Talk:Sampling (music)/Archive 1

Missing?

Where Is Double D and Stienski's "lesson one the pay of mix" or Grandmaster Flash's 'Adventures on the wheels of Steel??? the two most influential cut up records ever.

In between a cover and a sample

How do we deal with and where do we put borrowings or covering that doesn't include a whole song, like a sample, but unlike a sample is re-performed. Numerous examples exist of the bass line from Chic's "Good Times", from rap songs to Queen. Hyacinth 04:46, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I believe the phrase to describe that is 'musical quotation'. This is often seen in Jazz. I don't believe there's currently a wikipedia page on the subject however I do see mention of the practice on the Quotation page. --E.D.Hedekar 13:52, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you! Hyacinth 01:48, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

disambig

i'd like a disambiguation with sampling (signal processing) at the top, although it doesn't really have its own article... - Omegatron 21:23, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sample Sources

Is there a wikipedia site with a list of sample sources used in songs? For example the names of movies and stuff like that sampled by industrial bands such as Front Line Assembly or Velvet Acid Christ? I was unable to find one, but I don't want to go ahead and create one if it already exists somewhere else. I was thinking there should be a list organized first by band, listing the sources they sampled, and then also a list organized by sample sources showing bands that had sampled them.

See the links section on main page, that first link has the oldest searchable data base of sample references online. Some wikipedia pages of individual albums also have this info, some of which isn't yet in the samplefaq page, as its not quite up to date.

Samplers on sampling

I think there is a huge gap in the general public's perception of sampling concerning WHY and HOW people who sample actually do it. The prevailing idea is that everyone who samples is a business-driven Puff Daddy svengali type who just raps over the instrumentals of hits from the 70s and 80s to make a quick buck. I think the best way to clear this up is to include quotes from the people who sample themselves, let them explain. So I did. --Jamieli 12:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely wonderful. I read it and was like "Wow...I'd never expect to see this on WIkipedia!" Great work. --FuriousFreddy 17:43, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I like hiphop and its roots and leaders, but this section is way too long. Also, if a section like this exists so lopsided, basically explaining the skill and qualtiy of sampling, how it is great, and defending it, there should be an equal section "Musicians on Sampling" with quotes by musicians and composers with counterpoint as to why they either support samplers or dislike the practice or if they believe its less creative or talented a medium. After all, samplers are using material from actual musicians, so their perspective is important to this. I suggest adding that, and massively trimming the existing section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnowNothing (talk • contribs) 08:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Is the sound category necessary? It is a supercategory of Electronic music, I assume. Hyacinth 10:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Digital sampling; Sampling is more than just reusing others' recordings

Does anyone feel as I do that Sampling (music) ought to be about more than just incorporating someone else's recording in your own? It certainly is about that, but it is much more. Between digital sampling and this article -- which I feel should be combined -- very important topics are completely ignored: instrument samples, for example. There is a whole industry around sampling acoustic instruments. These samples are vastly more common in modern recordings than lifted bits of somebody else's recordings. There also ought to be expanded discussion on how sampling works and how sample rate, bit width, etc. affect the quality of samples. There also ought to be a mention of how music workstations such as a Triton allow you to sample layers of patches so as not to waste polyphony. Please weigh in on this or suggest an alternative solution. --Trweiss 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It should stay as is but I do agree that there are some other facets of sampling which can be expanded. I would suggest that you think of this sampling article as an one on the technique and the culture that it associates to, rather than the specifics of the digital medium. Sampling has existed long before the common PC was available and I think the mentions to modern sampling cover this enough. I would encourage you to expand on the digital sampling article if you can.

--OpenSebJ 09:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I would guess that there is enough information about digital sampling to get that article out of stub status while this article is already fairly long. If the digital sampling article stays as a stub I say it should be merged. Hyacinth 11:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you OpenSebJ and Hyacinth for your suggestions. Based on them, I have removed the merge suggestion template and replaced it with a disambiguation link to digital sampling. I will be working on that article. When I am done, it will link to Sampling (music). --Trweiss 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Biz Markie case

"...not merely copyright infringement, but criminal theft..."

How could it be theft? Sounds like copyright infringement to me. I don't understand how the author of this line is able to draw this conclusion, but IANAL. The link to Grand Upright Music vs. WB doesn't support a finding of theft either.

Digital sampling is not sampling (music)

I see from the above comments that some people think digital sampling is about the same thing as this page. It isn't. The phrase 'digital sampling' has a much more fundamental meaning in electronic engineering and digital signal processing. It was in use long before the digital recording of music was possible. A 'sample' in digital processing, or on a music CD, in the technical sense, is a single number, the instantaneous value at one instant in time. The fact that music sampling also involves digital sampling is only the result of the fact that we have digital recording and computers. Music sampling is perfectly possible, if not so convenient, using other technologies.

I moved all music sampling content from 'digital sampling' a while ago, including lists of types of sampling, and expanded the article to cover the technical meaning, which is vital not just to audio but also to our modern telephone systems, television, and video recording. I linked from the top to this other meaning. --Lindosland 20:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

In my view, the article omits important cultural and technical components of sampling. Coming from the academic computer music world, some things in this article jump out at me. First of all, it is not clear (you'd really have to read between the lines) that a lot of sampling practice evolved from the use of sampling synthesizers. These synthesizers (e.g. the Fairlight) were developed primarily to replace analog synthesizers, not to play back and repeat rhythmic samples. The pop music world essentially repurposed the hardware to create a new musical esthetic. In doing so, this culture essentially reinvented a practice that extended back to Pierre Schaeffer and that was in the day-to-day activity of many computer music composers who had access to other means to accomplish the same thing. If there is something distinctive about sampling in the pop world, which seems to be an assumption underlying this article, then is is probably an esthetic based on the reuse of music by other artists, something that the more traditional recording and computer music world generally viewed as undignified and uncreative. (I'm not sure these words capture the true sentiment, but there was certainly a sense in the academic electro-acoustic music world that placed a high value on creating new sounds and shunned the idea of taking and using someone else's sound creations.) So I think the article could be improved by describing how technology enabled the development of a new direction/practice in popular music (and didn't the term "sampling" derive from "sampling synthesizers"? -- even the word "sampling" was repurposed) and also by describing what if anything distinguishes "sampling" from the common practice of electro-acoustic music. --RBDannenberg 14:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lindosland's comment. I have recently merged digital sampling with sampling (signal processing), since both articles discussed the same meaning of sampling. However, the term 'digital sampling' does seem to be used by music professionals to indicate music sampling. A large number of links to digital sampling are actually supposed to link to sampling (music). Therefore, I think digital sampling should be treated as a disambig page, since people from different backgrounds use the term differently. I am going through all links to digital sampling and disambiging them so that they point to either the music or the engineering terms. When this is done, I will redirect digital sampling to sampling, which is the disambig page for this exact issue. --Zvika 19:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Some video games have sampled too.

I know Earthbound (SNES) and Sonic 3 (Genesis) did, but there are probably a few newer games that do as well (most likely something with a rapper >_>)

Should there be a mention of this somewhere? I know it's not necessary to do so, but it would be nice.

4.237.248.205 20:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Sample torrents link added

I added Sample Torrents (www.sampletorrents.com) in the links list.

I run this site along with brent from KVRaudio.com and we keep a strong eye on any material that might be illegal.

Removing "Sample trolls"

I'm removing the section about "Sample trolls", mostly on the basis that it's a neologism. The Slate story seems to be the only use of the term I can find. --Otterfan 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

dj shadow's entroducing

could a reference be made to this album as I believe it was entered in the Guinness world record books for the 'first completely sampled album'?

I find this impossible to believe, the digital sampler (instrument) was invented in 1979 (before that there were Tape Replay keyboards, also samplers just not digital) and with all of the people involved with Sequencers and Synthesizers in the 70's/80's I am betting there is more than one obscure fully sampled album from then (not samples from other music but sampled from other existing instruments and such). - 12.175.177.114 (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The above is true. If I had to wager a guess, I'd say any of Mark the 45 King's various releases in the mid '80s were likely the first completely sampled albums released. Most notorious was a collection featured the now infamous "900 Number" which has been resampled too many times to count directly from the song he made which is itself a sample. 205.219.133.1 (talk) 20:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Computer sampling software

Re: the section on software samplers, the only mention seems to be Propellerhead's Reason and Recycle, and I don't think these are particularly relevant - the innovation here is more to do with "beat slicing" than sampling. They're not mentioned on the Wiki page dedicated to samplers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampler_%28musical_instrument%29), which lists better examples like Kontakt and Gigastudio. Needs some joined-up thinking.

White6rabbit 18:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Ben

Interpolation?

"Artists who do not sample: Replayed Samples"

Ain't that just called interpolation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.147.133.191 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

2 Live Crew case

Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, Inc. has nothing to do with sampling. Acuff-Rose owns the publishing rights to the song "Pretty Woman", not the copyright to Orbison's recording of it -- the lawsuit was over Campbell's release of an unauthorized cover version. Lazlo Nibble 07:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

There should be a section in this article about the criticisms of sampling. The "Producers" section is wholly congratulatory and tilted in favor of sampling, while aside from the legal section, nowhere in the article is there a section about the detractor's point of view: (sampling rips off the original song, sampling takes lines and musical clips out of context, the artist doing it has less originality than the artist who wrote the sampled song, etc...). Merely writing the history and platitudes of sampling is baised and one-sided. 98.203.251.157 (talk) 19:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no necessity for sampling to be illegal, and I don't think there exists serious criticism of sampling as a musical process in reliable sources. I'm sure a lot of people don't like jazz, should there be a criticism section in the jazz article? The article has a lot of problems, but POV is among the least of them. So I'm removing the POV tag. If you want to come back with cites supporting your examples of possible criticism that you wish to be represented in the article, do so, and we can either include them or re-instate the tag pending discussion discuss their merits. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I suppose technically there is a dispute over NPOV ongoing, so I'll leave it pending your reply. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is on Sampling, not a specific use of this. Many musicians sample real instruments to incorporate into their work which has no argument legally, nor does it make the musicians "less original". I would say that this article is way too biased on the use of samples in popular music (sampling other popular music) and less on the technology and early use (synthesized electronic musicians). Herbie Hancock, Peter Gabriel, Richard James Burgess, Todd Rundgren, Nick Rhodes of Duran Duran, producer Rhett Lawrence, Stevie Wonder all purchased and used the Fairlight CMI and were all using samples of instruments by the early 80's. - 12.175.177.114 (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Attitudes toward being sampled

Besides the legal issue section, please add a section like the following: Jidanni (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Examples of attitude towards being sampled

• Artists who have a permissive attitude to being sampled
  • James Brown?
  • etc.
• Artists who have a negative attitude to being sampled
  • Artist1, 2,.

However, it is not always the artist in control, but their record company. So,

• Record companies who have a permissive attitude to being sampled
  • Company1, 2
  • etc.
• Record companys who have a negative attitude to being sampled
  • Company3, 4,.

William S. Burroughs and Brion Gysin's contributions to the artform

This seems to be completely neglected on here, which is odd given that they pretty much pioneered the idea of using existing media on tape to produce new works in their early sound collages of news programs on radio. This was done as the first reel-to-reel recorders using tape were made available to the public and were pretty much unheard of before then. Also worth mentioning is the process used to create the original theme to Dr. Who which was a similar but new technique at the time, also utilizing samples and tape looping.

None of this is mentioned anywhere in this article as far as I can tell, but it's in nearly every major work I've read (and I've read many) about the history of sampling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.219.133.241 (talk) 02:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about those two names, but what about Pierre Schaeffer?? didn't he invent musique concrete, and therefore the idea (and the method) of using recordings of sounds as music? surely that is sampling! Retrorocker (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Bitter sweet symphony - "unlicensed sample"?

Regarding The Verve was forced to pay 100% of their royalties from their hit "Bitter Sweet Symphony" for the use of an unlicensed sample... According to the Bittersweet Symphony article, they obtained a license for this sample. Should this section be rephrased, or am I misunderstanding this issue? - Poobslag (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

DJ Premier / Chuck D lawsuit

No mention of DJ Premier getting sued by Chuck D for sampling his voice on 10 crack commandments? I thought it was a pretty major event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesoju (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Notorious B.I.G. "Hypnotize" sampling Herb Alpert's "Rise"

Should there be mention of this in the article? --98.232.178.38 (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Probably. Already got a load of less famous examples in there, so why not. Pagen HD (talk) 13:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Good way of handling info on samples in articles?

Some songs sample many other songs, perhaps only briefly. Should all the songs be indicated in an article, regardless of the notability of the sample? Is there a good model for how to handle that: prose in article, list, table, footnotes...? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearance services

Similar to companies that obtain mechanical licenses for licensees who wish to use musical compositions to make new sound recordings, sample clearance services obtain licenses to clear the rights involved with using a sample. Clearance services can obtain sample license offers on behalf of independent artists and producers who utilize samples in their "new works," or on behalf of record labels who plan to distribute their "new works." "New work" refers to the new musical composition and sound recording which utilizes a sample from another work. Note that a music sample contains two separate copyrighted works. One is the original sound recording, and the other is the underlying musical composition.

Removed this along with a lot of advertisement for one such company. The above can probably be used if an independent, secondary source is provided. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Sample Map

I added a link to a Michael Jackson sample map, which was subsequently removed, with the sole reason being given that Wikepedia doesn't use Flickr pages. I realize that typically Wikipedia doesn't link to Flickr images, but the Michael Jackson sample map isn't a typical Flickr image, as I should have explained at the time I added it. Following its posting on Flickr, it has been reposted and/or discussed at:

• Spike TV: [1]
• Clicked, on MSNBC.com: (first link)
• The MTV blog (linked form 5th paragraph) [2]
• Michael jackson's official site (second link)
• Rachel Maddow's Map Room, on msnbc.com (about 8 links down at the time of this posting)

It also appears internationally here (Dutch), here (Italian), and here (Polish). The image's creator discusses its going viral here, and about 1/3 to 1/2 way down he discusses the many other places it has also been discussed or appeared.

If it isn't noteworthy for this article, then it shouldn't stay, but I think it is noteworthy here: it indicates how common sampling is, using a popular musician to do so. All of this being so, are there still objections to its inclusion? -Badger151 (talk) 13:17, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Distinction between Sampling (borrowing from other songs) and Sampling (getting a recording of a single instrument to play back at other frequencies)

The concepts of Sampling as in "Borrowing from other songs" and Sampling as in "getting recordings of single instruments for a synthesizer" are completely unrelated, and shouldn't be put together.--Dwedit (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Hammer & Michael Bolton

An IP has added material about [3] Michael Bolton and MC Hammer to this article. The IP came to my talk page, so I've brought it here for further discussion and consensus.

The Michael Bolton section seemed to just be about cover songs, and had no relevance to the sampling issue. As for the Hammer material, he did sample on his album (obviously). However, the sampling article isn't just a list of every artist who sampled on their album. The other artists mentioned are Vanilla Ice, Biz Markie, Shut Up and Dance, and the Verve, all of which are very significant moments in sampling because of the legal issues involved. Each is well referenced in terms of the legal issues the songs/albums brought up, royalties, lawsuits, clearances, etc. Hammer's album is just mentioned as an album that sampled other music, with no notability in terms of long-term affect on sampling. Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I'm an editor not an IP. Second, I have removed the Bolton songs since they were covers - as I have already told you on your talk page. Regarding Hammer, if anything he was the most "famous" artist criticized in history for the use of sampling (perhaps opinion but I'm trying to make a point). It even added to the loss of his popularity in some ways. It is very well documented. It would make sense instead of continuing to revert the edits, to discuss it as you have finally done here per my eventual request. This avoids edit wars. Additionally, it should remain until the "consensus" agrees/disagrees on the topic. Lastly, you have not researched the pages the statements are linked to, the sites, the resources/citations, nor the additional information added (which is also included in the Wiki article about Hammer) about the lawsuit that supports this. It is not made clear to my knowledge that sampling only is defined as the way you have decided to define it. Many articles list facts about a topic without indepth analysis. They also don't all follow a resource, as you have to take the entire matter into context (assume the "big picture"). I don't care to "win", I am merely adding to this topic to enhance it. Whether it stays or not is not my goal. It is defending what is right, and that is that Hammer had a major impact in the sampling industry of music (without question). I have done a MAJOR portion of his page on my own over time, and this is a matter I am well aware of. That is not to say I'm right, but we MUST give the benefit of the doubt on edits, have respect, not continue to revert to "win an edit war" and to research first. This is not an attack on anyone specifically but rather an "fyi" to assist in this process for the future. Add, leave, discuss and then agree. Either way, it is factual and listing the information regardless is not harmful to the article nor is it vandalism. I know you're not claiming that, I'm just saying. For some editors, it takes time for them to include every detail or to fix mistakes. For one reason or another, life exists off the internet and certainly off this site. My issue was my Internet wasn't staying connected but I have resolved the entire edit now. The edit is not "out-of-line" in any way and can be left as it totally supports the topic. If I left the Bolton info, that may be something to discuss. But I didn't realize those were only covers, yet nonetheless are still forms of sampling. It doesn't matter to list him, but the "backlash" that Hammer and Bolton received at that time (if you recall or are old enough to remember or can research on your own) makes it a point well adding to the page (as are the others listed). There doesn't have to be a limit of which artists get to be included in a topic that isn't about a specific genre. The page is called "Sampling", not just the artists you listed. We can not cherry pick who we want to include if others are applicable. It would beehove us all to expand the article as much as possible, as that is a Wiki objective. Thank you for your understanding and I appreciate the opportunity to bring closure to this in a mature and respectful way according to Wiki guidelines. In the future, I trust others won't be so quick to dismiss something without discussing it nicely as to the reason why it was included. Have a great day/night! 63.131.4.149 (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You linked to "old edits" not the fixed one that you were aware of before posting this talk topic. (To my knowledge.) 63.131.4.149 (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: After reviewing the article better, I concede to the point that the info about Hammer and other artists I included were better placed in another section (Recordings and popular examples). But to delete it entirely wasn't warranted. I now see the structure of the article better which escaped me when the Internet was acting up, as well as the fact that some entries (ie. Mariah Carey) didn't seem to follow the main topic of "Legal issues" regarding sampling. Nonetheless, the mention of Hammer's lawsuit will remain in the right section (eventually added after my initial entry), and again, the others have been moved/added to another topic simply regarding famous/popular artists who have sampled oldies. Those I've included made "long-term affects on sampling" in pop-culture, resulting in documented success. At any rate, for my part with any mistakes, I apologize and hope this clears the matter up. Peacefully, 63.131.4.149 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Readding rearranging like sampling

I see someone removed my "producers on sampling" section. Good job; after all, what use does a fully sourced section which fully explains an arcane article subject from the point of view of its practitioners have in a Wikipedia article? Certainly not as much as an exhaustive listing of peripheral lawsuits, that's for sure. If said quotes had been split up into a longer section which used explanatory text between each of them, nobody would have removed it; it hardly seems reasonable then to remove it when it plainly doesn't need any due to the strength of the selected quotes themselves. The existence of Wikiquote should not mean all quotes ever should be expunged from Wikipedia, particularly not the quotes which actually serve the purpose of explaining the subject of the goddamn article itself, i.e. fulfilling the aim to which the article was presumably consulted. There is a large list of zany modern adaptations at the end of every Shakespeare play article, there is a sizeable section in Nelson Mandela's article about pop culture depictions of him; perhaps the foundation should invest in a site called Wikirrelevance so all such crap can be sent there. I also can't really imagine someone removing a list of explanatory quotes from an article on renaissance drama or magnetohydrodynamics or taekwondo; but I guess sampling is one of those topics where it's okay for people to not know what the fuck they're talking about. I will restore the quotes section. I will also put the "legal issues" section to the bottom of the article; having at the top is akin to putting a large multi-paragraph section about Borat at the start of the article on Kazakhstan. --Jamieli (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Additional citations

Why and where does this article need additional citations for verification? What references does it need and how should they be added? Hyacinth (talk) 18:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It needs additional citations for verification throughout (MOST sections are completely unsourced). In needs additional citations because verifiability is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. - SummerPhD (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Spoken word

Seems like the Spoken word section could be improved a bit, to have more of a historical perspective, including early uses of spoken-word samples in music (e.g., at least back to early 1970s Pink Floyd), instead of simply being a hodge-podge of seemingly arbitrary examples. - dcljr (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Technical Definition of Sampling

I believe that a more concise definition of "sampling" should be listed here. What is sampling? Is it just opening your Record app on your phone while listening to a song on iTunes? Or is it something more specific. I am investigating the technical definition and will be appending it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abrahamrhoffman (talk • contribs)

While not really useful as a source the question has a good answer at Quora: What is the difference between plagiarism and parody, sampling or other forms of fair use? // Liftarn (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Timbaland

The Timbaland story doesn't belong in this article. The "Legal issues" section should be an overview of the subject, with key examples that set precedents or provide some sort of wider insight. I'm not saying the section is perfect, but all the other content is there to serve that purpose.

It isn't supposed to be an indiscriminate list of every sampling controversy, of which there have been hundreds or thousands. It isn't clear what is notable about the Timbaland example as part of the wider context. It's just a minor dispute. It doesn't fit. Popcornduff (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It's notable for several reasons not counting it involved a big name producer. First because in this case lifting an entire track, muting the bassline, adding drums and song on top of it was claimed to be sampling. It is also interesting because the legal verdict that says that if you release something online you will have to register it for copyright in the USA or you are unprotected if someone rips you off. // Liftarn (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Liftarn: The article doesn't say any of that though. Nor do any of the sources you added. Additionally, of the three sources you added here, one is unreliable and the other goes to a completely unrelated Guardian article. Popcornduff (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have corrected the sources. But they still don't say what you're saying. Popcornduff (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you will probably go to the full article for that. // Liftarn (talk) 15:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to remove this section again, as none of the sources indicate that it's notable in a wide context. Popcornduff (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Please don't as it's a very well known case both legally and ethically. The case have received major coverage. // Liftarn (talk) 08:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

OK... but you're not responding to my objection.

This section should be an overview of cases that have had a lasting impact on the legal and ethical debate around sampling. Every other paragraph in the section links each example to the wider context - for example, the Beastie Boys album Paul's Boutique is cited as an example of an album that could not be made today because of changing laws.

The Timbaland example is just one of a billion examples of disputes and falling-outs over sampling and plagiarism. We could fill this section with countless such examples. But in a summary of the debates around sampling, it's useless.

Can you respond to any of this with an argument beyond "this example is well known"? (I'm not convinced even of that.) Popcornduff (talk) 08:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Without sources dilineating it’s importance/impact, it shouldn’t be included. Sergecross73 msg me 14:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The Timbaland case is rather special both from legal and ethical standpoint. Ethically since it's pushes the limit of what is sampling. Timbaland staes that unless he breaks into your house and physically steal your tracks it's only sampling. Legally it's only interesting because the resulting case showed that if you publish your music online your are legally unable to prevent US producers from publishing it as their own work unless you register for a US copyright. // Liftarn (talk) 15:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That's your analysis. Article/sources don't say that. Popcornduff (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually they do, but I have condensed it. Also see https://medium.com/cuepoint/was-timbalands-skillful-sampling-a-cultural-crime-e756da16f095 that shows the case is still relevant at least nine years afterwards. // Liftarn (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Medium isn't a reliable source - anyone can upload content to it. Popcornduff (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Medium's reliability aside, that article has nothing in it to support your position. It's just another description of the plagiarism case. Can you provide a single sentence from any source that demonstrates the long-term importance and impact of the case? Popcornduff (talk) 07:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That may be true, but we’re looking for some non-anecdotal evidence here. Wikipedia isn’t the place for editors to add their own editorials. That sort of info needs to come from reliable sources. Sergecross73 msg me 15:55, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Referenced in 2016 at https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/six-more-times-timbalands-samples-185053358.html // Liftarn (talk) 11:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Broken link. Popcornduff (talk) 12:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Fixed it. Also in Promising Practices in 21st Century Music Teacher Education (Oxford University Press, 1 sep. 2014, page 207) it says it is "a process that continues years later". // Liftarn (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Once again, this source contains no evidence that the case has had any impact on the ethics or laws around sampling. Popcornduff (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It does day that. // Liftarn (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, since you seem to be having a hard time convincing people - Please provide the exact content you want in the article, and an exact excerpt(s) from the source(s) that you believe fully supports the statement. Lay it all out exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That book is a compilation of essays and the relevant one is 21st-century musicianship through digital media and participatory culture by Evan S. Tobias and the author says the Timbaland case started the rise of what he calls "collective forensic musicology" where people online analyse music to see if it plagiarises other artists. // Liftarn (talk) 08:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn’t providing all of the components that I asked for. It doesn’t help that you chose to use the one sources that isn’t easily check-able. I’m trying to have you concretely prove that a source you’ve provided verifies the content you want to add. The above does not do this. Sergecross73 msg me 11:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

With some minimal effort it can easily be found at for instance Google Books[4] Perhaps it's time for me to stop guessing and ask what exactly you want a source for and what kind of sourcing you want. Alternatively you may suggest other ways for formulate the text. // Liftarn (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is precisely why I suggested what I did above, that you have failed to follow through on. Please provide an example of the exact content you’d want to have in the article, the source that verifies it, and the quote from the source that you feels verified the content. If you can directly pinpoint all three, we should be able to, in turn, tell which parts are, or are not, verified by the sources, which in turn, would tell us which parts are or are not appropriate for the article. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's very simple. There are two main facts, a) Timbaland took a track and published it as his own work, b) he claimed that was "sampling". The exact wording is up for discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Liftarn... this is getting frustrating. Neither of those points demonstrate any long term impact on the ethics or law of sampling, which is the one thing I've been asking you for for about a month now. Popcornduff (talk) 08:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is very frustrating as I have proved exactly that. It is very difficult so discuss with someone who just goes "No, no, no. I'm not listening." all the time. // Liftarn (talk) 08:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please quote, here, text from a reliable source that you believe demonstrates what we are asking for. Popcornduff (talk) 08:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please state what you are asking for. "Timbaland took a track and published it as his own work" Sourced! he claimed that was "sampling" Sourced! It had a lasting impact. Sourced!. Now what else do you need? // Liftarn (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please quote, here, text from a reliable source that you believe demonstrates that the Timbaland case has had a notable long-term impact on the ethics and laws of sampling. Popcornduff (talk) 09:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned above the case is now used as an example in music education. Good enough? // Liftarn (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

You're clearly unable to provide what the article needs and the section should be removed. I'll see if I can get opinions from more editors. Popcornduff (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Any suggestions? Popcornduff (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That you pretend the sources don't exist don't mean they are not there. Please state clearly what you think "the article needs" and also please explain why you think the sources provided are not enough. // Liftarn (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m still not convinced this is an important example that needs to be singled out. You still haven’t shown a source that indicates importance or impact, and you still hasn’t provided an excerpt from a source to establish that. Sergecross73 msg me 10:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring it won't make it go away[5] // Liftarn (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Please quote, here, text from this source that you believe demonstrates that the Timbaland case has had a notable long-term impact on the ethics and laws of sampling. Popcornduff (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So we should just ignore that the Timbaland case is used in a book about music education? Isn't that enough the problem isn't with the sourcing or what it says. // Liftarn (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not enough. We have already explained what we need. Several times. Popcornduff (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I have provided it, several times so the problem does not appear to be with the sourcing. So now I wonder what the actual problem is. // Liftarn (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We’ve asked to to provide an excerpt from a source that stated proof of importance or impact. Do you know what the word excerpt means? Because you absolutely have not provided that. Sergecross73 msg me 12:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

[6]

Yet more

Liftarn, the text you added fails on two counts:

• I raised some concerns about the text on the dispute resolution page. MrClog asked you: Are you willing to change the text to address Popcornduff's concern? and you replied Yes, I can do it. You then added the text without addressing my concern.

• More seriously, the version of the text you added is not supported by the sources you included. Please do the legwork to use the sources that support the text. See WP:BURDEN: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Popcornduff (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• • The text is exactly the one from the dispute resolution.
  • Please be clear, exactly what do you claim is not supported by sources? Perhaps you can add some fact templates where you feel the sources is not to you liking. // Liftarn (talk) 13:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

• It is not the "exact text we agreed upon" as you wrote on the dispute resolution page. I am frankly staggered that you think this. Not only did you ignore the concerns MrClog asked you to respond to, you also added this text: Apart from the lyrics the song was nearly identical to used a piece from 2000 for the Commodore 64. Until I removed it in a recent edit, you also added the text He also said "the dude is trying to act like I went to his house and took it from his computer". We did not agree to these inclusions!
• As for your poor sourcing, here's an example: owned by the Finnish record label Kernel Records without permission, claiming it to be sampling. This is backed by a reference leading to a Guardian article which makes no reference to the case in question. The final sentence also is backed by two irrelevant references. I wrote this paragraph as a compromise based on a source you provided and you haven't used the source anywhere in the text. Popcornduff (talk) 14:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have fixed that now. You see, when you actually say what the problem is it is much easier for me to fix. // Liftarn (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

You've fixed nothing. Popcornduff (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Um, in case the above comment wasn't clear enough: you literally fixed nothing. You added an extra (irrelevant and unreliable) source and left all the other problems intact. Popcornduff (talk) 04:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I did fix the one and only problem you could be bothered to point out.[7] If you feel there are any other issues I kindly ask you to tell me about them. // Liftarn (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Reread what I said above. And the source you added is unreliable and can't be used. Popcornduff (talk) 06:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You claim that, but that has no basis in reality. Sorry, you have to try harder than that. // Liftarn (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Liftarn, over the past few months (I shudder to consider the time I have wasted on this) you have made it clear that you have no ability to understand simple requests and no understanding of how sourcing works in Wikipedia.

So, to recap. In the interest of compromise, I wrote a new version of the disputed paragraph, focusing on making it relevant to the article subject. You made some changes. I raised some concerns. MrClog asked you: Are you willing to change the text to address Popcornduff's concern and then implement it in the article. You said yes, then added it to the article without addressing my concerns, plus two additional sentences no one agreed to, with completely the wrong sources. I explained the problems with this several times, but still you did not correct them. In fact, you only added another bad, irrelevant source, making the text worse still.

I have now fixed all these problems for you.

Recognise that no one but you wants to include this information. As Sergecross73 said, this ridiculous debate would have ended far sooner if only it hadn't been so monumentally tedious that more than three people had been involved. Your stubbornness has eaten up hours of volunteer time. Congratulations. Now stop. Popcornduff (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You deleted a lot of sources. That is a bit ironic considering you complained about sources missing. This whole discussion have been like talking with a grumpy grandma.

-What is wrong?

-Everyting!

-Could you perhaps say something?

-No, I've told you.

-I did not got that. Could you perhaps say it again?

-No, I've already told you. Everything is wrong.

This gets very tedious. // Liftarn (talk) 11:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Look, put the exact agreed upon version in there, or it doesn’t go in, simple as that. You don’t have consensus for anything else. Sergecross73 msg me 11:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As of writing[8] there is a slight difference in the text. The agreed upon test starts with "In 2011, the US producer Timbaland" while the article text starts with "In 2007, producer Timbaland". // Liftarn (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As of writing[9] the text is exactly as agreed upon. // Liftarn (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't.

In the dispute resolution discussion, I wrote: From a copyediting perspective "claiming it to be sampling" ain't too hot. I could find other ways of phrasing that, but why do we need to hedge it at all? Sampling is sampling whether you do it legally or not. And besides, Timbaland can't claim to have sampled it and say it was his own work.

MrClog asked you: Are you willing to change the text to address Popcornduff's concern and then implement it in the article. Also, do you plan on maintaining the article (as per Sergecross's concern)?

You replied: Sure, I can do it. You have not addressed my concern. Popcornduff (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I have used the agreed upon text as well as provide sources for all claims. You voived concerns are thus adressed. // Liftarn (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The text you used was not agreed upon. You have not changed the text to address my concern. If you continue to ignore consensus and revert all changes I'm going to take this to the administrator's noticeboard and we'll deal with it there. Popcornduff (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

It is the exact text. I evern ran a diff on it to see if there was any differences and there are none. If you want to ignore the agreement then perhaps an escalation indeed is necessary. There is a difference between sampling and plagiarism.[10] Sampling is defined as "using pieces of music or pre-existing audio recordings and using some portion, even very small portions, in your music", but plagiarism is "when you take someone’s actual work and claim to have made it yourself". // Liftarn (talk) 12:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Liftarn, for crying out loud. Please let us just remove the "claiming it to be sampling" part plus the reference you added. This part was not agreed to, you have no consensus for it. And you don't need it: the text and the source already says Timbaland sampled it. Delete it and then we can all go to bed. Popcornduff (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As I see it that was in the text we both agreed upon and it was just some sourcing fixes that was necessary. The issue is that Timbaland plagiarised it, but he claimed he sampled it. There is a difference that should be made clear in the text. You you have a better way to express it feel free to come up with a better phrasing. // Liftarn (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

He sampled it. It's literally sampling. The source (not the .txt file you want to add) says he sampled it. Popcornduff (talk) 14:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

He claimed that (and btw, it's a radio interview, not a .txt file). In reality he plagiarised it.[11][12] // Liftarn (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sampling is sampling whether you sample legally or not. Popcornduff (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Legally sampling don't exists as a term used for music[13] so what we are talking about here is the ethics part and there it's a clear difference between plagiarism and sampling. // Liftarn (talk) 07:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Observations

It doesn't look good to the admins and other editors at WP:ANI if a dispute has already been to WP:DRN and has failed, which it has, and it appears that someone has been editing disruptively. I have not researched who is at fault. I would advise that the next 48 hours is a good time either to file the RFC, which among other things will mean that no one can then disagree as to what was agreed on, or to work something out so that this doesn't have to go to WP:ANI, which might wind up with a two-way topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon I've already decided to walk away from this. If you or any other experienced editor feels like examining this here, I'm happy to give my side of things again, but I won't be pursuing it actively myself. The editor is a lost cause. Popcornduff (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be stable now and it looks like it may be possible to work it out now that the blind blanking has stopped. // Liftarn (talk) 07:03, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Harris.ansari.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 October 2019 and 13 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): In2theabiss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)