned. Whereas my aim is not to critique Image-Line\u2019s response to the DirtyCircuit\u2019s cry for help, Cannie implicitly unveils part of his conception of samples, intellectual property and composition when he elaborates that<\/p>\n

\u201c[t]he (single hit) samples sure are ready to use in a composition but it should be pretty
\nclear that anything else (whether it\u2019s a demo song, melodic loop, score, …) belongs to
\nits author(s).\u201d[38]<\/a><\/p>\n

Cannie reveals where he draws the line between a composed piece of music and \u201cmerely\u201d an instrumental sound. However, Cannie\u2019s line is rather vague. The brackets around \u201csingle hit\u201d make his statement ambiguous: melodic and rhythmic loops are categorized as samples by definition of \u201ctaking a piece of recorded music from its original context and using it in another piece,\u201d but Cannie treats them as a separate category. Moreover, the specific samples used by DirtyCircuit were intended as \u201cdemo\u2019s,\u201d but not labeled as such in the FL Studio sample library. To an outsider, these samples would thus have been viewed as loops. And loops \u2013 as part of the sample library of FL Studio \u2013 were said to be royalty-free.[39]<\/a><\/p>\n

The difference Cannie points to is one between single hit samples and the samples in libraries that were introduced a few years later. Single-hit samples are used to provide users with a particular sound, such as that of the Roland TR-808 drum machine. These samples consist of one note or hit that carries a specific sound, which musicians can use to compose their own ideas. So there is a difference between single hit samples that can be used to create an idea yourself (a Roland TR-808 single hit sample); samples as ideas that have not been part of a previous expression (samples made especially for the sample library) and samples that previously belonged to another expression (the Deadmau5 samples). The practice of sampling is the idea that one takes a sample from an expression and turns this into a new expression. The question is then, when is something an idea? In other words, when is a sample a \u201ccomposed piece of work\u201d that is copyrighted, and when is it just an instrumental sound?<\/p>\n

The distinction between the two is, of course, not clear cut. The term \u201ccomposition\u201d derives from the Latin verb componere<\/em>, the act of \u201cputting together.\u201d An etymological consideration of composition would lead us to a broad definition of musical composition along the lines of the result of joining together several musical components<\/em>. This definition implies a process of \u201ccomposing\u201d that precedes the existence of a composition. Stephen Blum explains that \u201c\u2018composition\u2019 is an appropriate term when specific parts or elements of songs or instrumental pieces can be enumerated, yet the extent to which musicians speak of \u2018joining together\u2019 or \u2018coordinating\u2019 several components is a cultural variable.\u201d[40]<\/a> Moreover, these components are also \u201ccompositions\u201d in themselves: whereas expressions may be what we commonly refer to as \u201ca composition,\u201d ideas often originate from a similar process of putting together musical components.<\/p>\n

Blum continues to describe how \u201ctechnical terms in many languages name the components or factors that must be coordinated in acts of composition, whether simultaneously or in succession, by a group of collaborators or by a single composer.\u201d[41]<\/a> Western music industries generally consider melody, rhythm, and harmony as the three main components of a musical composition. By means of example, I briefly consider the U.S. Copyright Law. This law describes when music can be attributed authorship, and thus, what is viewed as a composition or as an instrumental sound. The Compendium Copyright Office Practices<\/em> relates melody, rhythm, and harmony to degrees of perceived musical authorship:<\/p>\n

\u201c[a]lthough a musical work will be registered if any of these three elements can be
\nconsidered to constitute a work of authorship, melody, the predominant element by
\nwhich one perceives a work, usually determines whether a work is copyrightable. Even
\nmelody, however, may be too minimal for copyright.\u201d[42]<\/a><\/p>\n

So the fundamental question, in this case, is whether a piece of music is \u201crecognizable\u201d. In the first place, recognizability depends on the type of materials used (i.e., melodic, rhythmic, or harmonic). Some melodic, rhythmic or harmonic constructions of musical material are used so frequently that they are, as described in the compendium, \u201cstandard chords\u201d or \u201ccommon property.\u201d[43]<\/a> An additional factor for the degree of recognizability is the length of the piece of music. For example, the compendium states that musical phrases of less than three notes are \u2013 without exception \u2013 rejected as compositions.[44]<\/a> In discussions about the line between composition and instrumental sound, melody is often prioritized since both harmony and rhythm have a larger tendency to be perceived as \u201ccommon property.\u201d[45]<\/a> However, when one would use the beat from Queen\u2019s \u2018We Will Rock You\u2019 together with the hand claps, and add a vocal melody that is similar to the melody sung by Freddie Mercury, the resulting \u201ccomposition\u201d would likely be viewed as plagiarism. It therefore seems that in addition to rhythmic ideas, other musical ideas need to be appropriated in order for the rhythmic ideas to be viewed as \u201ccomposed bits of music\u201d rather than as common property.<\/p>\n

So, would DirtyCircuit have received similar threats from Deadmau5 if he had only used the LP_Faxing Berlin A_128bpm.ogg drum loop? Most likely not. Luckily for DirtyCircuit, he never actually had to argue his case in court. A few days later after creating the Image-Line forum thread, DirtyCircuit updated the other users with a new message from Deadmau5:<\/p>\n

\u201cI tried giving Deadmau5 my number and asking him to talk to me so he could hear
\nthe Image-Line situation and he responded: \u201cum. no. i cherish my privacy more than i
\ncherish knockoff artists. do you really want to go this route? please refrain from
\ncontacting me further, if you have any more questions, you can speak to my lawyer. im
\nsure he will be contacting you soon.\u201d[46]<\/a><\/p>\n

This is the last time that DirtyCircuit commented on the specific actions of Deadmau5. Although it is unknown how the debate ended, it is unlikely that DirtyCircuit got sued. The track \u201cBerlin\u201d was removed from DirtyCircuit\u2019s album and is only available on MySpace.[47]<\/a> Image-Line never officially responded to the situation, but they did remove all melodic loops from FL Studio in their next update.<\/p>\n

(Re)defining Sampling<\/em><\/p>\n

The case of DirtyCircuit shows how the increasing availability of sample libraries and packages has expanded the sampler\u2019s toolkit. Remarkably, Deadmau5 himself released a sample pack shortly after the \u201cFaxing Berlin\u201d fall-out. The pack \u2013 still available today for $67 \u2013 includes loops and other samples that can be imported into any DAW. Luckily for DirtyCircuit and many other amateur musicians, the purchase conditions explicitly state that users cannot face charges for using the contents of the package in their tracks.
\nThe sampling libraries and packages discussed in this paper challenge the dominant definitions of earlier sampling practices. As a form of musical borrowing, sampling constitutes a blurred idea\/expression dichotomy by selecting a piece of music from its initial context and incorporating it into another sonic environment. However, sample libraries and packages remove the necessity to extract an idea from its initial track. Instead, collections of isolated ideas are presented to DAW-users. Still, I suggest that this practice is also one of sampling. The broad definition provided above does not inherently rely on the intention to sample. Moreover, it does not imply that processes of extracting an idea from an expression and incorporating that idea into a new expression have to be executed by the same person. I argue that similar to how sampling challenges earlier forms of musical borrowing, sampling libraries pose an alternative to earlier ways of sampling.<\/p>\n

This alternative builds on an implicit distinction between an instrumental sound and a composed piece of music. Intellectual property law draws this line based on recognizability and implicitly relates recognizability to duration and function (melodic, harmonic, rhythmic). The ambiguity surrounding the line between an instrumental sound and a composed piece of music continues into the environment of DAWs. In addition to single-hit samples used as sounds (the Roland TR-808-samples) and samples that are already extracted from their original expression (the Deadmau5 samples), some samples are made as a sample<\/em>. These samples are composed pieces of music that have not been part of any previous expression. This challenges the idea\/expression dichotomy not because a step in the sampling process was removed from the artist, but rather because the sample did not belong to any specific expression in the first place. When sampling is defined as \u201creusing a portion (or sample) of a sound recording in another recording,\u201d then are these pieces of music created for sample libraries actually samples? Or are they enablers of co-composition processes where an DAWs simply offer ideas for future expressions?<\/p>\n

The similarity between pre-composed sections of music and samples like the Deadmau5 example creates confusion among users. Moreover, an oversimplification of the variety of sampling practices has led to uncertainty about what is and is not considered a sample and\/or sampling. The now widespread availability of several sampling methods, instead of the persistence of one dominant method, asks for a clear delineation of the type of sampling discussed in a particular context. Hence, I suggest a broadening of the definition of sampling to the process of taking a piece of recorded music and using it in another piece<\/em>. This definition allows for the inclusion of sampling practices based on materials that have not yet been part of a specific expression. In this way, scholars can study sampling practices more in-depth in future research. By uncovering the processes that are affiliated with each type of sample, we create space for further interdisciplinary discussions about, for instance, technical, ethical, and aesthetic aspects of sampling practices. Furthermore, musicians engaging in sampling practices would benefit from a clearer distinction between methods of musical borrowing. More transparency on the side of DAWs about the type of samples that they offer to their users would defuse the legal landmines that deny musicians access to a full pallet of composition techniques. By considering sampling in its multicomplex nature, we may end up fruitfully evaluating not only our notion of samples and sampling practices, but also the transformative character of musical composition.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Literature<\/em><\/p>\n

Blom, Stephen. \u201cComposition.\u201d Grove Music Online.<\/em> Accessed June 17, 2019.
\n<https:\/\/www-oxfordmusiconline-com.proxy.library.uu.nl\/grovemusic\/view\/10.1093\/gmo\/9781561592630.001.0001\/omo-9781561592630-e-0000006216>.<\/p>\n

Falstrom, Carl A. \u201cThou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music.\u201d Hastings<\/em> LJ 45 (1993): 359\u2013382.<\/p>\n

Image-Line. \u201cI am an unwilling pirate. Please help me out here.\u201d Accessed April 23, 2019.
\n<https:\/\/forum.image-line.com\/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=26562&start=50>.<\/p>\n

Katz, Mark. 2004. \u201cMusic in 1s and 0s: The art and politics of digital sampling.\u201d In Capturing <\/em>sound: How technology has changed music.<\/em> Berkeley: University of California Press. 137\u2013158.<\/p>\n

Kvifte, Tellef. \u201cDigital sampling and analogue aesthetics.\u201d In Aesthetics at Work<\/em>, edited by A. Melberg, 105\u2013128. Oslo: Unipub, 2007.<\/p>\n

NoDusk. \u201c30+ Free EDM Sample Packs.\u201d Accessed April 23, 2019.
\n<https:\/\/www.nodusk.com\/25-free-edm-sample-packs\/>.<\/p>\n

Schloss, Joseph Glenn, and Jeff Chang. Making Beats: The Art of Sample-Based Hip-Hop<\/em>. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2014.<\/p>\n

U.S. Copyright Office. \u201cChapter 800: Works of the Performing Arts.\u201d In Compendium III of U.S. Copyright Practices<\/em> \u00a7101, i\u2013105. 2017.<\/p>\n

U.S. Copyright Office. \u201cChapter 400: Copyrightable Matter: Works of the Performing Arts and Sound Recordings.\u201d In Compendium II OF U.S. Copyright Practices<\/em> \u00a7101, 1\u201350. 1984.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> Image-Line. \u201cI am an unwilling pirate. Please help me out here.\u201d Accessed April 23, 2019. <https:\/\/forum.image-line.com\/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=26562&start=50>. Image-Line is the company behind FL Studio.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Mark Katz, Capturing Sound: How Technology Has Changed Music<\/em> (Berkeley: University of California Press), 156\u2013157.<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> In the Grand Upright Music Ltd v. Warner Bros Records<\/em> case, singer\/songwriter Gilbert O\u2019Sullivan sued rapper Biz Markie after Markie sampled O\u2019Sullivan\u2019s \u201cAlone Again (Naturally)\u201d without permission. The court ruled that sampling without permission can qualify as an infringement of copyright. This case thus set a precedent in the legal field that required any future use of samples to be pre-approved by the original owner. For a more elaborate discussion of the specific case, see for instance Carl A. Falstrom, \u201cThou Shalt Not Steal: Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Bros. Records, Inc. and the Future of Digital Sound Sampling in Popular Music,\u201d Hastings LJ<\/em> 45 (1993): 359\u2013382.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> As a result, most research on music sampling focusses on sampling practices that follow Katz\u2019s blurred expression dichotomy. In these forms of sampling, a piece of music is taken from its \u201coriginal context\u201d and then applied in another. Other sampling practices, in particular, the use of samples from sample libraries, often remain unnoticed in these discussions. For specific examples, see DJ Spooky That Subliminal Kid, Sound Unbound: Sampling Digital Music and Culture<\/em> (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2008); Adam Behr, Keith Negus, and John Street, \u201cThe sampling continuum: musical aesthetics and ethics in the age of digital production,\u201d Journal for Cultural Research<\/em> 21\/3 (2017): 223\u2013240; Tara Rodgers \u201cOn the process and aesthetics of sampling in electronic music production,\u201d Organised Sound<\/em> 8.3 (2003): 313\u2013320 and Justin A. Williams, Rhymin\u2019 and Stealin\u2019: Musical Borrowing in Hip-Hop<\/em> (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2013).<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> This definition is encountered dozens of times not only in academia but also on music platforms like WhoSampled.com and online encyclopedias such as Wikipedia.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Katz, Capturing Sound, <\/em>140\u2013141.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Tellef Kvifte, \u201cDigital sampling and analogue aesthetics,\u201d in Aesthetics at Work<\/em>, ed. A. Melberg (Oslo: Unipub, 2007): 106.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> DJ Shadow\u2019s album \u201cEndtroducing\u2026\u201d(1996), for example.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> See Katz, Capturing Sound<\/em>, for a more elaborate listing of the topics of debate.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Katz, Capturing Sound<\/em>, 149.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Ibid., 175\u2013176.<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Ibid., 175.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Joseph Glenn Schloss and Jeff Chang, Making Beats: The Art of Sample-Based Hip-Hop<\/em> (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 2014), 105\u2013109.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> Ibid., 106.<\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Ibid., 107.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Ibid., 106.<\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> In hip-hop, compilation albums were generally not received well since the process of selecting samples is still essential to the ethical code of hip-hop sampling.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> Schloss and Chang, Making Beats<\/em>, 106.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> NoDusk, \u201c30+ Free EDM Sample Packs,\u201d accessed April 23, 2019, <https:\/\/www.nodusk.com\/25-free-edm-sample-packs\/>.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Image-Line, \u201cI am an unwilling pirate. Please help me out here,\u201d accessed April 23, 2019, <https:\/\/forum.image-line.com\/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=26562&start=50>.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> \u201cI am an unwilling pirate. Please help me out here,\u201d Image-Line, accessed April 23, 2019, <https:\/\/forum.image-line.com\/viewtopic.php?f=100&t=26562&start=50>. In this paper, I cite forum posts in relation to user names. I make an exception for the posts written by user jmc, who identified himself in the thread as Jean-Marie Cannie, the Managing Director of Image-Line. In his posts, Cannie narrates the perspective of Image-Line.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> DirtyCircuit, forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Tearsoftechnology, forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> DirtyCircuit, forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> DirtyCircuit claims that his track \u201cBerlin\u201d was named after the sample titles of the samples in the FL Studio sample library and that he was unaware of the existence of \u201cFaxing Berlin.\u201d However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to speculate about whether DirtyCircuit knew the origins of the two samples.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> I invite readers to listen to both tracks themselves. The full version of \u201cFaxing Berlin\u201d is available via <https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=W_Mg_jbJqMc> (accessed June 17, 2019). A snippet of \u201cBerlin\u201d is available via <https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=wxIQmvLxmck> (accessed June 17, 2019).<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Nuclean, forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> L.M., forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Copyright legislation is documented not only on a national level (such as the U.S. Copyright Acts), but also on larger scales (for instance the EU legislation on copyright).<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> jc62, forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> jmc, forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Users cite this information from the legal page of Image-Line\u2019s FL Studio. However, since FL Studio removed all melodic samples from their library after the incident, the legal page has been altered to fit the new offerings.<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Stephen Blum, \u201cComposition,\u201d Grove Music Online<\/em>, accessed June 17, 2019, <https:\/\/www-oxfordmusiconline-com.proxy.library.uu.nl\/grovemusic\/view\/10.1093\/gmo\/9781561592630.001.0001\/omo-9781561592630-e-0000006216>.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Blum, \u201cComposition.\u201d<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> U.S. Copyright Office,\u201d Chapter 400: Copyrightable Matter: Works of the Performing Arts and Sound Recordings,\u201d in Compendium II OF U.S. Copyright Practices<\/em> \u00a7101, 1 (1984).<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> U.S. Copyright Office, \u201cChapter 800: Works of the Performing Arts,\u201d in Compendium III of U.S. Copyright Practices<\/em> \u00a7101, 9\u201310 (2017) and U.S. Copyright Office,\u201d Chapter 400: Copyrightable Matter,\u201d 3.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> U.S. Copyright Office, \u201cChapter 300: Copyrightable Authorship,\u201d 23.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> U.S. Copyright Office, \u201cChapter 800: Works of the Performing Arts,\u201d 9\u201310 and U.S. Copyright Office,\u201d Chapter 400: Copyrightable Matter,\u201d 3.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> DirtyCircuit, forum message in \u201cI am an unwilling pirate.\u201d<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> However, since 2017, Myspace audio files uploaded before 2015 are no longer available online.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

(Re)defining Sampling in Digital Audio Workstations: the Case of DirtyCircuit and Deadmau5 Sonja Hamhuis   In 2008, amateur musician DirtyCircuit used two samples of Deadmau5\u2019s \u201cFaxing Berlin\u201d (2007) in one of his tracks. The samples were included in the database of FL Studio, a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) used by many early-career EDM producers. However, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":974,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"slim_seo":{"title":"(Re)defining Sampling in Digital Audio Workstations: the Case of DirtyCircuit and Deadmau5 - Studievereniging Hucbald","description":"(Re)defining Sampling in Digital Audio Workstations: the Case of DirtyCircuit and Deadmau5 Sonja Hamhuis   In 2008, amateur musician DirtyCircuit used two"},"footnotes":""},"categories":[153,31],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3465","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-english-publications","category-essay-uitgelicht"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3465","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3465"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3465\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/974"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3465"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3465"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hucbald.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3465"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}