Rainsdot said: "Witness the profusion of "DJ boxes" (MC-909) and other toys whose sole purpose is to give talentless knob-twiddlers the ability to mix a bunch of generic loops together"
Totally and utterly disagree!!!!
New technologies allows to discover new applications and thus to develop new skills.
A song becomes a hit by holding peoples attention from the first to the last bar; which is a skill developed from lots of experimentation, trial and error. You can't create a hit simply by using the MC-909 and knob-twiddle riffs and loops. Without skill this will sound boring, soulless and totally amateurish. Many Trance Master are proper educated musicians, such as Armin Van Buren or Paul van Dyke.
I suggest you get yourself a MC-909, some loops and then do some knob-twiddling to see if you can create a hit. You will discover very soon that there is more to it then just pushing buttons.
http://www.jostsauer.com
"When one is not expressing himself, he is not free." - Bruce Lee
For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
I'd say Rainsdot argue is as useless as stating that computer and scanners have ruined literature - because writing a book requires more then just scanning quotes and arranging them on the computer into a book format.
http://www.jostsauer.com
"When one is not expressing himself, he is not free." - Bruce Lee
http://www.jostsauer.com
"When one is not expressing himself, he is not free." - Bruce Lee
-
theologiae
- Posts: 305
- Joined: 04:15, 20 February 2005
- Location: kansas city
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
yo un-dr,
truer words were never spoke.
oh, and i'm not late to judge anything. that is the reason for judgment, an assesing of the past, there is no future judgment. i'm a little to marxist for my own good, so i see things in a hegalian-historical terms. my point was un-dr's point, only he said it better. there is no point is saying that one thing ruined our past image of "good". using 50's pop as an example, i was hoping to remind poeple of all the great music from that time, and in the contexet, all the music they don't remember, i.e., the shit music of the day. when we look back, we see the high water mark of the past. we forget the shit that was under it. do you think milli vanilli we be thought about in 50 year. no. and yet, in the late 80's i thought music sucked cuz that crap was everywhere. but now think back to the late 80's, what do i think of. i think of the cure and ministry and nails braking on the scene. i think of depesch mode, kmfdm and skinny puppy's vivisect6.
i have fond memories of that time cuz the music i still listen to. but that doen't mean that music was better then. there is always good and bad music at the same time, having a revisionist outlook on history make you confused and wrong.
and about taste. most people would not like "land of rape and honey" and would call minisrty crap. that's a matter of taste. but, we can say for sure that milli vanilli suck. no debate there. even thought there is a subjective debate on good and bad, there is a line that most pop music falls under that there is not debate (that's my kant side showing through) on that i think we can all agree.
www.myspace.com/circle6
truer words were never spoke.
oh, and i'm not late to judge anything. that is the reason for judgment, an assesing of the past, there is no future judgment. i'm a little to marxist for my own good, so i see things in a hegalian-historical terms. my point was un-dr's point, only he said it better. there is no point is saying that one thing ruined our past image of "good". using 50's pop as an example, i was hoping to remind poeple of all the great music from that time, and in the contexet, all the music they don't remember, i.e., the shit music of the day. when we look back, we see the high water mark of the past. we forget the shit that was under it. do you think milli vanilli we be thought about in 50 year. no. and yet, in the late 80's i thought music sucked cuz that crap was everywhere. but now think back to the late 80's, what do i think of. i think of the cure and ministry and nails braking on the scene. i think of depesch mode, kmfdm and skinny puppy's vivisect6.
i have fond memories of that time cuz the music i still listen to. but that doen't mean that music was better then. there is always good and bad music at the same time, having a revisionist outlook on history make you confused and wrong.
and about taste. most people would not like "land of rape and honey" and would call minisrty crap. that's a matter of taste. but, we can say for sure that milli vanilli suck. no debate there. even thought there is a subjective debate on good and bad, there is a line that most pop music falls under that there is not debate (that's my kant side showing through) on that i think we can all agree.
www.myspace.com/circle6
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
I like "land of rape and honey" myself, then after listening to a couple of tracks I may put some "inkspots" early recordings on or "duran duran" then settle in to some brahms.
Now, if someone without much of a history in understanding the structure of how music is composed and arranged sits down and begins to match loops, ie. drum, bass, trumpet and organ. They still need to find a selction of loops that will match each other.
Sure theymay have a program that will match the BPM and Key signature, they still need the harmonies and melodies to match and make asthetically pleasing sense.
If we decided to do some research into all the music ever written prior to 1900, look at every phrase, every instruments lines in a orcestra, we will find a vast majority of melodies have been written before. We may think a sequence of notes we create is orginal in its combination, chances are it has been written before. "your not the first to think that everythings been thought of"
It is our personal choice of combinations with our selected loops or addtives we write on top that make the music we each create original(and lyrics). I think it would be nice when we use a loop from pre-recorded material to cite it on album covers, however, I often enjoy hearing a song with a loop that I know was from some 60's rock song, or two bars from a debussy piece , and trying to remember where I heard it before. Thats half the fun of listening to music that implements samples.
To summarize my thoughts. Those without an understanding of how the structure of music is composed and arranged sits down with pre-recorded loops, and some kind of software, we are only empowering them to express their ideas inside there creative consicousness.
F*^? copyright, collaborate, express, produce.
Enjoy.
Now, if someone without much of a history in understanding the structure of how music is composed and arranged sits down and begins to match loops, ie. drum, bass, trumpet and organ. They still need to find a selction of loops that will match each other.
Sure theymay have a program that will match the BPM and Key signature, they still need the harmonies and melodies to match and make asthetically pleasing sense.
If we decided to do some research into all the music ever written prior to 1900, look at every phrase, every instruments lines in a orcestra, we will find a vast majority of melodies have been written before. We may think a sequence of notes we create is orginal in its combination, chances are it has been written before. "your not the first to think that everythings been thought of"
It is our personal choice of combinations with our selected loops or addtives we write on top that make the music we each create original(and lyrics). I think it would be nice when we use a loop from pre-recorded material to cite it on album covers, however, I often enjoy hearing a song with a loop that I know was from some 60's rock song, or two bars from a debussy piece , and trying to remember where I heard it before. Thats half the fun of listening to music that implements samples.
To summarize my thoughts. Those without an understanding of how the structure of music is composed and arranged sits down with pre-recorded loops, and some kind of software, we are only empowering them to express their ideas inside there creative consicousness.
F*^? copyright, collaborate, express, produce.
Enjoy.
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
"research into all the music ever written prior to 1900, look at every phrase, every instruments lines in a orcestra, we will find a vast majority of melodies have been written before"
i agree
there is an unaviodable sequence in any key that repeats itself in all music.
Famous 4 bar trick C Am F G transposed in 1000s of tunes
and in alot of cases you will hear this even today.
However Where not arguing about common repetative sequences being used in a song.
sure i have used it my self
However i dont just play the sequence I orchestrate it.
in that way its unique an mine.
However what is being argued is that some comes along and samples someone elses orchestration regardles how common the under line seqnence was, the act of using some one elses orchestration and piecing it together with your arangment does not constitute orignial creatiion be cause you didnt write it you ripped! it.
Im actualy horified to find that even ROLAND are promoting this kind of rip off artist with there dance card for the fx
clearly stating that it contains most popular bass drums beats riffs to beaf up your own creations.
did they get copyright clearance for this?
and even more..
will you get pulled for breach of copyright for using it..?
this also in its self demeans creativity pushing it out and bringing
in un original already used, reused making out you dont need to be a real composer any more just copy and paste and your a genius.
You no long need ot be able to play and instrument any more
just press abutton and your credited as being a real composer.
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
i agree
there is an unaviodable sequence in any key that repeats itself in all music.
Famous 4 bar trick C Am F G transposed in 1000s of tunes
and in alot of cases you will hear this even today.
However Where not arguing about common repetative sequences being used in a song.
sure i have used it my self
However i dont just play the sequence I orchestrate it.
in that way its unique an mine.
However what is being argued is that some comes along and samples someone elses orchestration regardles how common the under line seqnence was, the act of using some one elses orchestration and piecing it together with your arangment does not constitute orignial creatiion be cause you didnt write it you ripped! it.
Im actualy horified to find that even ROLAND are promoting this kind of rip off artist with there dance card for the fx
clearly stating that it contains most popular bass drums beats riffs to beaf up your own creations.
did they get copyright clearance for this?
and even more..
will you get pulled for breach of copyright for using it..?
this also in its self demeans creativity pushing it out and bringing
in un original already used, reused making out you dont need to be a real composer any more just copy and paste and your a genius.
You no long need ot be able to play and instrument any more
just press abutton and your credited as being a real composer.
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
Hi all
The Un-dr has basically put it the right way.
Although I think that it's healthy to discuss this now and then, it all becomes worthless in the end.
Stating that "Sampling has ruined pop music" is taking a very narrowed point of view on today's music. I could say that "Sequecing has ruined pop music" Why? Because it allows me to do alone what naturally would be done by many. So I see myself composing tracks for drums, bass, sax, trumpets , violins etc etc - all instruments that I don't play. Oh, and I also hear myself playing keyboard leads and riffs by the means of RPS and Arpegios at "impossible" speeds and quantity. Does that makes me a fake musician? What if by an unfornate fate I have an acident and loose my hands but I still can use a computer to "play" and compose. Would my music be a fake. - Could hardly agree with that.
Sampling has not ruined pop music but is has certanly changed the way it is done. Has much as every other piece of electric/electronic equipment that surrounds us has changed our lives.
In the end, like I always say, the most important thing its not HOW you do it but WHAT you do.
Regards
o - ...just could not afford the 8
(
\_/
hear what I've done with the 7
The Un-dr has basically put it the right way.
Although I think that it's healthy to discuss this now and then, it all becomes worthless in the end.
Stating that "Sampling has ruined pop music" is taking a very narrowed point of view on today's music. I could say that "Sequecing has ruined pop music" Why? Because it allows me to do alone what naturally would be done by many. So I see myself composing tracks for drums, bass, sax, trumpets , violins etc etc - all instruments that I don't play. Oh, and I also hear myself playing keyboard leads and riffs by the means of RPS and Arpegios at "impossible" speeds and quantity. Does that makes me a fake musician? What if by an unfornate fate I have an acident and loose my hands but I still can use a computer to "play" and compose. Would my music be a fake. - Could hardly agree with that.
Sampling has not ruined pop music but is has certanly changed the way it is done. Has much as every other piece of electric/electronic equipment that surrounds us has changed our lives.
In the end, like I always say, the most important thing its not HOW you do it but WHAT you do.
Regards
o - ...just could not afford the 8
(
\_/
hear what I've done with the 7
Does that makes me a fake musician?
No, because you are still the originator of the composition.
What you have been given is a tool to allow you to express your creativity in an instant without needing to hire an orchestra.
However, YOUR finished work may not be the final cut.
for example
Your musical composition maybe taken and then orchestrated be many musicians.
In which case, you have not bypassed the Many musicians part you have simply pre- prepared a composition in form, to be later perfomed by others.
However if the general public is willing to accept your composition in its original form
there will be no need to move it to the orchestration process.
But in the end you are! the orignator and composer
people that rip off, use other peoples work, beats, bass/guitar riffs etc and in some cases entire compositions and do not orininate the work are not!
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
What you have been given is a tool to allow you to express your creativity in an instant without needing to hire an orchestra.
However, YOUR finished work may not be the final cut.
for example
Your musical composition maybe taken and then orchestrated be many musicians.
In which case, you have not bypassed the Many musicians part you have simply pre- prepared a composition in form, to be later perfomed by others.
However if the general public is willing to accept your composition in its original form
there will be no need to move it to the orchestration process.
But in the end you are! the orignator and composer
people that rip off, use other peoples work, beats, bass/guitar riffs etc and in some cases entire compositions and do not orininate the work are not!
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
Yes, Quinx I agree completely with you.
I think I did not made my point clear.
I would never agree with "ripping" someone else's music, tracks, sounds, arrangements, melody lines or whatever, take them AS mine and even make profit with it.
I used the "sequencer" as an example for how these new tools can make this discussion endless. We're blaming sampling for ending "original" composition as I can blame sequencing for ending the need for "bands".
The problem it's not on the technology but on how you use it. I would not be able to make MY music now if it wasn't the existence of sequencers as it would not be possible to someone make THEIR music if it wasn't the existence of samplers
Samplers, as we know, are extremely powerfull tools and can be used in two ways : a good way and a bad way - like everything else...
It seems we're looking only to the bad side.
o - ...just could not afford the 8
(
\_/
hear what I've done with the 7
I think I did not made my point clear.
I would never agree with "ripping" someone else's music, tracks, sounds, arrangements, melody lines or whatever, take them AS mine and even make profit with it.
I used the "sequencer" as an example for how these new tools can make this discussion endless. We're blaming sampling for ending "original" composition as I can blame sequencing for ending the need for "bands".
The problem it's not on the technology but on how you use it. I would not be able to make MY music now if it wasn't the existence of sequencers as it would not be possible to someone make THEIR music if it wasn't the existence of samplers
Samplers, as we know, are extremely powerfull tools and can be used in two ways : a good way and a bad way - like everything else...
It seems we're looking only to the bad side.
o - ...just could not afford the 8
(
\_/
hear what I've done with the 7
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
i didnt closely read this thread, but think thats ridiculous.
sampling definitely has not ruined pop music.
especially not the type of sampling i do.
yeah if kanye west just steals some loop from an old famous song, that sucks.
ex: you know the G Unit song, i thikn called Smile? they just took a marvin gaye song (where he sings " i wanna be your lover") and put bigger drums and bass over it. thats infuriating, yes.
but when i sample, i take something and then use it in my own way; its always completely un recognizeable, and it just gives me another, more complex, sound to work with.
sampling definitely has not ruined pop music.
especially not the type of sampling i do.
yeah if kanye west just steals some loop from an old famous song, that sucks.
ex: you know the G Unit song, i thikn called Smile? they just took a marvin gaye song (where he sings " i wanna be your lover") and put bigger drums and bass over it. thats infuriating, yes.
but when i sample, i take something and then use it in my own way; its always completely un recognizeable, and it just gives me another, more complex, sound to work with.
sampling definitely has not ruined pop music.
Maybe it would be more true to say...
Pop music has ruined Sampling
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
Pop music has ruined Sampling
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
A very good point, Quinnx. Further to that, I would personally sum it up as, "Sampling has helped the marketing departments of the big 5 labels to ruin pop music".
;o)
Dave
http://www.drstudio.demon.co.uk/
"Musicians fall into three categories: those with a physical block, those with a mental block and those with a wooden block". Unfortunately, I'm in the 1st category!
;o)
Dave
http://www.drstudio.demon.co.uk/
"Musicians fall into three categories: those with a physical block, those with a mental block and those with a wooden block". Unfortunately, I'm in the 1st category!
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
If someone writes an essay, and quotes someones written word, is this the same as sampling a guitar line from someone elses song and using it in your own song.
When I use samples wheather it be from inkspots, the sundays, led zep, beethoven, when I realease an album I will be happy to sight the sample. Sampling is yet another tool a composer, someone who writes music can use.
When I use samples wheather it be from inkspots, the sundays, led zep, beethoven, when I realease an album I will be happy to sight the sample. Sampling is yet another tool a composer, someone who writes music can use.
If someone writes an essay, and quotes someones written word
in to days society, technical YES
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
Results not Excuses
MSN: fantom01@hotmail.com
Get optimised: Rev 9.1
http://knightspawn.fws1.com/woodhazel_f ... ilesys.htm
QuinnX universal tranlator below:-
(lets not be misunderstood)
!!!!!! Emphasis not anger
!!?? Confusion or Stupidity
ABC are you getting the point
&*$% Anger (but rarely seen)
Fantom-X6 with Audio Track Expansion (OS 2.0)
Windows 2000
Intel P4 2g
512mb
A matter of copyright
Craigo asked:
Technically, they are the same in that they both involve using copyrighted material for your own use. It begins to get cloudy when you get into the legal questions over copyright.
If, for example, you use a composer's copyrighted/published lyrics or melody and quote them in your own song without giving the original author songwriting credit (and, thus, share in your royalties for your own composition that includes this material) you are legally violating the original composer's copyright. If you also use a portion of the original recorded PERFORMANCE of a song, you are also adding violation of performance rights to your "crime." Thus, when the rappers were sampling James Brown's songs and putting in their composition without giving JB songwriting credit (or paying him royalties), they were violating 1) copyright laws and 2) ASCAP performance laws.
It begins to get a big cloudy if you simple "extract" a melody from a composition and vary it a bit for your own song; for example, the Beach Boys ripping off Chuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen" for "Surfin' USA." They weren't using Chuck's PERFORMANCE; they were using his MELODY, which was copyrighted. Chuck sued and the Boys capitulated by adding Berry's name to the songwriting credits.
However, it's up to the copyright owner to pursue these violations. Led Zeppelin was ripping off Willie Dixon's melodies and lyrics for years before Dixon finally sued LZ for copyright violation near the end of his life.
Also keep in mind that this rule ONLY applies to COPYRIGHTED material that is not in the public domain. At this point, anyone can use a Beethoven or Mozart melody in their composition without having to pay a royalty to their descendants since the copyrights expired centuries ago. However, one CANNOT sample, say, legally sample the Berlin Philharmonic's recording of a Mozart piano concerto and use it a composition without getting usage rights from whoever owns the overall performance rights to the piece.
The growth of the ACID/loops of the world was in many ways, an outgrowth of this confusion over copyrights--by creating royalty free "loops" of recorded guitar/drum/horn samples, the "assemblers" (sorry, I just can't bring myself to call someone who creates musical pieces by sequencing a bunch of prerecorded ACID loops together a "composer") have an alternative, entirely legally way to produce pieces without actually having to learn how to play the notes themselves.
Jeff in Boston
Technically, they are the same in that they both involve using copyrighted material for your own use. It begins to get cloudy when you get into the legal questions over copyright.
If, for example, you use a composer's copyrighted/published lyrics or melody and quote them in your own song without giving the original author songwriting credit (and, thus, share in your royalties for your own composition that includes this material) you are legally violating the original composer's copyright. If you also use a portion of the original recorded PERFORMANCE of a song, you are also adding violation of performance rights to your "crime." Thus, when the rappers were sampling James Brown's songs and putting in their composition without giving JB songwriting credit (or paying him royalties), they were violating 1) copyright laws and 2) ASCAP performance laws.
It begins to get a big cloudy if you simple "extract" a melody from a composition and vary it a bit for your own song; for example, the Beach Boys ripping off Chuck Berry's "Sweet Little Sixteen" for "Surfin' USA." They weren't using Chuck's PERFORMANCE; they were using his MELODY, which was copyrighted. Chuck sued and the Boys capitulated by adding Berry's name to the songwriting credits.
However, it's up to the copyright owner to pursue these violations. Led Zeppelin was ripping off Willie Dixon's melodies and lyrics for years before Dixon finally sued LZ for copyright violation near the end of his life.
Also keep in mind that this rule ONLY applies to COPYRIGHTED material that is not in the public domain. At this point, anyone can use a Beethoven or Mozart melody in their composition without having to pay a royalty to their descendants since the copyrights expired centuries ago. However, one CANNOT sample, say, legally sample the Berlin Philharmonic's recording of a Mozart piano concerto and use it a composition without getting usage rights from whoever owns the overall performance rights to the piece.
The growth of the ACID/loops of the world was in many ways, an outgrowth of this confusion over copyrights--by creating royalty free "loops" of recorded guitar/drum/horn samples, the "assemblers" (sorry, I just can't bring myself to call someone who creates musical pieces by sequencing a bunch of prerecorded ACID loops together a "composer") have an alternative, entirely legally way to produce pieces without actually having to learn how to play the notes themselves.
Jeff in Boston
Re: For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music
I'm a hip hop maker, but at the same time, I RARELY sample any sort of phrase or anything.
1. I don't think that sampling has ruined music. For one thing, it's allowed older musicians a way to expose younger people to their music and make a little extra cash from either the rights, performing with the hip hop guy, or having their own career revived. Parliament Funkadelic is my favorite band....however neither of my parents listened to any type of funk. My mom hates anything from the 70's that isn't jimmy buffet and my dad is stuck on shitty white blues. The only way I was introduced to P-Funk was through Dre and Snoop back in the early 90's. Then I heard that pac song where he sampled Aquaboogie. Then I started buying Parliament CD's and I play them all the time. I'll even try to find their songs on those MP3 jukeboxes that you see in bars just to get other people to listen to it. The same is true of my love for Cameo, Kool and the Gang, Curtis Mayfield, Isaac Hayes, James Brown, and so many other artists and groups that were popular before I was born.
2. Sampling has made it easier for some dumbass to make a chart topper, but lets not act like any of those people have sustainable careers. They're flashes in the pan. Look at any young singing group on tour and then look at the backing band playing behind them. You'd think that the guys playing the instruments are the parents of the people singing. You don't see lil john playing the guitar do you? I'm not sure about the ages of some of the people here, but if you're an older accomplished musician and you're still getting gigs because of your skill, you better thank your lucky stars for sampling. It's dumbed down the curve and makes your own skill look that much more impressive.
3. In terms of people that cut and paste stuff into their songs...I agree, it's kind of a cop out, but those each of those samples by themselves aren't a song. It still takes talent to combine the samples and make a beat that sounds new and exciting. I'm more on the composing side. We have maybe 4 songs were we've taken a phrase from something else. The stuff we sample is genuinely stuff that we dont' have access to...like a singer who doesn't need a damn vocal correction machine.
4. Covers have been around forever. In my opinion, I think a cover song is even more of a ripoff than sampling. The entire song is stolen word for word and note for note, then the band makes that their video cut. THAT'S THE BIGGEST COP OUT OF ALL TIME NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. What skill does it take to listen and copy. At least with sampling, a variation is done to it and new drums and bass are infused and the verses are original.
5. Not everybody has the resources to learn how to play an instrument as a child because of money or where they live or whatever....but that doesn't mean that those people shouldn't be able to try to make some type of music. I'm not sure if anyone ever went to special school to learn music ever, but if they did, then they received an education that almost nobody receives. If programs like that aren't available in an area, or the cost is too high, then there are certianly going to be people that want to do music, but just don't have the money or whatever to do it.
6. By no means am I a fan of people who just sample and call it a day. I think all the sampling that Kanye does is bullshit. I think Jamie Foxx in the gold digger video singing Ray Charles' part is bullshit.
7. One shot sampling is probably one of the best things ever, especially for drums. This allows somebody to buy ONE instrument and have an possibly infinite amount of potential sounds at their disposal.....now this is only good if you're a composing type of musician...and I feel that I am. I'm like a kid in a candy store when I get a new one shot kit.
Smoke Club!
1. I don't think that sampling has ruined music. For one thing, it's allowed older musicians a way to expose younger people to their music and make a little extra cash from either the rights, performing with the hip hop guy, or having their own career revived. Parliament Funkadelic is my favorite band....however neither of my parents listened to any type of funk. My mom hates anything from the 70's that isn't jimmy buffet and my dad is stuck on shitty white blues. The only way I was introduced to P-Funk was through Dre and Snoop back in the early 90's. Then I heard that pac song where he sampled Aquaboogie. Then I started buying Parliament CD's and I play them all the time. I'll even try to find their songs on those MP3 jukeboxes that you see in bars just to get other people to listen to it. The same is true of my love for Cameo, Kool and the Gang, Curtis Mayfield, Isaac Hayes, James Brown, and so many other artists and groups that were popular before I was born.
2. Sampling has made it easier for some dumbass to make a chart topper, but lets not act like any of those people have sustainable careers. They're flashes in the pan. Look at any young singing group on tour and then look at the backing band playing behind them. You'd think that the guys playing the instruments are the parents of the people singing. You don't see lil john playing the guitar do you? I'm not sure about the ages of some of the people here, but if you're an older accomplished musician and you're still getting gigs because of your skill, you better thank your lucky stars for sampling. It's dumbed down the curve and makes your own skill look that much more impressive.
3. In terms of people that cut and paste stuff into their songs...I agree, it's kind of a cop out, but those each of those samples by themselves aren't a song. It still takes talent to combine the samples and make a beat that sounds new and exciting. I'm more on the composing side. We have maybe 4 songs were we've taken a phrase from something else. The stuff we sample is genuinely stuff that we dont' have access to...like a singer who doesn't need a damn vocal correction machine.
4. Covers have been around forever. In my opinion, I think a cover song is even more of a ripoff than sampling. The entire song is stolen word for word and note for note, then the band makes that their video cut. THAT'S THE BIGGEST COP OUT OF ALL TIME NO MATTER WHO YOU ARE. What skill does it take to listen and copy. At least with sampling, a variation is done to it and new drums and bass are infused and the verses are original.
5. Not everybody has the resources to learn how to play an instrument as a child because of money or where they live or whatever....but that doesn't mean that those people shouldn't be able to try to make some type of music. I'm not sure if anyone ever went to special school to learn music ever, but if they did, then they received an education that almost nobody receives. If programs like that aren't available in an area, or the cost is too high, then there are certianly going to be people that want to do music, but just don't have the money or whatever to do it.
6. By no means am I a fan of people who just sample and call it a day. I think all the sampling that Kanye does is bullshit. I think Jamie Foxx in the gold digger video singing Ray Charles' part is bullshit.
7. One shot sampling is probably one of the best things ever, especially for drums. This allows somebody to buy ONE instrument and have an possibly infinite amount of potential sounds at their disposal.....now this is only good if you're a composing type of musician...and I feel that I am. I'm like a kid in a candy store when I get a new one shot kit.
Smoke Club!