If it took a computer to identify the sample that should no longer be copyright infringement since no reasonable human would ever recognize the sample or confuse the two songs.
@@elketerbentzadik not in the world of music. maybe if youre talking about using walmarts likeness in a bad way, but in the world of music absolutely wrong
I LOVE IT! It’s just gonna make us get more creative ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 10/10 -OY3AH! ™️ We finnally get to use our minds 🔂. I’m so good GOOGLE WILL NOT FIND MY SAMPLE TRUST ME. I’m smarter than A A.I
@@TrapgeniusBeatsyea bro if you use a preset that was also used in another song I could easily see that happening. The Daft punk example he gives means that if one note is similar it catches it
@@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69 It's nothing like fingerprint technology. Who even told you that? Besides, fingerprints are not all that reliable either, despite what cop shows try to tell you.
It's super frustrating!! I make music with a eurorack, but for the last like 6 months I've been getting flags for tracks I record (as "from scratch" as you can possibly make electronic music). If we are talking about audio finger prints of less than a second we start including percusion sounds. How many producers use an 808 sample? How many use sample pack plucked bass sounds? How many guitar players/bedroom producers play a C to a G major chord at some point on similar pickups, mic and sample rates?
The world of music will implode if they flag songs based on a single note. It would mean that if you ever use the same plugin, preset, and effects on a track as someone else did, you'd get hit with a claim even if you didn't sample.
@@lucayaki something used under the Creative Commons i may be wrong, RWJ has also admitted using preset loops in his songs for his virtual group, instead of claiming that this artist ripped him off.
@@hexostatus4658 In this specific case it was an orchestra hit from a preset. There's a beat deconstructed video on it where the producer shows he didn't use any sample outside of that preset to make that sound
@@lucayaki another case involved KSHMR and the indian artist having a song using the same vocal preset in one of their songs, KSHMR said that it’s from his own preset sound pack. Big labels arr happy to ignore the complexities of the copyright law.
Sampling is a creative art that must be protected. I hope we can get to a point where everyone who wants to sample can sample and those being sampled get their fair cut of any money generated
"Fair cut" is all subject to oppinion and interpretation. What someone wants to CHARGE to have thier song samples used by other artists isn't always how much those samples are worth. Once you've already created the song tho, if they want too much $$ to clear the samples, you can get stuck paying thru the nose to release that song if you feel it has potential. But it's thier prerogative to charge what they want. On the other hand, what someone wants to PAY is often far less than what those specific samples are worth. Especially when you get into territory where extremely successful and recognized songs are concerned. In general terms, a good song made using samples from a commercially successful song...is far more likely to become commercially successful itself...rather than a good song using obscure samples. Just from the sheer mass appeal and recognition of the song it's sampled from. I can understand a artist not wanting the legacy of one thier masterpieces to be watered down by a string of mediocre songs becoming hits off the coattails of what they had created. And especially true... If someone wants a chance to potentially take away from a fellow artists future sales(POTENTIALLY! 'cuz many times it leads to a resurgence and boost to the original songs sales also) ...by what can often essentially be considered "re-making" a famous song, then its understandable if that fellow artist wants them to share in the profits handsomely. P.s. "Sandbox"
@@bobsmith12345 In the jazz days, riffs were played not lifted from copyrighted recordings. You borrowed something from someone else played it but you didn’t try to monetize someone else playing it too.
@@bobsmith12345 In the jazz era, riffs were played not lifted from copyrighted recordings. You borrowed something from someone else and played it yourself. You didn’t try to monetize someone else’s riffs *and* performance in a recording. Playing *like Miles* isn’t the same as playing Miles on you song and trying cash that check without clearing it with Miles Davis. Just get the samples cleared if you want to use the content to make money.
There's something special about hearing music you enjoy and not knowing every detail of the artist,production, or samples being used its cool to have access to so much information and learn, but at the same time the over exposure is making that mystery part go away Great topic and input Bro
Being a mason? - soul, these are the biggest liars cause they are deceived the deepest. Search what i did, BIBLE + FREEMASONRY, and no longer a mason you want to be. Cause then you`ll see how wicked you shall be under the lie of being illuminated. Then you`ll see and hopefully understand also how sick rituals masons do. Baphomet servers wont be in heaven. No Christian is illuminated nor called to be one. We are simply souls, who have came to repentance, changed our minds and our hearts. Admit that we are sinners beyond being able to help our own selves. Deeply evil, knowing how to do evil rather then good. We seek´t out the truth, cause the off vibes this realm give us and not being satisfied with lies. We repented, cause we felt awfully about our own sinful nature, being able to do evil 24/7/365. Christian is not a illuminated, we are just souls who miss home. Missing home that badly the we counted the cost of following CHRIST and to walk on that narrow path into heaven. The cost of following CHRIST? - giving up our lives here on this earth, as CHRIST did for us. If it come to it, and it shall come to it, we are willing to be beheaded. So? - Are you that brave (foolish in the eyes of this world) soul or are you a coward who hides in the enemies lines?
Even using a synth preset that is found in a hit record will generate a problem when the record company don't own any copyright over the sound, just the melody.
Yea. Like the preset Mike Will used in Dune synth (I believe)in the song Black Beatles, the main little pluck, is a sequence patch just holding one note. Like... Does that mean that patch is no longer possible to use? It's also a little weird to me how, it's not really possible to sell non royalty free drum hits or loops. You can cut a kick and a snare out of a song and no one will know, but if you cut out the kick, hat and snare break from a song all of a sudden it can be copyrighted?
@@Taylor370z It's bad. If you're new and don't have the money to stand up to these people, it's going to be hard. I don't know copyright law as I just make synthwave for my own listening.
That's an oxymoron (easy "moron joke" there). Musicians and composers/producers "that creat sample-based music". If the only thing you play is the play and rec button, then nope, you're not a musician. If you use samples in a creative way and to inspire yourself that's a different topic. Playing back what others actually played does not turn you into a musician. Maybe a sampler...
@@cristiansosa1512 I disagree. Sample-based music isn't about using someone else's performance. It's about recording, and Oden twisting, a sound to suit your purposes. They can be played live with a keyboard or sequenced on a timeline. I've been a musician 45 years, guitars, keyboard, sax and clarinet, and ai use sequencers and the timeline on the DAW compositionally. If I use someone else's recording in a composition, I'm acting as producer and composer. In no way does that make me not a real musician. I have a video where I take found sounds and use a trash can being beaten and a coffee grinder to make a kick and snare. I'll also be creating lines from random recordings of singing and other songs to create a large amount of the sound in the song. I pitch bend, eq, alter envelopes and do all shirts of things to these sins as most people do in modern sampling. It's quite an art form. People who do sound design and produce songs on the timeline are acting in the role of composer and, I would argue that, in lieu of performers, they are merely creating a different type of preformance. My point her was that creative need to work together. And if you think periodicals working with samples aren't musicians, you have a lot to learn. Most perform with sample hits and many play other instruments as well. One producer I knew creating beats fit radioed had a degree in music and was a trombonist.
@g3m1n1 ky of course not. Musicians have worked for a long time with each other to increase their exposure. It's time-tested and it's also the reason popular TH-camrs in the music industry have each other on as guests.
The idea of using a service like Splice has never been attractive to me because the thing I love about samples is that they're part of real life and have cultural resonance. I don't make money off my shit so I don't worry about clearing my samples. I guess Tracklib has more "real music" than Splice, but I still enjoy going out and finding it myself. Tracklib and Splice just seem like the "McDonald's-ization" of this great American art form of sampling. I don't have much against it, but it's not for me personally.
Yeah, one of the biggest joys in sampling is actually find those samples. Whether it's vinyl, cassette, CD, lossless rips, TH-cam... listening to music and finding dope stuff, sometimes in unexpected places. Sometimes when I hear other producers' music, I hear that they sampled a song that I've heard before, but they took a section I never even thought of touching because my ear didn't catch what they heard in that sample. Splice gives you everything from one shots to loops, and Tracklib already offers you curated samples. Where is the fun in that? Also, Sandbox
@@glendwellz seriously! I hate when loop makers make the shit all quantized to the grid, pitch up vox, and add fx, like hello, Im the fucking producer and you're the fucking sample, stfu. If I want it quantized I can do that, if I want to chop it up, I can do that. Moreover, I want something that is unique to MY EXPERIENCE OF LIFE AND MAKING MUSIC, a sample I personally found thru digging for the perfect snatch, not some generic shit that's been curated for "anybody". I need to acknowledge that I don't have anything against music made in Splice or Tracklib by other folks. People make bangers with that stuff. You know, like McDonald's is still bomb food and I'm sure some people get kind of creative with what they like/how they eat it/etc., its just homogeneous in general though. I like to be in control of my sample curation as well as selection. These days that probably makes me a socialist, but hey, what doesn't?
People who sample gonna get rekt hard. But people who use AI to create copy paste music and copy paste Art will not get punished in any way because AI sampled it for them so it's legit.
Fair point, but if the AI changes it sufficiently that it is not recognizable, then it is the same idea as a human doing it. I know AI tends to be a polarizing subject in art these days, but ultimately, even if the AI puts something together, the human decides to publish the final result song. The human has final say and approval. I keep saying the same flawed argument in a lot of places, that people get away with AI generated ripoffs. Not really. Even if an AI creates art, it does not become Skynet and goes off the rails to self-publish songs. A person decides to publish that song, and that person will be held liable for potential copyright infringement. The backlash against AI these days seems a bit hypocritical, considering how much artists love to use technology to create at, but then get indignant about the technology getting out of control. We cannot play it both ways. This is simple complex systems science, based on evolution of trends. Just like the recording industry could not stop the Internet, AI art generation is not going to get easily shut down. Smashing industrial machinery did not stop the industrial revolution. Burning books will not... Wait, OK, considering everyone loves short attention span social media, I think we have achieved a certain level of illiteracy even WITHOUT burning books... The point is, it will be hard to "burn" AI at the stake...
It’s all good. I’m just gonna continue to crate dig and sample without copyrights cause my music will never be listened to by anyone but myself anyway 🙃😂
NGL this thang is dangerous. I just used this on 3 songs that me and a couple friends were trying to find the sample to for like 3 years now. I easily found em with this tool. Didn't work for me with video game samples though
Archangel....not only did it have that Ray J sample but samples from the game Metal Gear Solid 2 including the intro bridge scene and shell casing sounds from ammo. Sampling needs to be protected at all costs. Sandbox on the other hand...
Deeply worrying that one of the greatest sample based albums (3 Feet High and Rising) of all time had to be partially re-recorded with some songs removed recently.
You can't stop art. I think this will sharpen the artist and it'll get more creative. It'll make true artists find more creative ways to hide it from AI. You'll have to look for music that is really obscure and /or flip a better known sample so much that AI can't even find it. But also, fuck that damn stupid digital snitch.
I'd love to be able to worry about this because people would actually have to be listening to my music for labels to care. If that ever happens I'll start making music exclusively with Sandbox.
most of the artists sample based artists sample are dead, and doesn’t all the money goes to their estate? (which is typically owned by a label?) so, basically it’s just record labels being greedy, because most of the time these artists are dead and don’t see one penny from the split. crazy
I'm sure I heard that track back in the early 90"s at a recovery party and haven't thought about it since, now I'm gunna search for it and see. EDIT, thank you very much for putting my brain on a flashback.
Sandbox! Interesting times on so many different levels... Started playing in bands and writing songs in my teens and I'm now 72... Glad I lived in those times before all this insanity. Still enjoy singing, playing, and creating. But it's really gotten weird 😔
Even though i have always been curious about all the samples used in Daft Punk's Face To Face, i hope that Google's AI will break trying and failing to uncover all the samples. Also Tracklib might seem like a great solution for sampling, but the license costs are still pretty expensive even with just one sample being used... So just do like the Beastie Boys and Geoff Barrows. Record your own damn samples!
OK here’s an interesting question… What happens if companies start to see samples used by manufacturers show up…? For example, say Yamaha uses a particular sample library for their horns or cord uses a particular strings library… Does this mean that there could be repercussions for just using a synthesizer? That uses provided sample based content?
I mean, one could only hope that if some sort of a case went to court, over, let's say sampling a single isolated guitar note from a record that it'd be pretty clear wanting royalties off that is a ridiculous ask, and set a legal precedent of sorts. Though, I sadly kind of fear that it might fall out in favour of the copyright holder, just from looking at what they've been able to get through in court so far. But, like there has to be a limit, right...? Not too hopeful, sadly.
If we push ideas further, maybe someday all the sampled music will be out of spotify and there will be an underground server where you will find all the sampled art (visual aswell), creating an underground music scene with private events . THE FUTURE IS OURS
Sampling was killed 10+ years ago. As a turntablist and long time music producer, my heart was broken long ago. This is nothing new but represents a sad progression killing a valuable art form
IF ONE PUT THEIR OWN UNIQUE TWIST ON SOMETHING SAMPLED(FAIR USE), PER UNIVERSAL COSMIC LAW, THAT IS ORIGINAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY COPYRIGHT STRIKES SINCE WE THE HUMAN VESSEL ARE AN INSTRUMENT
There is technology now where you can sample in a different way. You can extract the chords from a song you like and have music theory plugins help you with the melody and bassline. The song will have a similar feel but You won't get caught for copyrights unless it has the same melody.
"sandbox" baby! great vid. I saw that same article, and it had me thinking many of the same things! imo some elements of copyright are just totally bogus. there's going to have to be some sort of re-write to the law without totally impacting the ways that artists are able to benefit from it. the way the internet, meme, and hip-hop culture (not to mention just art in general) is really just an iterative and ever evolving concept, tells me that maybe one day we will have a culture that doesn't act like it really OWNS the art or ideas we "come-up" with. Maybe this AI will actually help our society realize that the music they deem as totally "original" actually has a very clear stream of influences that make it not as original as they thought. maybe this will help tear down the ego of a lot of artists and labels, maybe just allow us to accept that music is music and there's meaningful, cool and creative ways to make it, and there's also totally heartless ways to make it as well.
Nah labels flagging everyone using a similar note or even one shots would be impossible when everyone's using the same hardware, presets, expansions, plugins etc. 😂
If you take it to paranoid levels, it will begin detecting keyboard presets, imagine a Nord or Kurzweil piano key note at same dinamic appearing everywhere...
I'm actually part of the Sample Hunting community (in fact one of the first few). The AI recognition is primarily done for microsamples (or short samples) that are generally unrecognizable. We mostly do it to uncover creativity known artists put into their music and take inspiration from it as we don't intend to shame others for using them, but rather give kudos. It would be (in my opinion) quite dumb to accuse somebody over a sample lasting for less than a split-second though I don't deny that it might give producers trouble who sample longer portions.
Wonder why Daft Punk would use such a small sample though? At that length (where no playing skill is involved), why not just record your own? It also creates the question - if they did re-record it and got it sounding similar, how would the AI be able to tell the difference?
In computers we use a sandbox to catch viruses in the act. I can see it coming that artists will have to run an app against their own songs to be sure no part sounds too close to being a sample. Even if they don't use samples. Music copyright claims by big business are squeezing us hard.
This brings up some amazing points though. At what point will plugin presets be considered samples XD tons of big songs have been made with presets now.
There's issues even now with not being able to put your song on TH-cam content ID when uploading through a distributor for using royalty free samples. I had a song that only used Splice for drum samples and a vocal adlib and it still had this issue. The reverse is also an issue. People were getting copyright striked because they used a banjo meme which someone later used the raw sample in their song and uploaded it through a distributor.
Fuck sample snitching, I wish people would just keep it to themselves. Yea its interesting to hear how people chopped things up, but it's more rewarding to find those same samples on your own and not fuck over the producer. That being said, I'm completely in favor of the original artists getting a cut.
holy wow shit! i always thought that with better content recognition, we'd eventually have to stop using obvious/almost unchanged samples, regardless of how obscure it is, but i always assumed that more creative/collage type/"making samples unrecognizeable" type sampling would still be safe for most. this is insane though for those that don't know todd edwards' sound is literelly chopping a lot of records (like 1/4th and 1/8 notes) to make one loop, that's why it found only the sample of that one chop (todd also worked with daft punk on face to face) the recodnition was definitely spot on wonder if just means that it's over for making any sort of money selling sampled unclear beats, even as instrumentals like knxwledge would? legally it's still infringement of copyright, regardless of how creative underground hip hop producers def don't clear most samples lol, same in house/nudisco, etc. and prob drumnbass as well? shit is so not done in house, to the point that when they do clear a sample, they mention it in the artwort lol or vinyl will just make a huge comeback lol and mfs sell their shit that way
My current ethical position is as such: Any time I make something sample-based, I personally, at the very least, give credit straight from the get-go. As cool as it is to have the mystique of an obscure sample nobody knows because of crate-digging, I think it's better to share this song you liked enough to create something transformative from it. Even if it was so transformative as to be practically unrecognizable, I PERSONALLY feel like it's just disrespectful to the original artists you're building your work off of to not give proper credit. Going even further, monetization is another sketchy area. Like, realistically, I can't come up with justification of making money from un-cleared samples unless transformative to the point of being literally unrecognizable. Because, as much as you've changed the music, you're still profiting from someone else's work. Built upon it, yes, but if you're not even attributing them as a collaborator? It all just feels disrespectful to the music you're taking from. So much of modern sampling expects you to hide where you got your sounds as well as making money off of it, and I can't really get behind that. I'm very much against a lot of AI's current attempts at replacing artists on scale and unethical art theft, but I think this particular use ethically is fine, though i do see a future where DMCA's are abused...they already are.
I have the same philosophy. It's basically a "Do unto others as you'd have done to yourself" kind of thing. I give credit where it's due (and would happily share royalties if I actually earned any) because I would hate it if people used chunks of my work and passed it off as their own. That's not to say, however, that the current way that music copyright is regulated doesn't have problems. A lot of the stuff that happens - especially when lawyers get involved, or when AI assigns copyright royalties to the "wrong" person, or when scammy record companies use bots to go hunting and hassling hobbyist producers/remixers or even makers of tutorials - is very frustrating..
@@AutPen38I follow the same philosophy with different principles: "do what ever i'd do to you." In my case, fuck clearing samples, fuck royalties, and fuck copyright. Art shouldn't be restricted, period. Maybe I'm a radical, sure, but I think that it should be perfectly normal to have the idea that "you can sample me as much as you like for whatever, i can sample you as much as i like for whatever."
The amount of comments on this that clearly don't understand IP law are impressive. This is a really interesting topic... and there's a bigger conversation that has to be had about the role of copyright within art - particularly music. I happen to straddle both worlds and it's something I've been mulling over.
Good thing my music is never heard anywhere, but I’ve only used one sample it was the word “dreamin’” sung by Sarah Jarosz in her song “My Muse”, pitched up and down at the same time.
Now is when the sample based community needs to lawyer up and push for some flexibilities in sampling because if you sample 1 note and turn it into a melody you have done the samething as getting the instrument and playing the same note and just treating with different effects. There are a finite number of notes... the copyright should be to protect the melody and arrangement not the tool or instrument.
This is a fear mongering ad for tracklib, but I'll play... Imagine once AI makes your music for you. You could lose an infringement case because you copied a song you'd never heard, because the AI trained on, and used, small samples of commercial music (i.e. "make me a beat in the style of a mash-up of Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer")
I sample a lot of music from the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s that really shouldnt have any copyright protection since the songs are so old that the artists have been dead for at least 20 years at this point, and its absolutely ridiculous that record labels are clinging to the copyright of these songs because of how old they are. i'd have to wait until 2058 at LEAST to be able to release all of the songs im making right now, which means i'd have to wait around 34 years until im able to release it with no problems and i think thats fucking bonkers.
As a mod and a contributor in the Sample Hunting community, we never intended for musicians to get in trouble for using samples we find nor do we 'sample snitch'. We all just have a deep fascination with how musicians can flip the hell out of samples and finding them is just as satisfying as finding a bit of lost media or whatever. The discord server did originally just start out as a place to discuss finding all of Daft Punk's Face to Face samples.
@@vvvictoriav5958 how is people being sampled getting their fair share of recognition "hell" lmao r'tard the man who played the amen break died homeless im the streets, never even knowing he spawned half of all electronic music genres
Can also confirm this as another SH mod, many members of the community make their own sample-based music while getting inspiration from these sampling musicians, so it would be hypocritical to sample snitch
'Moses Avalon' in his book "Confessions of a Record Producer" tells the tale of an attempt to use a Mick Jagger (or Stones, I can't remember) song for commercial purposes. The copyright holder refused, so the producer hired a Mick soundalike and a band and did everything to duplicate the tune from scratch, from instruments to recording gear and session performances. After slaving over the track for some time, they realized they were getting nowhere. So in a moment of inspiration, someone decided to use the original track, and in case they were busted by the rights holder, they could point to all the receipts and claim that they had merely rerecorded it. The book is a riot; I heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to make music for a living.
What the creator of this process don't say is that the song the AI can recognize are only the one in its database, which mean only stuff that are uploaded online (so only stuff on streaming service, not sure if that include unofficial upload on youtube). So no, sample is not in trouble, that just mean it will have to go back deeper in its roots, which is the diggin in crates, so no more "diggin" on youtube or spotify, just get your hand dirty and be ready to lift soft weight in old obscure vinyl :)
I'm interested in how accurate it is if the song doesn't use any known samples or none at all, unless you consider all one shot drums "samples". I wonder if it would get confused and lie and say it's sampled from something when it's not.
The technology to sniff out samples was as inevitable as Thanos. Just as technology advanced to make music production more accessible, it will advance to make sampling more detectable. Sampling is a tool to enhance music creation to make money. Sample recognition is a tool to enhance music monetization. An alternative is to get more creative and start sampling yourself. Make your own one-shots, loops and melodies. Time to pull out those keyboard controllers, MPCs, DAWs, and up skill. The struggle continues. Adapt to your surroundings or perish.
amount of melodies and rhytms are limited. if ai will be learning everything then people will reach end. you can make your own sound which was invented before by someone else. what then?
@kaemgiekmg I never get hits on my melodies when I run them through AI checkers to see if they were used before. Maybe the problem is you. The number of combinations and permutations is limitless. You can't copyright a chord progression or drum pattern.
Fight the power make sense now..? Ye already told you who control the music industry. Hip-Hop is collage art. Why are artist allowed to manipulate others work into new work with no issues ? Imagine all the songs you love, were never made..
I’ve got vinyl collections from my Grandparents on both sides, My Parents, Aunts & Uncles & have personally been collecting for 30 years. I’ve got over 30,000 records & my own personal sample library & records 90% of today’s producers have not even heard!!!
My theory is that we are about to hit the era where producers has to step it up and create their own compositions and craft it from the bottom and up. My personal opinion is that too much is being recycled these days. Maybe get to know singers... Learn how to create your own "chants" and maybe... just maybe... just record your own sounds and then sample them. this is not rocket science. I find it quite funny that AI might be the one reason why producers has to step up and really work harder again... as they once used to. Even a untrained rookie can sample a "well known popular song" and create what that person would call and label as a "original track". This music producing thing is not supposed to be easy. take care people and happy endings! Hahaha! Edit: I have nothing against sampling... But its over saturated these days. Example 1: Central cee - DOJA. (Eve, Gwen Stefani - Let me blow ya mind). Example 2: Nicki Minaj - Super freaky girl. (Rick James - Super freak ... Then turned into MC Hammer - Can´t touch this). Example 3: Juice wrld - Lucid dreams. (Sting - Shape of my heart... Then turned into Nas - The message). There is a huge difference between adding a certain element to your own song and making someone elses song your own. If Weaver is the certified plug-in police, I am the sampling police for sure! Yes, I have made my statement now.
How does it recognize a sample that's time stretched and pitched? Is there a software that automatically pitches a sample up and and down and time stretches it and saves it into a database that we're not aware of?
I use a rather creative trick to take a sample and then recreate it using software. Basically a clone of the sample but, since the process is not perfect, I end up with a sample that keeps the spirit and vibe of the original sample but is also clearly NOT the sample, if any of that makes sense. And no, I am not changing the sample around to disguise it, the recreation actually uses a PARITY file, huge file to rebuild the sample. Hard to explain without giving my technique away. I also heard that a few companies are now working on "re-stem" software that will take stems and rebuild, for example, percussion with the samples from ones own library. The bigger the library, the better. But also that the software can adjust samples in various ways to recreate parts of the "re-stem" process. In the future, producers can still use samples but using software to re-create them from scratch to avoid legal issues. I've saw a video somewhere of this alpha re-stem software and the buy made a stem of some Beatles song and it sounded amazing. Same drum track but different since it uses samples to recreate the track, again, I'm struggling to try and explain this process.
If it took a computer to identify the sample that should no longer be copyright infringement since no reasonable human would ever recognize the sample or confuse the two songs.
its not about confusing 2 songs its about profiting off someone elses effort with out credit.
@@sadstrongman271 What you just described has pretty much never been what concepts like copyright and trademark are about, legally speaking.
@@elketerbentzadik not in the world of music. maybe if youre talking about using walmarts likeness in a bad way, but in the world of music absolutely wrong
@@elketerbentzadik it's about intellectual property and performance rights... So that's exactly what effort means
It's called stealing
"I own the sine wave." - Corporations probably.
Stupid ass business suits more like
Oh it is isn’t it. We own sound.
Lol
That's the capitalist class for you, never producing anything but profiting from it cause 'law'...
I LOVE IT! It’s just gonna make us get more creative ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 10/10 -OY3AH! ™️ We finnally get to use our minds 🔂. I’m so good GOOGLE WILL NOT FIND MY SAMPLE TRUST ME. I’m smarter than A A.I
I sometimes get copyright claimed during streams when I'm creating sounds from scratch inside VST's.
@@TrapgeniusBeatsyea bro if you use a preset that was also used in another song I could easily see that happening. The Daft punk example he gives means that if one note is similar it catches it
@@TrapgeniusBeats nah not good at all lol
Stop using Em chord maybe 😂
I am also worried about false positives. Producers may still get strikes when their original sounds resemble a sound in a song somewhere.
Even with acoustic instruments, I bet recording techniques will come up as false positives. I think, however, that for now, it will be done manually.
Honestly I feel pretty confident with AI... With a large enough data set it's pretty accurate.
I don't think you understand the technology. It's like finger print technology. It won't do that.
@@AFRoSHEENT3ARCMICHAEL69
It's nothing like fingerprint technology. Who even told you that?
Besides, fingerprints are not all that reliable either, despite what cop shows try to tell you.
It's super frustrating!! I make music with a eurorack, but for the last like 6 months I've been getting flags for tracks I record (as "from scratch" as you can possibly make electronic music). If we are talking about audio finger prints of less than a second we start including percusion sounds. How many producers use an 808 sample? How many use sample pack plucked bass sounds? How many guitar players/bedroom producers play a C to a G major chord at some point on similar pickups, mic and sample rates?
The world of music will implode if they flag songs based on a single note. It would mean that if you ever use the same plugin, preset, and effects on a track as someone else did, you'd get hit with a claim even if you didn't sample.
Something that is universally the block of music shouldn’t be copyrighted, only the melody, which big labels are happy to ignore.
That almost happened with The Box by Roddy Ricch. They used a preset that a Britney Spears(?) song also used and almost got in trouble for it
@@lucayaki something used under the Creative Commons i may be wrong, RWJ has also admitted using preset loops in his songs for his virtual group, instead of claiming that this artist ripped him off.
@@hexostatus4658 In this specific case it was an orchestra hit from a preset. There's a beat deconstructed video on it where the producer shows he didn't use any sample outside of that preset to make that sound
@@lucayaki another case involved KSHMR and the indian artist having a song using the same vocal preset in one of their songs, KSHMR said that it’s from his own preset sound pack. Big labels arr happy to ignore the complexities of the copyright law.
Sampling is a creative art that must be protected. I hope we can get to a point where everyone who wants to sample can sample and those being sampled get their fair cut of any money generated
we need to go back to the jazz days, when they didn't care about people borrowing riffs from other songs
"Fair cut" is all subject to oppinion and interpretation. What someone wants to CHARGE to have thier song samples used by other artists isn't always how much those samples are worth. Once you've already created the song tho, if they want too much $$ to clear the samples, you can get stuck paying thru the nose to release that song if you feel it has potential. But it's thier prerogative to charge what they want.
On the other hand, what someone wants to PAY is often far less than what those specific samples are worth. Especially when you get into territory where extremely successful and recognized songs are concerned. In general terms, a good song made using samples from a commercially successful song...is far more likely to become commercially successful itself...rather than a good song using obscure samples. Just from the sheer mass appeal and recognition of the song it's sampled from. I can understand a artist not wanting the legacy of one thier masterpieces to be watered down by a string of mediocre songs becoming hits off the coattails of what they had created. And especially true... If someone wants a chance to potentially take away from a fellow artists future sales(POTENTIALLY! 'cuz many times it leads to a resurgence and boost to the original songs sales also) ...by what can often essentially be considered "re-making" a famous song, then its understandable if that fellow artist wants them to share in the profits handsomely.
P.s. "Sandbox"
@@bobsmith12345 Musical quotes were the shit back in the day
@@bobsmith12345
In the jazz days, riffs were played not lifted from copyrighted recordings. You borrowed something from someone else played it but you didn’t try to monetize someone else playing it too.
@@bobsmith12345
In the jazz era, riffs were played not lifted from copyrighted recordings. You borrowed something from someone else and played it yourself. You didn’t try to monetize someone else’s riffs *and* performance in a recording. Playing *like Miles* isn’t the same as playing Miles on you song and trying cash that check without clearing it with Miles Davis. Just get the samples cleared if you want to use the content to make money.
There's something special about hearing music you enjoy and not knowing every detail of the artist,production, or samples being used its cool to have access to so much information and learn, but at the same time the over exposure is making that mystery part go away Great topic and input Bro
Also, people need to keep things to themselves. Let's not get people sued.
Its okay… all of our sample based music is for parody/commentary /educational purposes. Right!?
Being a mason? - soul, these are the biggest liars cause they are deceived the deepest.
Search what i did, BIBLE + FREEMASONRY, and no longer a mason you want to be. Cause then you`ll see how wicked you shall be under the lie of being illuminated. Then you`ll see and hopefully understand also how sick rituals masons do. Baphomet servers wont be in heaven.
No Christian is illuminated nor called to be one. We are simply souls, who have came to repentance, changed our minds and our hearts. Admit that we are sinners beyond being able to help our own selves. Deeply evil, knowing how to do evil rather then good.
We seek´t out the truth, cause the off vibes this realm give us and not being satisfied with lies.
We repented, cause we felt awfully about our own sinful nature, being able to do evil 24/7/365.
Christian is not a illuminated, we are just souls who miss home. Missing home that badly the we counted the cost of following CHRIST and to walk on that narrow path into heaven.
The cost of following CHRIST? - giving up our lives here on this earth, as CHRIST did for us. If it come to it, and it shall come to it, we are willing to be beheaded.
So? - Are you that brave (foolish in the eyes of this world) soul or are you a coward who hides in the enemies lines?
Transformative use is allowable commercially under circumstances.
man sample snitching has to stay between the homies not out in the sandbox where google and the internet can hear
Even using a synth preset that is found in a hit record will generate a problem when the record company don't own any copyright over the sound, just the melody.
Yeah, I was thinking about that too.
With one exception which is a Michael Jackson song, yeah. Every 909 ever: google "hey i know this sample"
Same sandbox is absolutely goated.
Yea. Like the preset Mike Will used in Dune synth (I believe)in the song Black Beatles, the main little pluck, is a sequence patch just holding one note. Like... Does that mean that patch is no longer possible to use?
It's also a little weird to me how, it's not really possible to sell non royalty free drum hits or loops. You can cut a kick and a snare out of a song and no one will know, but if you cut out the kick, hat and snare break from a song all of a sudden it can be copyrighted?
@@Taylor370z It's bad. If you're new and don't have the money to stand up to these people, it's going to be hard. I don't know copyright law as I just make synthwave for my own listening.
The answer is easy. Indie musicians and composers/producers that create sample-based music should team up together and help each other gain exposure.
That's an oxymoron (easy "moron joke" there). Musicians and composers/producers "that creat sample-based music". If the only thing you play is the play and rec button, then nope, you're not a musician. If you use samples in a creative way and to inspire yourself that's a different topic. Playing back what others actually played does not turn you into a musician. Maybe a sampler...
@@cristiansosa1512 He meant 1. musicians and 2. producers that create sample-based music - as two separate entities.
@@cristiansosa1512 I disagree. Sample-based music isn't about using someone else's performance. It's about recording, and Oden twisting, a sound to suit your purposes. They can be played live with a keyboard or sequenced on a timeline. I've been a musician 45 years, guitars, keyboard, sax and clarinet, and ai use sequencers and the timeline on the DAW compositionally. If I use someone else's recording in a composition, I'm acting as producer and composer. In no way does that make me not a real musician.
I have a video where I take found sounds and use a trash can being beaten and a coffee grinder to make a kick and snare. I'll also be creating lines from random recordings of singing and other songs to create a large amount of the sound in the song. I pitch bend, eq, alter envelopes and do all shirts of things to these sins as most people do in modern sampling. It's quite an art form.
People who do sound design and produce songs on the timeline are acting in the role of composer and, I would argue that, in lieu of performers, they are merely creating a different type of preformance.
My point her was that creative need to work together. And if you think periodicals working with samples aren't musicians, you have a lot to learn. Most perform with sample hits and many play other instruments as well. One producer I knew creating beats fit radioed had a degree in music and was a trombonist.
@g3m1n1 ky of course not. Musicians have worked for a long time with each other to increase their exposure. It's time-tested and it's also the reason popular TH-camrs in the music industry have each other on as guests.
Copyritghting sample is like copyrighting a kid that have cut a picture on a magazine and glued on a paper...
The idea of using a service like Splice has never been attractive to me because the thing I love about samples is that they're part of real life and have cultural resonance.
I don't make money off my shit so I don't worry about clearing my samples.
I guess Tracklib has more "real music" than Splice, but I still enjoy going out and finding it myself.
Tracklib and Splice just seem like the "McDonald's-ization" of this great American art form of sampling.
I don't have much against it, but it's not for me personally.
Absolutely agree
Yeah, one of the biggest joys in sampling is actually find those samples. Whether it's vinyl, cassette, CD, lossless rips, TH-cam... listening to music and finding dope stuff, sometimes in unexpected places. Sometimes when I hear other producers' music, I hear that they sampled a song that I've heard before, but they took a section I never even thought of touching because my ear didn't catch what they heard in that sample.
Splice gives you everything from one shots to loops, and Tracklib already offers you curated samples. Where is the fun in that?
Also, Sandbox
I also love how old tracks sound. The gritty sound from an old record is so much better than a splice loop with a lofi effect on it
@@glendwellz seriously! I hate when loop makers make the shit all quantized to the grid, pitch up vox, and add fx, like hello, Im the fucking producer and you're the fucking sample, stfu.
If I want it quantized I can do that, if I want to chop it up, I can do that.
Moreover, I want something that is unique to MY EXPERIENCE OF LIFE AND MAKING MUSIC, a sample I personally found thru digging for the perfect snatch, not some generic shit that's been curated for "anybody".
I need to acknowledge that I don't have anything against music made in Splice or Tracklib by other folks. People make bangers with that stuff. You know, like McDonald's is still bomb food and I'm sure some people get kind of creative with what they like/how they eat it/etc., its just homogeneous in general though.
I like to be in control of my sample curation as well as selection. These days that probably makes me a socialist, but hey, what doesn't?
@@glendwellz I get what you're saying, but nowadays you can create/recreate that gritty sound
People who sample gonna get rekt hard. But people who use AI to create copy paste music and copy paste Art will not get punished in any way because AI sampled it for them so it's legit.
Fair point, but if the AI changes it sufficiently that it is not recognizable, then it is the same idea as a human doing it. I know AI tends to be a polarizing subject in art these days, but ultimately, even if the AI puts something together, the human decides to publish the final result song. The human has final say and approval. I keep saying the same flawed argument in a lot of places, that people get away with AI generated ripoffs. Not really. Even if an AI creates art, it does not become Skynet and goes off the rails to self-publish songs. A person decides to publish that song, and that person will be held liable for potential copyright infringement. The backlash against AI these days seems a bit hypocritical, considering how much artists love to use technology to create at, but then get indignant about the technology getting out of control. We cannot play it both ways. This is simple complex systems science, based on evolution of trends. Just like the recording industry could not stop the Internet, AI art generation is not going to get easily shut down. Smashing industrial machinery did not stop the industrial revolution. Burning books will not... Wait, OK, considering everyone loves short attention span social media, I think we have achieved a certain level of illiteracy even WITHOUT burning books... The point is, it will be hard to "burn" AI at the stake...
@@AdamElteto too long didn't read plus you're wrong
AI is basically going to ruin everything.
It’s all good. I’m just gonna continue to crate dig and sample without copyrights cause my music will never be listened to by anyone but myself anyway 🙃😂
Cut dubs. Play underground parties. Let the mainstream turn to shit. Fuck the labels.
We out here
Same
NGL this thang is dangerous. I just used this on 3 songs that me and a couple friends were trying to find the sample to for like 3 years now. I easily found em with this tool. Didn't work for me with video game samples though
Archangel....not only did it have that Ray J sample but samples from the game Metal Gear Solid 2 including the intro bridge scene and shell casing sounds from ammo. Sampling needs to be protected at all costs. Sandbox on the other hand...
part of the drums for the shell casing sound for ammo?
Link please !
look for Burial - Archangel
Ive recently discovered that burial also sampled a section in half life source for the very beginning of thesong
@@drlostcause4427 where :O which burial's song?
Deeply worrying that one of the greatest sample based albums (3 Feet High and Rising) of all time had to be partially re-recorded with some songs removed recently.
I'm going to continue to sample. Some days it's easier to do the thing first, sampling in this case, and then ask for forgiveness later.
burial is a mastermind ngl
You can't stop art. I think this will sharpen the artist and it'll get more creative. It'll make true artists find more creative ways to hide it from AI. You'll have to look for music that is really obscure and /or flip a better known sample so much that AI can't even find it. But also, fuck that damn stupid digital snitch.
Just let the mainstream die. Put out physical copies and play underground parties.
I'd love to be able to worry about this because people would actually have to be listening to my music for labels to care. If that ever happens I'll start making music exclusively with Sandbox.
Yooooo
We just need to break the AI bro. They learn from human input, we just need to keep feeling the AI loads of bullshit to throw it off
@@UncleBenjs Yooo bro! Hahah that's a great idea. All the mediocre music coming out these days might be our saving grace.
On god... I'm sampling regardless
brother, your musik is beatifull!
Damn, they can ID one shots now
Also this is gonna push people to subscription platforms and take the fun out of music exploration
That’s exactly why this article was posted by tracklib
Subscription models for samples/VSTs create decision anxiety because there's too many choices.
They'll never find the obscure foreign records that didn't do well, a lot of producers used to go to Japan crate digging back in the 90s
At this level of detection sampling is indistinguishable from using the same preset, vsti, splice sample, etc.
So, this will definitely go well.
Whoever invented the saw wave is gonna earn a lot of royalties when the AI learns that people have been putting it through filters to disguise it.
Great Info ... Thanks
Ralph M. " The Mixican" Funkdoobiest 😎✔️ Hip Hop don't stop !!! Forever...
The law should be changed to whether a sample is immediately recognizable (to the average person) as part of another song.
most of the artists sample based artists sample are dead, and doesn’t all the money goes to their estate? (which is typically owned by a label?)
so, basically it’s just record labels being greedy, because most of the time these artists are dead and don’t see one penny from the split. crazy
After talking to The Orb about the drum breaks they used on Little Fluffy Clouds they said, we'll never tell. I reckon they used Sandbox.
I'm sure I heard that track back in the early 90"s at a recovery party and haven't thought about it since, now I'm gunna search for it and see.
EDIT, thank you very much for putting my brain on a flashback.
@@charliesnorta0666 It's flipping awesome. Re-enjoy.
Any other musician cringe everytime they hear anyone say "samples".
Most music nowadays is just loops that any toddler cud put together.
samples
Sandbox! Interesting times on so many different levels... Started playing in bands and writing songs in my teens and I'm now 72... Glad I lived in those times before all this insanity. Still enjoy singing, playing, and creating. But it's really gotten weird 😔
Even though i have always been curious about all the samples used in Daft Punk's Face To Face, i hope that Google's AI will break trying and failing to uncover all the samples.
Also Tracklib might seem like a great solution for sampling, but the license costs are still pretty expensive even with just one sample being used... So just do like the Beastie Boys and Geoff Barrows. Record your own damn samples!
IP law continues to turn an exciting sandbox into a lonely island
OK here’s an interesting question… What happens if companies start to see samples used by manufacturers show up…? For example, say Yamaha uses a particular sample library for their horns or cord uses a particular strings library… Does this mean that there could be repercussions for just using a synthesizer? That uses provided sample based content?
I mean, one could only hope that if some sort of a case went to court, over, let's say sampling a single isolated guitar note from a record that it'd be pretty clear wanting royalties off that is a ridiculous ask, and set a legal precedent of sorts.
Though, I sadly kind of fear that it might fall out in favour of the copyright holder, just from looking at what they've been able to get through in court so far.
But, like there has to be a limit, right...? Not too hopeful, sadly.
If we push ideas further, maybe someday all the sampled music will be out of spotify and there will be an underground server where you will find all the sampled art (visual aswell), creating an underground music scene with private events . THE FUTURE IS OURS
I really miss soul samples in hip hop.
Sampling was killed 10+ years ago. As a turntablist and long time music producer, my heart was broken long ago. This is nothing new but represents a sad progression killing a valuable art form
This is just gonna make physical formats have even more of a comeback. AI can't scan a cassette tape.
@@serial_sequence2k Amen my brother 🙏 🙌 ❤️ 💙
You better believe I got a cassette player.
IF ONE PUT THEIR OWN UNIQUE TWIST ON SOMETHING SAMPLED(FAIR USE), PER UNIVERSAL COSMIC LAW, THAT IS ORIGINAL AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY COPYRIGHT STRIKES SINCE WE THE HUMAN VESSEL ARE AN INSTRUMENT
There is technology now where you can sample in a different way. You can extract the chords from a song you like and have music theory plugins help you with the melody and bassline. The song will have a similar feel but You won't get caught for copyrights unless it has the same melody.
Music theory plugins to help you out with melody…
Seriously… 🤦🏻♂️
@@pw6002 you don't know about it?
"sandbox" baby! great vid. I saw that same article, and it had me thinking many of the same things! imo some elements of copyright are just totally bogus. there's going to have to be some sort of re-write to the law without totally impacting the ways that artists are able to benefit from it. the way the internet, meme, and hip-hop culture (not to mention just art in general) is really just an iterative and ever evolving concept, tells me that maybe one day we will have a culture that doesn't act like it really OWNS the art or ideas we "come-up" with. Maybe this AI will actually help our society realize that the music they deem as totally "original" actually has a very clear stream of influences that make it not as original as they thought. maybe this will help tear down the ego of a lot of artists and labels, maybe just allow us to accept that music is music and there's meaningful, cool and creative ways to make it, and there's also totally heartless ways to make it as well.
Hold up…going to my SANDBOX to achieve analog warmth! 😤😤😤
hahahha!
Nah labels flagging everyone using a similar note or even one shots would be impossible when everyone's using the same hardware, presets, expansions, plugins etc. 😂
That is f'd up and incredible.
If you take it to paranoid levels, it will begin detecting keyboard presets, imagine a Nord or Kurzweil piano key note at same dinamic appearing everywhere...
I'm actually part of the Sample Hunting community (in fact one of the first few). The AI recognition is primarily done for microsamples (or short samples) that are generally unrecognizable. We mostly do it to uncover creativity known artists put into their music and take inspiration from it as we don't intend to shame others for using them, but rather give kudos. It would be (in my opinion) quite dumb to accuse somebody over a sample lasting for less than a split-second though I don't deny that it might give producers trouble who sample longer portions.
Wonder why Daft Punk would use such a small sample though? At that length (where no playing skill is involved), why not just record your own?
It also creates the question - if they did re-record it and got it sounding similar, how would the AI be able to tell the difference?
In computers we use a sandbox to catch viruses in the act. I can see it coming that artists will have to run an app against their own songs to be sure no part sounds too close to being a sample. Even if they don't use samples. Music copyright claims by big business are squeezing us hard.
Nah fugg that, if enough of us sample they won't be able to catch all of us
Best part of the burial sample is that he used a TH-cam cover of the song, not the actual vocal
This brings up some amazing points though. At what point will plugin presets be considered samples XD tons of big songs have been made with presets now.
Especially the arpeggiator ones. Some of them are straight up melodic loops. And I’ve heard multiple songs use them in identical manners.
There's issues even now with not being able to put your song on TH-cam content ID when uploading through a distributor for using royalty free samples. I had a song that only used Splice for drum samples and a vocal adlib and it still had this issue. The reverse is also an issue. People were getting copyright striked because they used a banjo meme which someone later used the raw sample in their song and uploaded it through a distributor.
Knowing tech nerds, this would have without a shadow of a doubt come out eventually.
Great job, this is devastating. These sample snitches are destroying an art form while stuffing their pockets. Straight dorks!
Interesting stuff, thanks dude. Gonna dig more into this sandbox bizniz.
I like how it looks like the Burial album cover and Nujabes are sad with you in the thumbnail lmao
Drinking game: Take a shot every time the word "sample" is said or shown on screen lmfao
Alcohol poisoning in a very short time lol.... not that that's funny, but...
@@tonychopper9142 At that point it just becomes a game of survival 😭
Fuck sample snitching, I wish people would just keep it to themselves. Yea its interesting to hear how people chopped things up, but it's more rewarding to find those same samples on your own and not fuck over the producer. That being said, I'm completely in favor of the original artists getting a cut.
Hell TH-cam is already giving strikes for their own(content creators) damn original $hit.
Modern problems require modern solutions. We'll find a way around it sooner or later.
Exactly
Sampling is part of the sandbox of music production and it won’t be taken away easily.
I knew this was coming in some form.
Your beats sir are like a fine wine very intriguing in a certain manner...
Todd Edwards is shaking in his boots
This is good news. Maybe we’ll finally get back to having musicians create music instead of no talent hacks. Until the AI creates it all.
The answer is to sample shit that isn’t officially released / from other countries where people don’t give a shit or know if the song is being sampled
holy wow shit! i always thought that with better content recognition, we'd eventually have to stop using obvious/almost unchanged samples, regardless of how obscure it is, but i always assumed that more creative/collage type/"making samples unrecognizeable" type sampling would still be safe for most. this is insane though
for those that don't know todd edwards' sound is literelly chopping a lot of records (like 1/4th and 1/8 notes) to make one loop, that's why it found only the sample of that one chop (todd also worked with daft punk on face to face)
the recodnition was definitely spot on
wonder if just means that it's over for making any sort of money selling sampled unclear beats, even as instrumentals like knxwledge would? legally it's still infringement of copyright, regardless of how creative
underground hip hop producers def don't clear most samples lol, same in house/nudisco, etc. and prob drumnbass as well?
shit is so not done in house, to the point that when they do clear a sample, they mention it in the artwort lol
or vinyl will just make a huge comeback lol and mfs sell their shit that way
Moog, roland, and korg should claim all the rights to sounds in general, lol
My current ethical position is as such:
Any time I make something sample-based, I personally, at the very least, give credit straight from the get-go. As cool as it is to have the mystique of an obscure sample nobody knows because of crate-digging, I think it's better to share this song you liked enough to create something transformative from it. Even if it was so transformative as to be practically unrecognizable, I PERSONALLY feel like it's just disrespectful to the original artists you're building your work off of to not give proper credit.
Going even further, monetization is another sketchy area. Like, realistically, I can't come up with justification of making money from un-cleared samples unless transformative to the point of being literally unrecognizable. Because, as much as you've changed the music, you're still profiting from someone else's work. Built upon it, yes, but if you're not even attributing them as a collaborator? It all just feels disrespectful to the music you're taking from. So much of modern sampling expects you to hide where you got your sounds as well as making money off of it, and I can't really get behind that.
I'm very much against a lot of AI's current attempts at replacing artists on scale and unethical art theft, but I think this particular use ethically is fine, though i do see a future where DMCA's are abused...they already are.
I have the same philosophy. It's basically a "Do unto others as you'd have done to yourself" kind of thing. I give credit where it's due (and would happily share royalties if I actually earned any) because I would hate it if people used chunks of my work and passed it off as their own. That's not to say, however, that the current way that music copyright is regulated doesn't have problems. A lot of the stuff that happens - especially when lawyers get involved, or when AI assigns copyright royalties to the "wrong" person, or when scammy record companies use bots to go hunting and hassling hobbyist producers/remixers or even makers of tutorials - is very frustrating..
@@AutPen38I follow the same philosophy with different principles: "do what ever i'd do to you." In my case, fuck clearing samples, fuck royalties, and fuck copyright. Art shouldn't be restricted, period. Maybe I'm a radical, sure, but I think that it should be perfectly normal to have the idea that "you can sample me as much as you like for whatever, i can sample you as much as i like for whatever."
Tl;dr:
Fuck copyright. Make everything creative commons.
The amount of comments on this that clearly don't understand IP law are impressive. This is a really interesting topic... and there's a bigger conversation that has to be had about the role of copyright within art - particularly music. I happen to straddle both worlds and it's something I've been mulling over.
Good thing my music is never heard anywhere, but I’ve only used one sample it was the word “dreamin’” sung by Sarah Jarosz in her song “My Muse”, pitched up and down at the same time.
Dude incredible video, I've been thinking about this for the past 3 years now, crazy how it's finally happening this quickly
Just release physical copys exclusively fuck the internet
Less than a second … ALL of hiphop is under fire.
The whole drum kit is sampled.
Idk man I don't like tracklib I feel like they don't have enough music up there.
OH YEA...SANDBOXX
Now is when the sample based community needs to lawyer up and push for some flexibilities in sampling because if you sample 1 note and turn it into a melody you have done the samething as getting the instrument and playing the same note and just treating with different effects. There are a finite number of notes... the copyright should be to protect the melody and arrangement not the tool or instrument.
This is a fear mongering ad for tracklib, but I'll play... Imagine once AI makes your music for you. You could lose an infringement case because you copied a song you'd never heard, because the AI trained on, and used, small samples of commercial music (i.e. "make me a beat in the style of a mash-up of Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer")
I sample a lot of music from the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s that really shouldnt have any copyright protection since the songs are so old that the artists have been dead for at least 20 years at this point, and its absolutely ridiculous that record labels are clinging to the copyright of these songs because of how old they are. i'd have to wait until 2058 at LEAST to be able to release all of the songs im making right now, which means i'd have to wait around 34 years until im able to release it with no problems and i think thats fucking bonkers.
As a mod and a contributor in the Sample Hunting community, we never intended for musicians to get in trouble for using samples we find nor do we 'sample snitch'. We all just have a deep fascination with how musicians can flip the hell out of samples and finding them is just as satisfying as finding a bit of lost media or whatever. The discord server did originally just start out as a place to discuss finding all of Daft Punk's Face to Face samples.
Can confirm this, as an early member of the server.
the road to hell is paved with good intentions
@@vvvictoriav5958 how is people being sampled getting their fair share of recognition "hell" lmao r'tard the man who played the amen break died homeless im the streets, never even knowing he spawned half of all electronic music genres
Can also confirm this as another SH mod, many members of the community make their own sample-based music while getting inspiration from these sampling musicians, so it would be hypocritical to sample snitch
You ARE the sample snitches though, and now we can’t have anything nice because you people couldn’t keep it in your pants….
'Moses Avalon' in his book "Confessions of a Record Producer" tells the tale of an attempt to use a Mick Jagger (or Stones, I can't remember) song for commercial purposes. The copyright holder refused, so the producer hired a Mick soundalike and a band and did everything to duplicate the tune from scratch, from instruments to recording gear and session performances. After slaving over the track for some time, they realized they were getting nowhere. So in a moment of inspiration, someone decided to use the original track, and in case they were busted by the rights holder, they could point to all the receipts and claim that they had merely rerecorded it. The book is a riot; I heartily recommend it to anyone who wants to make music for a living.
It definitely doesn’t take the fun out of sampling in a beat but it does ruin it for all the people slipping by without clearance lmao
What the creator of this process don't say is that the song the AI can recognize are only the one in its database, which mean only stuff that are uploaded online (so only stuff on streaming service, not sure if that include unofficial upload on youtube). So no, sample is not in trouble, that just mean it will have to go back deeper in its roots, which is the diggin in crates, so no more "diggin" on youtube or spotify, just get your hand dirty and be ready to lift soft weight in old obscure vinyl :)
is this community like...... sample cops? or are they trying to learn from it just for curiosity
kinda seems like snitches lol
AI will kick of the already poor talented samplers and beatmakers.Nothing to worry about the serious guys out there
I am not mad at tracklib. They do it right. 🤷🏽👍🏼
Sampling should be appreciated
Every time you run AI you train AI, tracklib trained the AI to benefit them! Create the problem...sell the solution...
Hegelian Dialect
Not all AI works like that you're making a very large inaccurate generalization.
I'm interested in how accurate it is if the song doesn't use any known samples or none at all, unless you consider all one shot drums "samples". I wonder if it would get confused and lie and say it's sampled from something when it's not.
The technology to sniff out samples was as inevitable as Thanos. Just as technology advanced to make music production more accessible, it will advance to make sampling more detectable.
Sampling is a tool to enhance music creation to make money. Sample recognition is a tool to enhance music monetization.
An alternative is to get more creative and start sampling yourself. Make your own one-shots, loops and melodies. Time to pull out those keyboard controllers, MPCs, DAWs, and up skill.
The struggle continues. Adapt to your surroundings or perish.
I back this comment 100%.
amount of melodies and rhytms are limited. if ai will be learning everything then people will reach end. you can make your own sound which was invented before by someone else. what then?
easier for you to say
@kaemgiekmg
I never get hits on my melodies when I run them through AI checkers to see if they were used before. Maybe the problem is you. The number of combinations and permutations is limitless. You can't copyright a chord progression or drum pattern.
Fight the power make sense now..?
Ye already told you who control the music industry. Hip-Hop is collage art. Why are artist allowed to manipulate others work into new work with no issues ?
Imagine all the songs you love, were never made..
When ya make your own samples no problems
I’ve got vinyl collections from my Grandparents on both sides, My Parents, Aunts & Uncles & have personally been collecting for 30 years. I’ve got over 30,000 records & my own personal sample library & records 90% of today’s producers have not even heard!!!
My theory is that we are about to hit the era where producers has to step it up and create their own compositions and craft it from the bottom and up.
My personal opinion is that too much is being recycled these days.
Maybe get to know singers... Learn how to create your own "chants" and maybe... just maybe... just record your own sounds and then sample them.
this is not rocket science. I find it quite funny that AI might be the one reason why producers has to step up and really work harder again... as they once used to.
Even a untrained rookie can sample a "well known popular song" and create what that person would call and label as a "original track".
This music producing thing is not supposed to be easy.
take care people and happy endings! Hahaha!
Edit: I have nothing against sampling... But its over saturated these days.
Example 1: Central cee - DOJA. (Eve, Gwen Stefani - Let me blow ya mind).
Example 2: Nicki Minaj - Super freaky girl. (Rick James - Super freak ... Then turned into MC Hammer - Can´t touch this).
Example 3: Juice wrld - Lucid dreams. (Sting - Shape of my heart... Then turned into Nas - The message).
There is a huge difference between adding a certain element to your own song and making someone elses song your own.
If Weaver is the certified plug-in police, I am the sampling police for sure!
Yes, I have made my statement now.
How does it recognize a sample that's time stretched and pitched? Is there a software that automatically pitches a sample up and and down and time stretches it and saves it into a database that we're not aware of?
Or... instead of putting their sampled music in a sandbox, sample producers can learn to create their own music and not worry about it.
Dam Rip sampling
I use a rather creative trick to take a sample and then recreate it using software. Basically a clone of the sample but, since the process is not perfect, I end up with a sample that keeps the spirit and vibe of the original sample but is also clearly NOT the sample, if any of that makes sense. And no, I am not changing the sample around to disguise it, the recreation actually uses a PARITY file, huge file to rebuild the sample. Hard to explain without giving my technique away. I also heard that a few companies are now working on "re-stem" software that will take stems and rebuild, for example, percussion with the samples from ones own library. The bigger the library, the better. But also that the software can adjust samples in various ways to recreate parts of the "re-stem" process. In the future, producers can still use samples but using software to re-create them from scratch to avoid legal issues. I've saw a video somewhere of this alpha re-stem software and the buy made a stem of some Beatles song and it sounded amazing. Same drum track but different since it uses samples to recreate the track, again, I'm struggling to try and explain this process.
“The enemy of art is the absence of limitations.” - Allegedly Orson Wells
-Nice vid.
I dare them to copyright claim me; not worth the money or time to do a lawsuit for my 160 listeners a month on Spotify.