Advertisement

Sampling Genealogies of Sound

  • Sophia MaalsenEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter introduces the reader to sample-based music. It begins with an overview of the development of sample-based music and positions this within the context of traditions of musical borrowing more generally. The development of copyright in music is also discussed, starting from its beginnings in the Enlightenment and continuing to its more recent extension beyond music in notated form to music as recorded artefact.

The chapter draws upon my ethnographic work with two producers to understand the process of making beats as well as to illustrate how multibiographical relationships are formed between the music and producers.

The chapter concludes that although both legal frameworks and subcultural ethics at various times act to constrain the movements of some sounds, there exist counter-movements to redeploy such sounds. Thus these negotiations and subversions result in a continual process of deterritorialisation, reterritorialisation, and deterritorialisation again. As the sound moves through this trajectory, it has the potential to accumulate and distribute personhoods, becoming multibiographical sound in the process.

References

  1. Achenbach, K. M. (2004). Grey area: How recent developments in digital music production have necessitated the reexamination of compulsory licensing for sample-based works. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 6(1), 187–222.Google Scholar
  2. Agent B. (2006, December 13). Cut chemist interview. Oh Word. Retrieved August 3, 2012, from http://archive.ohword.com/features/543/cut-chemist-interview.
  3. Attali, J. (1985). Noise: The political economy of music. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Beadle, J. (1993). Will pop eat itself. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  5. Beatdawg. (2007). Deep Crates 2. DVD, Beatdawg Film.Google Scholar
  6. Bogard, W. (2006). Surveillance assemblages and lines of flight. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Theorizing surveillance (pp. 97–122). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Boon, M. (2011, November 11). Collateral damage. The Wire (online), no. 333. Retrieved August 26, 2012, from http://www.thewire.co.uk/articles/7705/.
  8. Born, G. (2005). On musical mediation: Ontology, technology and creativity. Twentieth-Century Music, 2, 7–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandes, L. F. (2007). From Mozart to Hip-Hop: The impact of Bridgeport v. Dimension films on musical creativity. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 14(Winter), 93–127.Google Scholar
  10. Brown, J. (1992). They don’t make music the way they used to: The legal implications of sampling in contemporary music. Wisconsin Law Review, 6, 1941–1991.Google Scholar
  11. Busse, M., & Strang, V. (Eds.). (2011). Ownership and appropriation. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  12. Chang, V. (2009). Records that play: The present past in sampling practice. Popular Music, 28, 143–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christie, J. (2005). Sampling the culture: 4 notes toward a poetics of Plundergraphia and on Kenneth Goldsmith’s Day. Open Letter: A Canadian Journal of Writing and Theory, 12(7), 77–83.Google Scholar
  14. Condry, I. (2006). Hip-hop Japan: Rap and the paths of cultural globalization. Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Connell, J., & Gibson, C. (2004). World music: Deterritorializing place and identity. Progress in Human Geography, 28(3), 342–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cook, N. (1990). Music, imagination and culture. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  17. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. Eckman, GP ([1897] 2004). Controversial elements in Lucretius, Kessinger Publishing, Whitefish.Google Scholar
  19. Gell, A. (1998). Art and agency: An anthropological theory. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  20. Goehr, L. (1992). The imaginary museum of musical works: An essay in the philosophy of music. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hirn, Y. (1900). The origins of art. (repr. 1971). New York: Benjamin Bloom.Google Scholar
  22. Hosokawa, S., & Matsuoka, H. (2004). Vinyl record collecting as material practice: The Japanese case. In W. Kelly (Ed.), Fanning the flames: Fans of consumer culture in contemporary Japan (pp. 151–168). Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  23. Humphrey, C., & Verdery, K. (2004). Introduction: Raising questions about property. In C. Humphrey & K. Verdery (Eds.), Property in question: Value transformation in the global economy (pp. 1–25). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  24. Ihde, D. (2007). Listening and voice: Phenomenologies of sound (2nd ed.). Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  25. Küchler, S. (2006). Comment to R. Harrison, “An artefact of colonial desire? Kimberley points and the technologies of enchantment”. Current Anthropology, 47(1), 80.Google Scholar
  26. Leach, J. (2007). Creativity, subjectivity and the dynamic of possessive individualism. In E. Hallam & T. Ingold (Eds.), Creativity and cultural improvisation (pp. 99–116). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  27. Lena, J. C. (2004). Meaning and membership: Samples in rap music, 1979–1995. Poetics, 32(3–4), 297–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lowe, Z. (2011). Zane Lowe Versus. May 26, 2011 radio program, BBC Radio 1. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/zanelowe/.
  29. Lucretius. (1952). De rerum natura. (H. A. J. Munro, trans.). Chicago: Great Books of the Western World; Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc..Google Scholar
  30. Lysloff, R. (2003). Musical community on the internet: An on-line ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 18(2), 233–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maalsen, S., & McLean, J. (2016). Digging up unearthed down-under: A hybrid geography of a musical space that essentialises gender and place. Gender, Place & Culture, 23(3), 418–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markula, P. (2006). The dancing body without organs. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Masnick, M. (2011, April 22). How copyright law makes sample-based music impossibly expensive… If you want to do it legally. Techdirt. Retrieved September 6, 2012, from http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110414/03271513892/how-copyright-law-makes-sample-based-music-impossibly-expensive-if-you-want-to-do-it-legally.shtml.
  34. Massey, D. B. (2005). For space. London and Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. McLean, J., Maalsen, S., & Grech, A. (2016). Learning about feminism in digital spaces: Online methodologies and participatory mapping. Australian Geographer, 47(2), 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McLeod, K. (2001). Owning culture: Authorship, ownership and intellectual property law. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  37. McLeod, K., & DiCola, P. (2011). Creative license: The law and culture of digital sampling. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nietzsche, F. (1967). The will to power: A new translation by Walter Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  39. Norek, J. (2004). “You can’t sing without the bling”: The toll of excessive sample license fees on creativity in hip-hop music and the need for a compulsory sound recording sample license system. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 11(Winter), 83–102.Google Scholar
  40. Ogg, A., & Upshal, D. (1999). The hip-hop years: A history of rap. London: Channel 4 Books.Google Scholar
  41. Perkins, W. (Ed.). (1996). Droppin’ science: Critical essays on rap music and hip hop culture. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Reynolds, S. (1998). Generation ecstasy: Into the world of techno and rave culture. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  43. Rhea, S. (2002). Music masters: A new generation of rap moguls is making the industry dance to a different beat: Ownership—The hip-hop economy part 3 of a series—Industry Overview. Black Enterprise, 33(1). Retrieved October 18, 2011, from http://www.blackenterprise.com/2002/08/01/music-masters/
  44. Rose, T. (1994). A style nobody can deal with: Politics, style and the postindustrial city in hip hop. In A. Ross & T. Rose (Eds.), Microphone fiends: Youth music, youth culture (pp. 71–88). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Seeger, A. (2004). The selective protection of musical ideas: The “creations” and the dispossessed. In K. Verdery & C. Humphrey (Eds.), Property in question: Value transformation in the global economy (pp. 69–83). Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  46. Self, H. (2002). Digital sampling: A cultural perspective. UCLA Entertainment Law Review, 9, 347–359.Google Scholar
  47. Serazio, M. (2008). The apolitical irony of generation mash-up: A cultural case study in popular music. Popular Music and Society, 31(1), 79–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith, J. (2003). Banking on film music: Structural interactions of the film. In K. Dickinson (Ed.), Movie music, the film reader (pp. 63–81). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Smith, M. W. (2001). Reading simulacra: Fatal theories for postmodernity. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, R. F. (1996). Hip hop 101. In W. Perkins (Ed.), Droppin’ science: Critical essays on rap music and hip hop culture (pp. 211–219). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wallmark, Z. (2007). Making music in the digital age: How technological developments shape the way we create and listen to music. Master of Arts thesis, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  52. Wallmark, Z. (2010). What do Handel and hip-hop have in common? The Taruskin Challenge. Retrieved August 21, 2012, from http://taruskinchallenge.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/what-do-handel-and-hip-hop-have-in-common/.
  53. Williams, J. A. (2010). Musical borrowing in hip-hop music: Theoretical frameworks and case studies. PhD thesis, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture, Design and PlanningUniversity of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Personalised recommendations