Freesound Forums

How do we decide if a file is a sample or a sound?

my personal opinion:

if the sound is under 1 minute and there's doubt, I let it pass.

this is very 'personal' and might make people angy, so i'm asking all of you, how do you differentiate between a sound and a song?

- Bram

The purpose of the creator determinates it imo, anyway something composed using other sounds haves more possibilities to be a song instead of a sound. It's complexity and the ammount of composing makes a diference... Size can be important yes.

You could say that a song is a composition of 'multiple' layers of sound.
maybe some kind of restriction on the number of layers?
in combination with length...?

any fixed restrictive rules relating to layers will find exceptions, i am sure

this is somewhat of a problem that i was a bit confused about. i was initally thinking that at freesound, you could upload any audio that would fall under the creative commons. it's a relative decision to say what's going to be considered a song, or just a sound,....
i know there seems to be the cliche of "woooooooo.....everything's music maaaan....wooooooo!! la la"
though there may be some truth to that, conversely couldn't you say that anything is sound? music is sound, but is all sound music? vice versa....AARGG!
i'm not being very productive...
but i'd rather say, ...let's list the pros and cons of letting people post any sound ..including music that they make under the creative commons license.

one reason why i'd say it'd be a good idea, is because we can then make some real use of that remix tree....i don't know about anyone else, but when i hear the word remix, i think of actually taking other sonic ideas, sounds, whatever, and then using them to create something new...that's part of the beauty that was early hip hop music...this type of thing can't happen in the commercial real world of today because people ahve become anal about IP rights, but under the creative commons and through the use of the internet, creative expression can take place ...specifically through the art of the remix.
i was considering posting a few samples ...the story goes like this :
for my music and computers class...i took a snippet from someone playing claude debussy's claire de lune, ...i send the sample to a friend who put a beat under it and made another versino that was resampled at higher pitch and speed, ....i decided to take the two and overlap them together...and add more effects...and we've created something new each time. ......
i probably wouldn't post it anyway because i have to check if it's ok to use that particular recording of debussy, but say for example that i was allowed to use the sample....
would it be appropriate to post it on freesound? or would it be inappropriate?

aarondbaron
this is somewhat of a problem that i was a bit confused about. i was initally thinking that at freesound, you could upload any audio that would fall under the creative commons. it's a relative decision to say what's going to be considered a song, or just a sound,....
i know there seems to be the cliche of "woooooooo.....everything's music maaaan....wooooooo!! la la"
though there may be some truth to that, conversely couldn't you say that anything is sound? music is sound, but is all sound music? vice versa....AARGG!
i'm not being very productive...

i know how you feel. i can wax philosophical on this point forever. it is actually somewhat relevant to this discussion, just because the difference between a "sample" and a "song" is identical to whatever the difference between sound and music is (a sample being a piece of sound, and a song being a piece of music). that is why i reside in the "there is no difference" camp. i actually did state the "one is the other / vice versa" opinion" elsewhere in this forum ("music is nothing "more" than sound, and sound is nothing "more" than music.").

we obviously can't say "we don't store music. we only store sounds." the root of the problem lies in applying definitions to things at a macro level. which seems to be where you were coming from:

aarondbaron

but i'd rather say, ...let's list the pros and cons of letting people post any sound ..including music that they make under the creative commons license.

one reason why i'd say it'd be a good idea, is because we can then make some real use of that remix tree....i don't know about anyone else, but when i hear the word remix, i think of actually taking other sonic ideas, sounds, whatever, and then using them to create something new...that's part of the beauty that was early hip hop music...this type of thing can't happen in the commercial real world of today because people ahve become anal about IP rights, but under the creative commons and through the use of the internet, creative expression can take place ...specifically through the art of the remix.

i was considering posting a few samples ...the story goes like this :
for my music and computers class...i took a snippet from someone playing claude debussy's claire de lune, ...i send the sample to a friend who put a beat under it and made another versino that was resampled at higher pitch and speed, ....i decided to take the two and overlap them together...and add more effects...and we've created something new each time. ......
i probably wouldn't post it anyway because i have to check if it's ok to use that particular recording of debussy, but say for example that i was allowed to use the sample....
would it be appropriate to post it on freesound? or would it be inappropriate?

i think the process you take to make the sound is really not as important as the nature of the sound. in order for freesound to remain an efficient tool for musicians and sound designers, the sounds within it have to remain in the "building blocks" realm. the sample you spoke of sounds like a beat that could be looped, and that sounds like a "building block" to me.

i think the remix tree is a bit misleading of a title. it implies that there would be "songs" (or musical pieces) in the tree. i think the tree is intended to contain altered samples that were attributed from freesound initially. it should really be called the "repocessing tree" or something.

i really feel that what sets freesound apart as a useful tool is the goal of providing an environment that facilitates the free creation and attribution of samples (and not songs). there already are countless resources for artists to release musical pieces under the creative commons license, whereas there are not so many resources for artists to release samples under the creative commons license. one has to keep in mind that many people who are using and benefitting from freesound are not strictly "musicians" (i.e. they are not necesarilly providing or seeking samples to create musical pieces). some freesound members are sound designers that are looking for foley type samples to put in video games or other media pieces. some freesound members are film artists looking for foley type samples to use in their films. and yes, many freesound members (like me) are musical artists looking for samples to create musical pieces with. in order for freesound to remain a useful tool to all the different types members in the community, i think it is important to keep stand-alone art pieces out of the sound pool; not in the spirit of censorship, but in the quest for clarity and efficiency.

my opinion of some of the primary differences:

- songs generally communicate ideas or emotions intentionally through specific composition. samples only tend to evoke ideas or emotions incidentally (depending on the current state of the listener). i presently will steer clear of the argument that the latter point applies to songs also :?

- songs commonly (not always) have parts (like verses, choruses, and bridges (or whatever, most of my songs actually don't have any of those parts :wink). we all know the "ABABCBA" notation used to denote the order of those musical parts. samples are always "A" and nothing else.

- songs are usually longer than 1 minute, whereas samples rarely need to exceed 30 seconds. the only time when it might be appropriate for a sample to exceed a minute is if it is a textural sound that changes slowely over time. one of my pet peaves is samples that are a repetition of the same loop more than once with no change. if there is no change in any other iterations of the loops, then only the initial iteration is necesary.

sorry for being so long winded. good discussion

Bram
How do we decide if a file is a sample or a sound?

my personal opinion:

if the sound is under 1 minute and there's doubt, I let it pass.

this is very 'personal' and might make people angy, so i'm asking all of you, how do you differentiate between a sound and a song?

- Bram

for me, a sample is a "building block" that is used as a component to make a bigger piece;
a song is a finished piece that has been made out of a variety of samples/building blocks/
components. i have songs that have been released under CC license, but they are on
netlabels; i see the freesound project as a resource different from a netlabel, so it is easy
for me to upload cc samples to freesound project and cc songs to a netlabel because i see
a distinct difference in the two--the netlabel is more like "here are songs that you can listen
to and enjoy as they are" whereas freesound strikes me more as "here are samples that
you can use in your project and take to another level". the netlabel to me is more passive,
whereas freesound is more active due to the nature of what it offers. andrew

I think I found it...

When you have "more than one instrument (which you can play solo) sounding, with each a distinctive musical line, for more than -say- 10 seconds, you have a song, not a sample."

Who agrees?

Obviously 'instrument' is a term which you can interpret. You could consider a symponic orchestra (from the point of view of the director), but let's not go into too much detail

- bram

plagasul
Size can be important yes.

Hmmmmmmm.....how you use it is more important than size...

Size or instrumental composition are very poor ways to differentiate between sample and song. Anyone working with minimalism as a compositional tool can make the argument that a single sound, playing for less than 10 seconds, is an entire work unto itself which negates Bram's stated definition of sample versus song. In my humble opinion, the creator's *intent* is what determines the difference. As an example, I uploaded a pack of short sonic beds that were excerpts from full-length songs. Some are less than a minute in length, none were intended for use as songs (most actually take one or two measures of a song, Acidize the sample and then stretch it out to around a minute in length). This hardly constitutes being a song, since it is admittedly a component of a song - a building block. Again, intent is everything.

Since what Freesound is trying to do by classifying submitted audio files is to keep Freesound from turning into Mp3.com or a similar song-oriented site (which I wholly agree with), a creator's *intent* should be the deciding factor. People with the *intent* to seek publicity or commentary on their songs by posting them at Freesound should be encouraged to submit them elsewhere. Creators uploading audio files for use as building blocks by other creators in the community (which is what Freesound is trying to be) are obviously not uploading them to Freesound seeking public feedback for songs - the *intent* is to contribute a usable resource for others in the community.

I trust my opinion hasn't made anyone angry, so I'll be keeping an eye on this thread. I have a large amount of excellent audio samples and SFX to contribute to this site whenever the community and management at Freesound clarify what is deemed acceptable.

Best regards to all,

Tio Ed
Austin, Texas

help me write the rules...

http://freesound.iua.upf.edu/forum/viewtopic.php?t=183

- bram

by the way, ed, "intent" is not a good idea: because in a site like this, (7000 users and growing at the speed of light), there will ALWAYS be people with very bad intent. So, the rules NEED to be clear in order to avoid what we don't really want...

let's discuss in the other thread (the one about the rules )

- Bram

The problem with the intent model is IMHO that it is even harder to qualify. A sample I can view upon relatively objectively because it is the same for everybody a set of 111100011100110101011 etc. However somebodies intent can be a bit harder to judge.
What if somebody uploads a rudimentary techno track. Not just one but 20 or so. all about 1-3 minutes long. That could be either situation.

<hmm i lost my spot a bit there, wanted to add something else...>

Anton
The problem with the intent model is IMHO that it is even harder to qualify.

What if somebody uploads a rudimentary techno track. Not just one but 20 or so. all about 1-3 minutes long.

Hello Anton:

And the problem with someone uploading rudimentary techno tracks, presumably for someone else in the Freesound community to use for their own compositions,, would be......? If you're not interested, don't download them, just like any other audio file. With all respect, I somehow fail to see exactly what it is that has everyone so afraid of encountering sonic building blocks that don't fit into their own narrow conceptions of what a sonic building block is supposed to be.

Suppose that someone may possibly try uploading complete songs onto Freesound - ever stop to ask *why* they would bother to do that? There are hundreds of websites where people can do that and get the kind of response they are looking for, so why would they bother doing that with Freesound which does not encourage it?

Smartelectronix, Bram and/or Freesound can always decline to make further storage space available to someone they feel is somehow abusing their privileges, but the reason someone would want to do so - what Bram described as "bad intentions" - is a mystery to me. As far as I can see, all the rules have done so far is keep some useful audio files out of the hands of the community and create a controversy where there does not need to be one. How, exactly, do these rules make Freesound a better website and community? How have these rules helped the creative process? How have these rules helped encourage audio creators to share their work? Perhaps someone can explain this to me. Or not - after all, I don't pay Freesound's bills and Bram and company are entitled to draw the line wherever they want to...

Best regards,

Tio Ed
Austin, Texas

Like i said i wasnt feeling very clear headed, just feeling a need to add to the discussion.
My Point is this: i cannto judge (as a moderator) somebodies intent. I can only say waht for me is a song and what is a sample. I agree that that is narrow minded.
However, i am not saying we shouldnt let the techno track in, I am saying that if we do that then there really isnt a line to draw anymore. All 'audiofiles' are then viable.