My thoughts about why sampling is the best thing you can do.

First, a confession.
I used to have a real hard time using samples.
Found it really tricky.
I should make a distinction between samples as in hits (which we'll call hits or multisamples) and samples as in great big chunks of someone else's music.
Hits and multisamples used to be the only thing I used. That, plus anything recorded especially for the track.
To this day, virtually everything comes out of the sampler. It just affords that degree of control that you can't give up.
Why use a synth, when you can set the oscillators, and just multisample the tone?!
But I used to have a real hard time using samples from elsewhere.
Lifting a chunk off another record felt... well... wrong.
When working with breaks, I always used to slice them VERY fine... so they became hits...
Everything got played in; into a sampler, via some hits or multisamples, and back out as music.

But a few things happened, that have "changed my life"...

It started with breaks. Someone I collaborate with stopped my whilst I was slicing up a break. He told me not to desecrate the thing, and insisted that I cut it -just- at the kick and snares. So I did. Then into the sampler it went.
And suddenly, programming breaks was FUN! and EXCITING! and sounded GREAT!
It was like I had entered a whole new WORLD of beats!
I'd not be surprised if you could actually hear the transition in my tunes.

That made an impact... and this is the start of the sample lengths increasing...
Another day, another tune, another collaborator.
Usually, after laying down some beats, I play things in.
I'll admit it. I'm one of these wussies who grabs a Rhodes sound, and jams jazz chords.
That's just the way I am.

After a slap on the wrists, I stopped, and my collaborator suggested we trawl through some sample cds.
Which we did.
And we found a LOVELY rhodes loop... (ironic?) ...which we pasted into the track.
Then we found some more samples... flute lick, guitar licks, and pasted them in.
And it sounded AMAZING!
The rhodes loop actually got played in live later on, so the sample doesn't remain... (ironic?) ...but the other samples do.

So, I'm having all these positive experiences, where, rather than arbitrarily picking a key, and building structures onto it, we find sounds that sound great, and paste them in - letting them define the tone and the key.

All this has an effect on me, as you can probably gather.
More and more stuff starts to get samply.

So, as per usual, I start thinking about it.

Why do samples sound good? Why does your track sound better with samples?
I work with some dangerously talented musicians. It's DEFINITELY not a failing on their part.
It's something else.
There's something actively GOOD about samples.

I started listening to heavily sample-based music.
There IS. There's something ABOUT the fact that it's samples...

... samples are MAGIC!!!

But why?

Well, it's my blog, so you get my theory :)

Samples are good for a number of reasons.

1) They're musically limiting
2) Divergence
3) Metamusical construction

1) They are musically limiting. You only have so many samples. Typically, only a few thousand hours (end to end)... and even though you'll probably never manage to listen through all your samples, there's still only a finite number. Of the ones that you'll listen to whilst working on a track, there probably aren't all that many. And you're not being innovative when choosing a sample... you're just answering the question "does this sound good over what I already have?". To add a layer to a track, you not only have to innovate something you find interesting, or that fills a gap, you also need to be listening to it in another way, which is to decide whether it really does benefit the track, and complement the groove. That's two difficult things at a time. With a sample, you only have one difficult thing to do.

2) Divergence. You've nicked a sample from somewhere. Probably a finished, mastered recording. In terms of production, it sounds nothing like the rest of your track. It's EQed differently, the dynamics are different, blah blah blah. But, you're going to tweak it up, and make it fit with your track's mixdown. Suddenly, you have to twist the thing so it sits with elements that its never had to sit with before. Interesting. You're implicitly going to get an interesting sound, because you're working a finished product in amongst raw elements.

3) Metamusical construction. This is dance music, right? We're modern. We're postmodern. We're trendy. We wear suit jackets to go out clubbing. Well, maybe not. But anyway, we are doing something which is essentially about -building- music, not writing it. We're -building- something for the dancefloor. Working with hits and multisamples, you're composing. You have the same tools that a composer does, just with a little more control. You want a violin, click under 'V'. You work with /samples/, and you've given up control over the minutiae. You can't rejig the timing of one element of a sample. It's impossible. Even if it were possible, it would be the wrong thing to do. You would destroy the character of the sample. But you're not just being musical now, you're being metamusical. You write tunes by bolting together things that will have the desired effect. Welcome to samples. Find something that will do the damage, partner it will the relevant elements, and you're done. Giving up control is as powerful a musical tool as gaining extra control.

So. Samples are fantastic. If you are the way that I was, do everything you can to get over it. It's holding you back from the sheer joy of metamusicality, which is a celebration of both music and nomenclature ;)