Sampling is a way of life for some artists and for others an immense source of frustration. Should it be considered stealing for an artist to use a portion of an older song in order to create an original piece of music? The answer is not exactly clear and draws into question the age-old debate of copyright law and how it relates to creative composition in music.
Although there are many arguments to support the sampling of music, there is something to be said in defense of the original artist if they do not receive ample credit or monetary compensation for their contribution to the new work. In cases where entire songs are used, such as Vanilla Ice’s 1989 hit “Ice Ice Baby,” there is good cause to side with the original artist. Besides being a total bastardization of Queen’s and David Bowie’s “Under Pressure,” Ice’s song uses the instrumental parts without changing them at all and fails to recognize Queen for their contribution to his song. This is undoubtedly a case of theft and should be dealt with as such.
In a possibly lesser-known example of plagiary, the Red Hot Chili Peppers lifted the instrumentals from Tom Petty’s “Mary Jane’s Last Dance” in their hit song “Dani California.” This case is much more nebulous than the previous because Anthony Kiedis, the lead singer of the Peppers was influenced in a large part by rock singers such as Petty. As a result, there are many instances where elements of older blues and classic rock songs make their way into the bands’ music in ways that are not considered plagiarism. It is entirely possible that this instance of plagiarism was accidental. After all, some say that there are no original ideas and it is almost inevitable someone else thought of it beforehand.
As a general rule, this idea could be applied to song writing as well. It seems plausible that a musician would draw on his musical influences when creating new music. Perhaps the Peppers borrowed instrumentals can be attributed as such – a creative but unintentional recapitulation of a song that influenced their musical style.
An even more uncertain form of borrowing music that has been made possible by technology and popularized by rap music, sampling is a controversial art that is a hot button issue at the moment.
Instead of copying lyrics and instrumentals to create an entire song such as Vanilla Ice and the Red Hot Chili Peppers, many groups opt to use short samples, often changed drastically from the original in order to create their own original work. There are countless examples of this in the modern era of hip-hop with popular artists such as Mos Def, Kanye West and The Roots taking samples from groups whose prominence peaked in the 70s and 80s.
By incorporating older musical styles into their production, these songs become a mix of new and old that come together to create a piece totally its own.
Is it wrong that new material should draw upon old sources? After all, we as social beings can be considered a patchwork made up of the influences that have shaped our lives. Why should music be any different?
In the same way that a writer might use phrasing from past publications that influenced their thought process, musicians should be able to use samples from older music in order to improve their songs.
Those working for the Drive-in Music Company do not share this sentiment. They have initiated a string of lawsuits over the past several weeks claiming that groups Cypress Hill and Leaders of the New School are illegally making profit from songs that Drive-in owns the copyrights to. Both songs were released in 1991, raising the question of why the company waited 19 years to enforce the copyright infringement.
In Cypress Hill’s hit “How I Could Just Kill a Man,” the band is accused of sampling The Music Machine’s “Come On In.” Upon listening to both tracks, it is difficult to pinpoint any major similarities, which is possibly the reason it took Drive-in so long to figure it out. The two songs differ in almost every way, and even populate two opposite genres.
It is difficult to discern how Cypress Hill made money directly from the sample in question. Furthermore, the sample is not used in a way that leads the listener to associate it with “Come On In,” which in effect makes its use in “How I Could Just Kill a Man” a part of the creative process that the band should not be penalized for.
The music industry should approach each case like this keeping in mind that if the song in question draws too heavily on an earlier work, or presents itself in any way reminiscent of the original, than the original artists should be mentioned as a contributor and possibly given monetary compensation.
However, if the song in question uses a sample subtly to make an original piece of art, there should be no controversy.
With cases like Drive-in Music Company’s lawsuit of Cypress Hill, it is difficult to see how there could be a motive other than greed behind their decision to pursue a lawsuit.
Music, like any art, is free-flowing and subject to constant interpretation, making it difficult and seemingly arbitrary to place ownership on portions of sound so short or so different from the original that its use is not even intelligible to the average listener.
Zachary Weishar is a Collegian columnist. He can be reached at [email protected].
