How Copyright Affected the Musical Style and Critical Reception of Sample-Based Hip-Hop

Abstract

In 1991, the first lawsuit regarding sample-based hip hop, Grand Upright Music Ltd. v. Warner Brothers Records, was decided in court, and this decision forever changed how artists and their record labels approached sample-based hip hop. Although several lawsuits had been filed before 1991, all of those were settled out of court. There was no established legal precedent until this particular case. After 1991, artists changed how they sampled, largely out of fear of copyright infringement lawsuits. Hip-hop artists adapted and modified their musical language to accommodate the reduced availability of samples. Considering the music of five hip-hop groups, all of whom released sample-based music before and after 1991, I have developed a typology to quantify how the sample-based music of the Beastie Boys, De La Soul, Public Enemy, Salt ’n’ Pepa, and A Tribe Called Quest changed after 1991. The typology, which is a classification system for every individual sample in a sample-based hip-hop track, is a concrete language for discussing the structural components in sample-based hip hop. As we will see, each group adapted their production styles in interesting and creative ways in order to accommodate fewer available samples. While some scholars such as Kembrew McLeod, Peter DiCola, Joanna Demers, and Siva Vaidhyanathan claim that the sample clearance system has only negative consequences for musicians, I would argue that these outcomes for the musicians are not necessarily positive or negative. The current scholarly conversation about sample-based music from this period is framed by rhetoric in which the hip-hop producers are the innocent bystanders who fall victim to the evil record labels, greedy copyright holders, and sneaky sample troll companies. A typological analysis of this music is a means of quantifying how the musicians adapted their production in light of fewer available samples. This is not to minimize the importance of copyright law and its effect on artistic and creative processes, of course. I agree wholeheartedly