The most sampled song in history is one you've never heard of
You've heard it in everything from N.W.A's Straight Outta Compton to UK rave anthems and video game soundtracks.
But chances are, you've never heard the original song.
In 1969, a now-obscure American soul group called The Winstons released a B-side titled Amen, Brother.
Buried within it — at around the 1.26 mark — is a six-second drum solo that would become the most sampled audio clip in music history.
Known as Amen Break, the beat has appeared in more than 6,000 tracks — and continues to be sampled more than five decades later.
From hip hop to jungle, drum and bass and breakcore, Amen Break has not only formed the rhythmic backbone of entire genres, but also traced the evolution of sampling and the blurred lines of musical ownership.
A beat born from turntables
For artist and producer Alexander Burnett — the frontman of Sparkadia and the creative force behind records by Thelma Plum, Hayden James and Flight Facilities — Amen Break's appeal goes beyond nostalgia.
'In the early '80s, DJs started to use two turntables to loop the same drum sections from records — which created a groove for MCs to rap over,' he told 7NEWS.com.au.
'These drum loops or 'breaks' were used as a tool to create a new musical work with new lyrics and melody over the top.'
Amen Break — played by the late drummer Gregory Coleman — became a go-to for crate-digging producers thanks to its explosive snap and gritty texture.
'It has the right swing, energy and grit,' Burnett said.
'If you drop it into a session sped up, the song already sounds like UK jungle or drum and bass. If slowed down, it becomes '90s hip hop.'
From underground to global chart domination
The break's earliest high-profile use came in the 1980s, with inclusion in tracks by pioneers such as Mantronix and N.W.A.
N.W.A's title track Straight Outta Compton is renowned for heralding the arrival of West Coast hip hop and Dr Dre's signature sound; a blueprint still emulated today.
From there, the sample exploded across the UK rave scene of the '90s.
Producers like Goldie, Roni Size and Shy FX chopped and flipped the beat into high-energy soundscapes that defined jungle and drum and bass.
It has since popped up in everything from Mantronix's King Of The Beat to David Bowie 's Little Wonder and Oasis 's D'You Know What I Mean?. It's also featured in TV shows Futurama and Top Gear and the the video game Grand Theft Auto.
Originality, ownership and the sampling debate
Despite its ubiquity, Amen, Brother's creators saw almost no financial return.
Neither frontman and copyright holder Richard L. Spencer nor drummer Gregory C. Coleman received royalties or sample clearance fees during their lifetimes. Coleman died in 2006, never seeing compensation for the solo that would define entire genres. Spencer, who called the sample's use 'plagiarism', chose not to pursue legal action; but fans didn't forget.
In 2015, British DJ Martyn Webster launched a crowdfunding campaign titled The Winstons Amen Breakbeat Gesture, urging fans to give back. It raised more than £24,000 ($45,600), which was presented to Spencer in a public show of thanks.
'Copyright has historically been about melody and lyrics rather than rhythm,' Burnett said. 'That being said, the drum break has created so many incredible new works, so there should be compensation.'
'On the other hand, many of the original artists who sampled it may not have had the means to use the break if they had to pay compensation up front. I'd like to think we have the technology to address this issue moving forward in 2025.'
A legacy beyond one track
While Amen Break is the most famous, it's not the only revered loop.
The Incredible Bongo Band's Apache (1973) delivered a tribal, bongo-heavy groove that became a hip hop staple, sampled by everyone from Sugarhill Gang to Missy Elliott, Nas and M.I.A.
James Brown's Funky Drummer (1970), featuring Clyde Stubblefield's solo, has been looped in classics like Public Enemy's Fight The Power, Dr Dre's Let Me Ride and George Michael's Freedom! '90.
But Amen Break stands alone: a six-second mistake-turned-masterpiece from a forgotten B-side, now the most sampled piece of music ever recorded.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
4 hours ago
- The Advertiser
Australia's enduring love affair with the US is at a critical point
Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation? Few stories start in a more compelling way than Ian McEwan's brilliant novel Enduring Love (1997). Several men, strangers to each other, rush across an English field converging on a stricken helium balloon as they try frantically to hold it grounded long enough to free a child cowering in its basket. As the ungainly apparatus is gusted violently aloft during a wind squall, the men suddenly find themselves "treading air", each facing a terrible choice - whether to hang on in the hope their collective weight will bring it down again or let go before rising too high to survive the fall. It might seem rich to describe Australia's umbilical attachment to the United States as an enduring love, but that unanswerable question in the untethered balloon scene feels disturbingly apt. As does the book's title. The bilateral relationship has survived long enough to natural, even definitional. With that "enduring", though, has come less admirable attributes like unbalanced, fawning, and captive. Hence the reckless conservative boast that Australians have fought alongside Americans in every war they've undertaken since 1900. This includes moral, legal, and strategic outrages like Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Like McEwan's disparate characters twisting precariously on guy ropes and slaves to untameable forces of physics, the existential question of whether to cling on or let go, is fast becoming existential. Not that the cheerleaders of the AUKUS caucus are awake to it. While the US talks openly of rehabilitating Russia, invading Greenland and seizing the Panama Canal, they mouth terms like strategic alignment, shared values, cooperation and interoperability. In so many ways, McEwan's exquisitely described dilemma seems like a fitting metaphor for this instant. A temporally reflexive metaphor that works, albeit in different ways, for Australia, for Iran, for Israel, and even for those democracies keeping schtum as another American president contemplates a Middle Eastern war. And as Israel reveals its bottomless reserves of military power and lawless vengeance. In short order, Iran must decide if it is to surrender its nuclear enrichment capacities - even for exclusively peaceful domestic purposes like medical isotopes - or face a US aerial bombardment of unimaginable ferocity. Israel must decide, in the same compressed timeframe, if it is to accommodate such assurances - should Donald Trump insist(?) - or fight on condemning Israelis to further carnage and the state itself to perennial insecurity in its region. It is a choice between an unlikely peace and the guarantee of endless war and an ever-enduring hate. The oafish Trump has no plan. He has bought himself a mere fortnight to decide between backing off or pursuing a path he expressly campaigned against. McEwan's well-meaning strangers who've sprinted towards the flailing balloon exhibit some characteristics of the international community. In the nine days since Israel's far-right Netanyahu government began bombing Iran's nuclear sites without warning, a kind of uncoordinated helplessness has taken hold. Those gathered in Canada for the G7 caved instantly to US and Israeli pressure, citing the Jewish state's limitless "right to defend itself". The group called Iran the "principal source of regional instability". While the criticism of Iran is justified, one might have expected the top liberal states to weigh more heavily the authoritative opinions of international legal scholars such as Professor Ben Saul, Challis chair of international law at the University of Sydney and UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter Terrorism. Saul says Israel's claimed legal impunity simply does not apply here. "Israel claims that its attack is necessary to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and using them in the future. The problem is that under international law, a country may only defend itself from an actual or imminent armed attack by another country," wrote Saul in the Guardian. As the rules break down, such facts have become ethereal, prone to dissipating, like so much helium. READ MORE KENNY: It is worth remembering that the trend to American unreliability now so blatant, started more than two decades ago, when fragmentary intelligence was deliberately "sexed up" to look like solid intel ahead of the Iraq invasion. America's "forever wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the attendant abuses of Abu Ghraib and the eventual surrender to the very Taliban it had expelled - signalled a loss of prestige internationally. But they also sparked a crisis at the moral and institutional core of America. The nativist, protectionist, anti-establishment Trump is its indignant progeny. A vulgar up-yours to the compromises of democracy and the checks on executive power by laws, courts, multilateral bodies and international norms. As Hugh White notes in his latest insightful Quarterly Essay, "Hard New World: Our Post-American Future", the nation which had saved democracy, then created and policed a post-war rules-based international order, has gone and is not coming back. Now, an avowed America First isolationist scoffs at such an order (globally and domestically) and ridicules the haughty ethics that had underpinned it. Even last week, Trump arrived at the G7 only to complain that Vladimir Putin should be there too. To bend McEwan's balloon dilemma further, Australia might ask itself a further question: are we the poor sods clinging white-knuckled to guy ropes? Or are we perhaps the panicked child cowering in the basket, too frightened to determine our own survival as a sovereign nation?
Perth Now
14 hours ago
- Perth Now
Spider-Man and Spaghetti Western actor Jack Betts dead aged 96
Actor Jack Betts has died aged 96. The American star was best known for his roles in Spider-Man, Batman Forever and a long list of Italian Spaghetti Westerns under the name Hunt Powers, and passed away in his sleep at his home in Los Osos, California, on Thursday (18.06.25), according to a statement from his family, with news of his death only emerging on Saturday. (21.06.25) Born in Miami, Florida, in 1929, Jack studied theatre before launching his acting career on the Broadway stage in a production of William Shakespeare's Richard III. He later found fame in Italy after landing the lead role in Sugar Colt, directed by Franco Giraldi, in 1966. Though he had no formal Western experience at the time, Jack bluffed his way into the role — the first of a dozen films in which he would play a gunslinger from 1966 to 1972. Jack told The Dev Show in a 2021 interview: 'In the hotel next to mine was Clint Eastwood. He'd go up to his mountain and do his Western and I'd go up to my mountain and do my Western. But while his films had distribution all over the world, my films were distributed (everywhere) except Canada and America.' Despite the lack of the North American distribution, Jack's performances earned him international recognition. Upon returning to the US in the 1970s, he resumed theatre work, including a run as Dracula on Broadway between 1977 and 1980. He later took on television roles, most notably as Dr Ivan Kipling in the soap opera One Life to Live, which he appeared in until 1985. In 1988, Jack accepted an invitation from his longtime friend, actress Doris Roberts, to move into a downstairs apartment in her Hollywood Hills home. Doris, known for her role in Everybody Loves Raymond, passed away in 2016. Jack said they were 'best friends to the very end' and that they had 'wonderful times together'. The pair also appeared together on Everybody Loves Raymond in a 1999 episode. Over the years, Jack made guest appearances on several hit TV shows including Seinfeld, Frasier, Friends and Power Rangers. He also had small roles in Batman Forever (1995) and Batman and Robin (1997.) In 2002, he appeared in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man as Henry Balkan, a board member of Oscorp Industries. His character delivers the line informing Norman Osborn, played by Willem Dafoe, that he is being ousted from the company — a pivotal moment that sets Osborn on the path to becoming the Green Goblin. Jack's character, along with fellow board members, is later killed in the storyline. Fans of the actor have paid tribute on social media following news of his death. One said: 'Well shoot, another Hollywood gunslinger rides into the sunset. Jack Betts was one of those actors who could make even a B-movie feel like an A-list production.' Another fan added: 'RIP to a legend. Jack Betts brought so much to the screen – from gritty westerns to comic book charm.'
Perth Now
a day ago
- Perth Now
Perth marine biologist debuts surf brand on US runway
A Perth shark biologist is adding a splash of colour to swimwear. Amanda Elizabeth's Bolde Wetsuits were paraded on the catwalk at Miami Swim Week recently, with her two collections drawing inspiration from the ocean's vibrant colours. 'We live on such an incredibly diverse coastline — there is never any shortage of inspiration,' Elizabeth said. 'Sharing a piece of Perth with an American audience is not just about geography — it's about showcasing the natural beauty of our marine environment and wildlife through my designs.' She said she had got fed up wearing boring black wetsuits that made divers look like a seal to predators, so set about designing something a bit more exciting from eco-friendly Japanese limestone neoprene. Bolde made its debut in Miami. Credit: Frazer Harrison / Getty Images for Spotlight featu 'Designing this collection was about more than aesthetics—it was about empowering women to feel strong, confident, and bold in and out of the water, to inspire them to pursue water activities that have previously been dominated by men,' Elizabeth said. Since Bolde made its debut in Miami, Elizabeth has received supportive feedback about how her pieces have made women feel more comfortable, powerful and confident. 'That kind of reaction is exactly why I do what I do. It is so important to me that women know there is a wetsuit that is specifically for them,' she said. A model walks the runway for BOLDE Swimwear during Paraiso Miami Swim Week 2025. Credit: Frazer Harrison / Getty Images for Spotlight featu The show highlighted the brand's current Luminescent Collection, along with a preview of the upcoming Honu Collection — named after the Hawaiian word for sea turtle. Bolde has recently expanded the brand's size range to include sizes 6-20. The range includes 3mm and 5mm steamers, bikini-cut and short-leg spring suits, wetsuit jackets, and accessories like silicone snorkel sets and fins. Bolde has recently expanded the brand's size range to include sizes 6-20. Credit: Frazer Harrison / Getty Images for Spotlight featu
