I thought the video about the Amen Break was incredibly fascinating. The first time the loop was played, I immediately recognized it from other songs. I have heard that loop dozens of times in drum and bass and hip hop tracks, but I didn’t know its origin until I saw the video. I distinctly remember it in the theme song of one of my favorite childhood shows, The PowerPuff Girls. Here‘s a link to the theme song. See if you can recognize the Amen Break.

Although the video was very interesting, the narrator was extremely dry. His monotone narration bored me to an extent, but the content was still intriguing enough to keep my attention. I thought the first half of the video was more interesting than the later half, especially the comparisons between the Amen Break and samples of its use in contemporary tracks. One quote that I liked was:

“I find this quite interesting: hundreds of tracks, dozens of DJs, a number of clubs and events, in effect, an entire subculture, based on this one drum loop.”

There is a lot of controversy on the topic of sampling. Some say sampling and mixing is lazy songwriting and is therefore unoriginal because the artist is just taking beats and pieces from other tracks. On the other hand, the artist who uses samples from other tracks is creating a new masterpiece in itself. This very process, however, has always fascinated me as a fan of electronic dance music. The entire genre is composed using samples and then building upon them to make a new, original track. So then how can we block the usage of samples when all it does is foster, inspire, and create new tracks? To stop this would be to stop progress. I enjoyed Alex Kozinski’s quote on this matter:

“Culture is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, like nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new. Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it’s supposed to nurture.”

The documentary brought up a thought-provoking analogy between photography and painting to an original track and a sampled track. A photograph, much like a sampled track, simply captures what is already visible (or audible) whereas a painting, like the original track, is the product of hours and hours of laborious creative output. Does that make photography lazy or unoriginal? Does that make this entire culture that is based upon sampled music lazy or unoriginal?

As for copyright laws, I think that as long as an artist gives credit where it’s due then there should be no issue. When content, such as a sample, is used as a building block for a new work it should not be considered copyright infringement. In the documentary, it mentioned that the original artist doesn’t even get money from the lawsuits or sample fees when a new artist uses their work; the label gets all of the money. The artist clearly deserves any money that would result from such a case. But, since that’s not the case, I think the artist deserves at the very least proper credit.

A perfect demonstration of this is the case of Clyde Stubblefield. Stubblefield’s drum beats are widely spread into other tracks and genres without his consent. However, he could care less. His easy-going and understanding attitude is admirable because he understands that music is ever-changing, just like everything else, and needs some foundation for further progress.