For debate: Sampling has RUINED pop music

[raisindot]

Chris said (Yes, I agree that this forum needs a requoter!)



There was some playstation thing called "MTV Studio" that offered the same capability. These things, however fun they are, don't teach kids anything about musical composition--they're assembly-training tools...the first step in the looping education process. If these toys somehow encourage kids to actually learn to play real instruments and learn composition, I'm all for them. But I tend to think that in this attention-deficit-disordered, short-cut society, most kids use them to simulate being a producer, rather than a musician, and then toss them aside when they're bored of them.

>Truly good music will always have an audience, whilst bad music may only enjoy a thin slice of the limelight.>

Alas, if only this were true! The history of pop music has proven otherwise. The MOR, derivative, non-threatening, imitative junk fronted by generic, vanilla nonentities has always managed to capture the public sensibilities. This happened WAY before sampling got into the mix and made this process either. Personally, I blame Dick Clark for it, since he really started the trend by introducing the talentless Philadelphias like Fabian, Franki Valli, etc. whose good looks and family-friendly junk wrested public attention from the less-attractive, and much more talented 1950's innovators like Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Carl Perkins and Elvis.

The rise of the Beatles, Dylan Stones, Hendrix, etc. in the 60's pushed the popularity pendulum back to the innovators, but by the early 1970's (for me, the absolute worst period in the history of Top 40 radio), a succession of one-hit wonders ("Seasons in the Sun," anyone?) cemented the overwhelming popularity of pap over talent forever, from which it has rarely strayed and of which today the endless Britney and American Idol clones are its trendsetters.

Personally, I'd rather listen to Septimo's compositions for an entire day than suffer through one minute of Mariah Carey or Kelly Clarkson.

Jeff in Boston

[raisindot]

Septimo asked (where's the quoter function?)

>Let me ask u dot,, has the Camera ruined art? I mean is't easy to snap a picture. but it's hard work to draw one. should we bring our paper pad and pencils everytime we go on vacation, so we can "prove" our talent? stupid qusetion isn't it? I thik so too. >

That's a very good analogy. The camera has not ruined art. Some photographers (Adams, Steiglitz, etc.) have created photographs that are very "artistic." But I don't think that anyone would say Adams was an artist the same way that a lanscape painter like Monet was. After all, I could probably duplicate an Adams photograph perfectly simply by following, step by step, the process he used to take his shot, assuming the same equipment and processing method. But there's no amount of instruction that could get me to perfectly reproduce Van Gogh's "Starry Night." That doesn't mean that for preserving a memory I shouldn't use a camera. But even if the picture comes out very "artistic looking" it doesn't mean that I possess the same artistic talent as a good painter (I certainly possess the same level of a talent as a BAD painter--when you can't paint, you're pretty much on an even level!)

Let's take that analogy back to the original topc. Given that I had the same equipment setup as you, and given that you gave me the instructions you used for doing so, I could reproduce nearly perfectly any new sound or patch you made from that sampled "Hulk" piano riff.

Now let's say that you created a new composition consisting solely of "notes" played using that piano riff. You then printed the music in notation form and challenged me to reproduce it by PLAYING it using my duplicate of your patch. I can tell you honestly that I wouldn't be able to do it---I'm a terrible music reader and not a good enough player to be able to reproduce what you did by ear.

Or, let's say that you challenged me to compose and "sequence" an original keyboard sonata using only a MIDI keyboard and using your Hulk riff as the only "patch." Without any other "found" resources (i.e., copping a MIDI sonata riff somewhere), I admit I wouldn't be able to come up with a "good" sonota--I don't have the musical training or compositional skills to come up with something of good quality.




Thank you--that's exactly the point. Assembling requires no musical ability whatsoever; just an ability to put found parts together. Obviously, someone WITH musical ability (like you) does a much better job of coming up with innovative pieces comprising these elements than someone who doesn't. The problem is is that the current popular music marketplace favors assemblers who created generic pop using the same ACID loops over the more innovative Septimos of the world. Of course, the creative bankruptcy of pop music was happening long before riff sampling came long--it's just my opinion that looping has served as a catalyst in its continuing demise.



Sorry if you took personal offense. I wasn't trying to judge you personally (or anyone else here); I was really commenting on the "non-musicians" that you were referring to earlier.

<The sampler was invented for us broke musicians.

You kidding me? For what I paid for my XV-5080 and expansin cards, I could have bought a used guitar, bass, and drum set!

Jeff in Boston

[V-CeeOh]

"These things, however fun they are, don't teach kids anything about musical composition--they're assembly-training tools."

Can't desagree more.
Ever went to school???
How the hell have you learned to read and write? Using "tools" to assembly "symbols" to get WORDS. But, of course, although you get to know how to read and write that does not makes you a professional WRITER.
So you keep blaming the "tool" and not seeing what you can do with it...


o - ...just could not afford the 8
(
\_/
hear what I've done with the 7

[raisindot]

Fixthemix said:

[on my comment that the assembly toys don't teach musical abilities]



Maybe I'm old school, but I learned the letters of the alphabet and word assembly via a process of memorization and repetition. My tools were a pencil, letter guides, and books and my instructor was a teacher.

You're correct that reading and writing alone don't make you a good writer. Heck, learning how to read music doesn't automatically make you a good musician or composer. But gaining an understanding of musical theory, being exposed to a wide variety of styles and genres and gaining proficiency in an instrument can at least build your knowledge to a level where you hopefully know enough to create something of original value.

But comparing the act of learning how to read and write to an musical assembly program makes no sense. A better analogy would be to compare that musical assembly program to one of those web-based automatic "poetry creators" where the interface builds a random poem based on your selection of already written phrases. Does this teach you anything about the structure of poetry--meter, rhyme, simile, metaphor, etc.? No. It just shortcuts the creative process.

Another analogy: Recently I bought a bookshelf kit from Staples with pre-fabricated pieces and little pre-made connectors. After struggling for a while I managed to get the thing together. Did this "assembly process" teach me any carpentry skills I would need to build a similar bookshelf on my own? Not at all (I wish it did; I have no mechanical abilities whatsoever).

I'll concede that the musical assembly programs can help kids understand how different parts of a composition go together...anything that helps kids gain an appreciation of music beyond background music is good. But what's the point of if they don't take what they've learned to the next level--i.e., learning the fundamentals of music?

And, also, how much of a variety of found riffs do these programs offer? Are you going to find a variety of jazz, classical, folk, bluegrass, Gregorian chants, rockabilly, blues, or country? Certainly the MTV toy didn't offer that--just a bunch of mindless hip hop beats.


Jeff in Boston

[V-CeeOh]

"bought a bookshelf kit from Staples with pre-fabricated pieces"

see.......

So you don't know carpentry but instead of buying tools and learn how to do it (or pay some to do it for you) you decide to buy a pre-made bookshelf and with just a little effort you got it. Did you ruined the carpentry industry. Certanly not, but you took away someone elses "job" - the carpenter. Does that makes you a bad guy? Think not to
But a good bookshelf is always a good bookshelf - pre-made or completely build from the first cut of the tree - and you can certanly find the diferences.

raisindot,
We're on a merry-go-round here. And this thread will never end - like I said in my first post
I do understand what you're trying to say. I also don't like to see 16 year old kids (no offense to anyone) with just basic knowledgement in music having "radio hits" with a few pushes of a button while I, after more than 20 years playing, don't even had the chance to make my music projects going. And basically, each one of us, can find examples to make our opinions stand.

Still, I find that you're confusing "the tool" with "the guy that uses it" and "how he uses it" and about that I can only say that I don't agree with your overall opinion.

Enough said )


o - ...just could not afford the 8
(
\_/
hear what I've done with the 7

[raisindot]

Fixthemix suggests:



The difference here is that 1) I would never pretend that my Staples bookshelf is an "original creation"; 2) I would never try to market my Staples bookshelf as my original, handmade creation and 3) my Staples bookshelf serves a purely utilitarian purpose--to store stuff--and was not slapped together with any intention of representing an artistic achievement; 4) I did not "steal" the pieces that made up of the bookshelf from someone else; what I paid for the bookshelf represents, in part, what Staples paid the original part manufacturers to assemble the components; and 5) Once I have purchased the bookshelf kit Staples no longer has any legal right over what I do with it. I can paint it purple, cut it in half, even apply Officemax stickers to it and display it on my lawn and no one can do anything about it.

I do kind of feel guilty about the carpenters, tho'.

Jeff in Boston

[RedEye]

use looping, and always record sampled songs in realtime. A musician with an ear can tell the difference between a "fabricated" song and a song that has taken time to create.
The sequencer is a tool that has taken the time and money out of recording. Anybody who has spent $1000+ an hour in a professional recording studio appreciates this.

RedEye

[V10L3NT N3RD]

screw that. hiphop was bult on sampling. Music is free. When its released its everyone property. Anyone can hear it.

Sampling is hard to do, ive been trying to step up my sampling game but its 10x harder then producing a straight up keyboard beat.

[The Box Drone]

My appreciation of music is generally determined by the finished product, and not how it's made. If it takes a sampler to make a great track, then by all means, do it. The creative process is certainly more respectable when it involves more work, but ultimately the final produect is what matters.

In my opinion some of the worst pop music is made with one or two guitars, a bass & a drumset. No samplers anywhere. In contrast, I think that some of the best and most inivative music is made using samplers... not to rip off other artists, but to record new sounds that have possibly not been used before in music... to speed up, slow down, reverse & chop up loops of the artists own material.

My final musical products generally conist of about 80-100% samples, but I have always programmed or performed the music in the loops myself. I look at the sampler as a tool that allows us to do things to sound that weren't capable a few years ago.

Long live sampling!

__________________________________________
"Real musicans don't need expensive equipment to create... a true artist will make music with anything that is around them." ~ Mom

Pearls of wisdom, no mistake, but I bought a Fantom-Xa anyways