Funny headline... you don't create samples, you take samples
But a sample only becomes creative after it is taken. You can't 'create' a sample because it is just a snippet of audio.
As the article says, it's about "building songs from samples".
I'm not being pedantic by the way.. I just see the person who 'created' the sample as the original recording artist.
This is a perpetual debate =D. Although I'm not sure its black or white. A good artist can use a "sample" in the same way a panatone color is used by a pointillist painter. At that stage, its all about the spectrum of color, the contrast, and the entire effevt of many points of color...not just the quality of the sampled pigments in any one brush-stroke.
so i think everyone is correct in this argument; they are using samples to create samples.
This isn't very clear in the video, because the editing process in modern software is very non destructive, so you never actually "make" a new sample. In the more primitive hardware of the past, the process is much more explicit.
If you have some other point to make about creative/artistic legitimacy, you should just make it.
Which it clearly isn't.
Hence my first comment.
Sorry if this sounds mean, but you did ask.
So most people interpret would instead interpret it as snide commentary on the illegitimacy of sampling as an art.
Which most people also don't like.
Hence the downvoting.