The use of samples and loops in compositions

I've been writing and recording since 2006, and have had thousands of placements all over the world. I had a production company interested in taking my music, but said in their email they didn't want any tracks that used samples or loops. I clarified this with them, and they said it can 'cause a problem with PRS if the tracks trigger an alternative track that used the same sample'. I then made the mistake of Googling this, and it told me I should avoid using loops and samples, and try and replicate the sound myself instead?!? This seems utter madness.

As I've bought a number of libraries from NI and others, some of which have presets which are melodic phrases, I was really taken aback by this, and have never come across this before. 99% of my tracks have some kind of loop in them, or pre-determined melodic phrase, but most definitely a percussion track like the ones I have from you.

So I just wondered if anyone has ever come across this before? Any feedback you can give would be most appreciated.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

LostInFoundation

I don’t find it so strange.

It’s your right to use loops for which you have the permission.

It’s the company’s right to want something different.

And their concerns are legit: the same loops/samples could be used in someone’s else work(s). Not so strange they want to avoid it

MarkSer

did you check back with them that their is no misunderstanding e.g. no samples from other artists' work and releases? I could see the case here very clearly, but for samples and loops from packs and libraries would be utter madness and tear down a lot of producers' catalogue.

LostInFoundation

Every sample is the work from other artists. They just sell it and agree that you use it.

But the point raised by the company is another one: you have the right to use samples/loops from packs/expansions you bought.

But thousands of other buyers have the same right: someone else could use them in their work. Or already have used them. They want to avoid this

Rokold

Thanks for coming back to me, and apologies for my late response.

I appreciate all your comments, and understand what you are saying. I'm just a little taken aback as as I mentioned, I've never come across this issue before.

To my mind, as someone who has bought a number of sample libraries, especially recently with NI's session guitarist products which I find really useful, I justify to myself using pre-existing melodic loops and phrases as being like a musical chef. A chef doesn't event the ingredients they use (tomatoes, herbs, spices etc), but it's how they blend and develop these with each other which creates the meal they then make. To that end, yes, hundreds of thousands of musicians and composers around the world presumably perhaps do all use the same melodic phrases and loops, but it's surely how they use them, in what context as a component of an overall piece that makes the difference.

And where do you draw the line? Is a pulsing synth preset the same as a loop, as I use one on virtually all my rock tracks.

Anyway, as I said, I appreciate and understand your responses, it just makes me a little wary of using some or most of a bank of real favourites I have which I've used on a lot of projects, in case someone else complains I've used the same samples as they have.

I still feel I'm creating a musical meal, using pre-existing ingredients which are available to thousands of others who have also bought the same libraries as I have. Yes, I suppose I could invent my own, but they would still be based on a pre-set or sample I have heard, so what's the point? I just think my musical meal overall tastes different to other peoples.

PoorFellow

I think that some times when there is a problem with the use of 'samples' and 'loops' then it is a misunderstanding and whoever have the problem with the use didn't look properly into the issue. I think I read something a while back that someone had had an uploaded track rejected because of the use of N.I. samples that made it sound like some other track that also used the sound/sample and I think that they had the issue cleared up in as much as their use of the samples/loops were legit.

However I think that in reality it is going to vary very much if you can get things accepted since it is infinite easier to just reject and skip any bother than it would be for them to actually look into any and every subject or problem.

I don't know if e.g. N.I. Support (all) possibly have any advice or would be interested in giving advice but you could ask or alternatively then since Kaiwan_NI deals with music communities on a larger scale then maybe she has some advice about what to do ? @Kaiwan_NI ?

LostInFoundation

https://community.native-instruments.com/discussion/comment/235535#Comment_235535

You made a nice analogy with the cooking world. And you are not completely wrong.

But… if you talk about a melodic loop… then, imo, this is not a basic ingredient… it is something already cooked, spiced and almost “finished”.
It is normal that another piece using the same melodic loop will “taste” as the other one. Even if you put different drums on it.

The ingredient is the guitar, not the melody played with it. That is already something elaborated, a “step forward”

It’s like if you use McDonald’s sauce (which is the loop, composed by different ingredients) but you put it on a different type of meat. Yeah… the 2 dishes will not be the same… but the taste will be very similar. And a company could always say “I don’t want it to taste similar to McDonald’s burgers”. And, as the company you mentioned told you, they could be afraid of McDonalds having something to say about it. Even if they don’t own the exclusive right to use the ingredients that compose the sauce.

It’s a difficult field… specially, as you said, when you talk about a single sound. But, some cases could be very clear: take Cypress Hill’s iconic sound in Insane in the Brain.
It’s just a sound… (which, between, they sampled from another record which contained an horse making this sound with his mouth). But if anyone else would use it, everyone would say “That’s Insane in the Brain sound!”. And the guy who re-used it could not say “it’s just a sound, I used it differently” or “Oh…I didn’t knew it”…

And… even if he owns the rights to use it, and he uses it very differently, everyone will say anyway “yeah… but it’s Insane in the Brain sound”…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOcyKObnwg4&list=RDXOcyKObnwg4&start_radio=1

In the case of loops, it’s even worst: yeah… you can use them differently, but… you are in any case using something someone else already used.

One example: Little Simz used this bass loop to make a very nice song. But… it will remain a Ramsey Lewis piece of work, which, between, had already been used similarly by DJ Lethal (and many others…).
The work of Little Simz remains nice and appreciable (btw with a very nice video which is in itself an homage to previous videos from other artists) … but… is it really “original”? She was clever enough to make everything fall under that “homage” hat…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7xzmkpwNoA

The case is even more complicated when, instead of spending time researching yourself something you like and you want to use in other people’s discs to then flip it, rearrange it and make of it something different, you just use something you bought in a “sample library”.

Yeah… I don’t find it so strange that you could feel like a “chef” cooking his music but someone else could not see it the same way…

Rokold

Wow, many thanks once again for such an interesting and comprehensive reply which raises some interesting points. I must emphasise once again, I would never sample anything, not even a sound from an existing recording, and rework it, as I do think that's not acceptable. So the loops and melodic phrases I use come from libraries I've bought, and are generally more rhythmical than melodic, although some are both, and are generally pulses and ARPs using a single note base note. They then become a component within a piece I create.

Some libraries I have do have full loops though, made up of all sections (orchestra, brass, choir, everything) which I also think is daft, but I sometimes use particular parts from them, a cello sample, a sound effect etc and then add my own twist.

There's 'only' 88 keys on a keyboard, so I imagine every conceivable combination of notes has been used at some time by somebody, so for a library to tell me they want something completely unique, using sounds, riffs and note combinations that no-one has ever heard before is just beyond me. What I can suggest is I'll send them tracks using sounds available to all who purchase them, but perhaps in a dish they may not have tasted before…. something like that anyway.

LostInFoundation

See? Everyone sees samples and loops in a different way ☺️

Btw: if you sample from someone else’s disc but you ask for permission, would it not become “acceptable”?

Another example: Johnny Cash made a cover version of Nine Inch Nails’ Hurt… and he made it even his “testament song” (he died shortly after making it).

Of course he asked for permission… and made it completely different.

Trent Reznor didn’t only agree… he was honored and touched…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AHCfZTRGiI

(Btw: another FANTASTIC video, one that brings you to tears)

Rokold

Yes, that's much different, as a cover I have no issue with that, in fact I like those, taking a song and covering it, but in a different style. I've done rock covers of Girls Aloud (Call the Shots) and Tears for Fears (Mad World) in the past.

If you sample something and get permission, I have no issue with that at all.

Thanks for the videos BTW, I shall watch them all in due course.

Quick links

Unanswered questions