What is an edit and what is an original?

#1

I made this “edit” a bit over a year ago after hearing the original and feeling like it would’ve done great as a housey/lo-fi track if i sped it up and just “kicked and snared” it.
When I went to upload it I considered claiming it as my own track but I very quickly came to the conclusion that this was not the way to go about it because I didnt feel a substantial amount of effort was put in place by myself (you be the judge obviously).
I don’t know why I thought this because for so long I considered this form of sampling and re packaging ok (Robot Rock - Daft Punk is the earliest to come to mind) but now I’m not so sure. I’d love to hear the 555’s thoughts and gauge how people perceive the issue as listeners, dj’s and/or music makers. Peace

#2

I like edits. I tend to listen to a lot of grime edits which tend to leave the sounds alone but are quite hyperactive with chopping the track up (see Boss Mischief or some of the stuff on Pearly Whites), so imo it’s a bit different.

Elijah from Butterz did a twitter thread abt it. Consensus seemed to be that it was ok to DJ or play on radio, but not to fully stream or make available for purchase? And suggestion was to talk to the artist & see what they think.

#4

Personally, this looks bad to me especially because the original artists are black women and (as far as I can tell from your pictures) you’re a white man. We white men have been stealing (not only metaphorically) and not giving enough credit or space to non-white people and to women in general forever, and we all should do better.

If this makes sense to you, I’d recommend learning more about the subject, both reading online and talking to people. By the way I live in Berlin too, and many people in the music and club scene care about this. It’s relatively easy to find people to talk with, or attend talks and workshops about this.

To get back to the specific question, I’d err on the side of caution for the reasons stated above, and I’d name SWV already in the edit track title.

#5

Edits and remixes should always be credited to the original artist, imho.

To me: edits are minor changes from the original, mostly time wise, make the song longer for the dance floor or shorter for the radio, with few or no other changes. While remixes are major changes to song structure, sounds, samples and so on. A remix doesn’t really need to sound like the original, but should still be credited to the artist.

And refix…I have no bloody Idea.

#6

Slightly misread original post so just adding that I think edits should always be labelled giving credit to original track & artist rather than giving the impression it’s a total original. :v:️

#7

I can see and understand completely that credit should be given to the original artist (in all content for that matter) but what I’m noticing more of is artists claiming original status when there has been a heavy handed sample used. It’s only really played on my mind more recently as I’ve been accidentally finding/hearing original tracks that I had no idea were sampled in newer tracks that I just thought were original. Sometimes it’s personally justified but sometimes it’s not and I just wanted to get a clearer picture from other active music peeps.

#8

It’s a pickle. An interesting debate, too. You can obviously argue that without the original production arrangement the edit or remix just wouldn’t exist, but at the same time the editor can make the most spectacularly simple and inspired changes that still give the original material a completely new sound and dimension. Changes that nobody else thought of or tried and which kind of implies an authorship of sorts.

#9

I guess it just depends on how the sample is used and how different it is structurally. I’m not sure the ‘blatantness’ matters. e.g. a lot of footwork uses v blatant samples but the chopping & repetition turns it into something totally new.

When you’re starting a track do you think of it as an edit of a track, a remix, or a totally original composition that might interpolate an idea from another track using sampling? All v blurred lines.

I do remember a few years ago ppl getting in trouble for labelling edits / remakes as their own work. e.g. Hannah Wants & some Boddika track, Zomby’s got in trouble for similar stuff.

#10

I think you did right with giving credits to the original. Maybe it would be cool in 2018 to give credits even to the samples people are using? I mean you have whosampled.com and all. Is there are a need to be secretive about this anymore?

With regards what @pixi said: For me it’s a difference if you sample stuff from marginalized groups (or doing edits) - or if you’re going to making money and fame with this. I think it’s about respecting the original source and giving credits. and thinking about what to do with edits for example.
But for me creativity comes first. Do whatever you want, take inspirations from whatever and twist it your own way. I think it is a bad idea to make restrictions what to sample and what not. (It would be even more logical to avoid sampling at all.)

#11

Isn’t there a thrill of finding, making and using a sample that works perfectly in a track, and an equal thrill in being the listener spotting it? Will often hear a pop song on the radio and recognise a hook I’ve heard used in another track.

Admittedly if the sample is the crux of the whole song, perhaps credit should be explicitly mentioned.

But by crediting every sample does it kinda spoil the magic?

#12

Haha, it was just a quick idea! You’re absolutely right, I really love the magic too!

#13

V topical it seems. Kanye sampling PAN’s Mono No Aware compilation without permission: https://twitter.com/PAN_hq/status/1002540965180203009

Kanye West sampling Mono No Aware. What are your thoughts?
#14


funny for a big maga hat man married to a kardashian to say. he obv isnt being exploited out of economic survival :unamused: