Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:49:21.004Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The ethics of digital audio-sampling: engineers' discourse

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2008

Extract

Over the course of the past several years the use of digital audio-sampling by composers, musicians, engineers and producers has increased to a point where the sampler is now as common in the recording studio as the microphone. Digital samplers allow one to encode a fragment of sound, from one to several seconds in duration, in a digitised binary form which can then be stored in computer memory. This stored sound may be played back through a keyboard, with its pitch and tonal qualities accurately reproduced or, as is often the case, manipulated through electronic editing. Because of its unsurpassed mimetic capabilities, one common use of the sampler has been to store in computer memory a note or set of notes played by an individual who has a unique playing style. When played back through a keyboard, one could construct an entire solo line which would potentially sound as if that person were playing it. Another common use of the sampler is to extract a fragment of sound from one context and place it in a new one, with no appreciable loss of sound quality over each generation of extraction and repositioning. These three capabilities of the sampler – the mimetic/reproductive, the manipulative and the extractive – are crucial to understanding both the sampler's popularity and its potential to disrupt the production process in the music industry.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alvaro, Susan. 1986. ‘What is musical property: the ethics of sampling’, Keyboard (10), pp. 10, 157Google Scholar
Becker, Howard. 1982. Art Worlds (Berkeley)Google Scholar
Chipp, Herschel. 1968. Theories of Modern Art: A Source Book by Artists and Critics (Berkeley)Google Scholar
DeCurtis, Anthony. 1986. ‘Who owns a sound? Copyright questions raised by digital-sampling devices’, Rolling Stone, 4 12Google Scholar
Dupler, Steven. 1986. ‘Digital sampling: is it theft? Technology raises copyright questions’. Billboard, 2 08, pp. 1, 74Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Language, Counter-Memory, Practice, ed. Bouchard, D.F. (Oxford)Google Scholar
Frith, Simon. 1986. ‘Art versus technology: the strange case of popular music’, Media, Culture & Society, 8(3), pp. 263–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodwin, Andrew. 1988. ‘Sample and hold: pop music in the digital age of reproduction’, Critical Quarterly, 30(3), pp. 3449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grabel, Richard. 1988. ‘Stealing from records is not sampling’, Billboard, 6 02Google Scholar
Grula, Richard. 1988. ‘Sampling suit names engineer’, ProSound News, 13 10, pp. 1, 22Google Scholar
Holland, Bill and Dupler, Steven. 1986. ‘Experts doubt legality of sampling: digital technology may violate copyright law’, Billboard, 9 08, pp. 4, 84Google Scholar
Kealy, Edward. 1979. ‘From craft to art: the case of sound mixers and popular music’, Sociology of Work and Occupations 6(1), pp. 329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pietz, William. 1987. ‘The phonograph in Africa: international phonocentrism from Stanley to Sarnoff’, Poststructuralism and the Question of History, ed. Attridge, D., Bennington, G. and Young, R. (Cambridge), pp. 263–85Google Scholar
Ross-Trevor, Mike. 1980. ‘The recording engineer’, The Music Goes Round and Round, ed. Grammond, P. and Horrocks, R. (London), pp. 117–34Google Scholar