Saying we sample, giving examples...

There's got to be something on top of the sample otherwise it's just gratuitous Puffy crap. Without the samples, Puffy is nothing. Without samples, Public Enemy are still powerful and important. When good musicians and artists use samples, they add to the artist's effectiveness. When bad artists do it, the sample is the only thing the song has going for it.

Also, Puffy doesn't just sample, he really rewrites songs. Hell, Puff Daddy's reworkings are just like writing a few new lyrics ala Elton John's Candle in the Friggin' Wind. Sampling shouldn't make you feel like you're hearing a bad cover version by a profoundly untalented hack.

I cursed this one by mentioning Puffy and PE, didn't I? I meant it to be more general.

Simple, general answer for you: People call it "sampling" when they like the end result. They call it "ripping off" when they think it's crap. Simple as that. I mean, Eminem's "Stan" qualifies as a "rip off" under the definition I've seen put forth in this forum but since most of you (?) seem to like the song, ten bucks says that it's going to get considered a sample.

Ally, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there. A more precise answer might be that it's always sampling but obvious sampling is harder to pull of than non-obvious sampling. You've got the core reason why obvious sampling is harder; if the resulting song doesn't work, people will dismiss it as an uncreative rip-off.

"Stan" works largely because of the obvious sample, IMO. I can't imagine that song without Dido's hook or that particular beat. In a similar vein, "Mo Money, Mo Problems" would be completely unrecognizeable and probably not work as well without being tied to "I'm Coming Out".

True Ally, but I still think people can say there's genius sampling at work in "Stan" because by itself Dido's "Thank You" is clearly pants. If "Thank You" was musically as gripping as the use of it on "Stan", the latter's arrangement wouldn't be particularly clever.