Quote Tui:

---

Go on then, sample Motown, or whatever. Just remember, you are stepping on the shoulders of giants.

---

Tui, we are ALL standing on the shoulders of giants.

Do you think I wouldn't use a harpsichord or a trumpet for a solo in the middle of a pop song, just becuase George Martin did it with the Beatles?

Would I not play a rock beat similar to one of Phil Rudd's, if it suited the song?

Is 'Don't Look Back in Anger' a terrible song, because the piano at the start sounds like Imagine?

And did the Beatles commit plaigarism when they recorded 'Good Golly Miss Molly'?

If someone uses a Vox AC30 and a treble boost to play a guitar solo a bit like Brian May, should we call them a cheat?

Some of my favourite songs, by some really individual, creative artists, have used samples. Doesn't bother me at all. Why would it?

What I do dislike is the music by numbers approach of eJay type programs, purely because the results sound superficially good, but are really derivitive. But there isn't any sampling involved there, just moving loops around. But even that could teach you some compositional skills.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

It's what our western culture has become - faking it, imitating it, copying it, outright stealing it... If Steve Wonder or the Beatles or anyone with some talent would have acted that way, we'd still be listening to hillbilly music and German marching bands (and trust me, I know what *they* sound like). As mentioned earlier, the original Motown artists wouldn't have been caught dead copying another artist's work, by cutting out little snippets from fully produced recordings. In fact, I can just imagine Marvin Gaye flipping somersaults in his grave at that suggestion.

I'm sorry if it sounds cruel or elitist or whatever, but samplists are telling me, by their very approach, that they haven't got it in them to compose, record and produce a piece of music anybody would want to listen to. If they think they do have that talent, well, they can sit down and write something that's worth the time of day. Don't brag about platinum record sales, or come up with silly comparisons that involve classical composers. That's just digging an even bigger hole for oneself.

I've heard plenty of tracks, based on sampled material, that made it into the charts, from Toto to Billy Cobham. And I think to myself: What utter nonsense, what a waste of time. If the younger audience were to get the chance to listen to the authentic tracks (think "Africa" or "Stratus", for example), they would get a real, complete and satisfying experience out of this music. Instead, all they are afforded is a little hook or bass line, which, in my book, is about as satisfying as a coitus interruptus.

I remember playing "Spectrum" to a young and aspiring sound engineer. He'd never heard of Cobham before, but I watched his jaw drop. He couldn't believe how fresh, contemporary and exciting it all sounded.

So no, no arguing, however sophisticated, is going to convince me that lifting someone else's creative outpourings is a credible form of artistic expression. Call it what it is: A nice hobby for the lesser talented. There is nothing wrong with that.

your an idiot mate.

Quote Tui:

---

It's what our western culture has become - faking it, imitating it, copying it, outright stealing it... If Steve Wonder or the Beatles or anyone with some talent would have acted that way, we'd still be listening to hillbilly music and German marching bands (and trust me, I know what *they* sound like). As mentioned earlier, the original Motown artists wouldn't have been caught dead copying another artist's work, by cutting out little snippets from fully produced recordings. In fact, I can just imagine Marvin Gaye flipping somersaults in his grave at that suggestion.

I'm sorry if it sounds cruel or elitist or whatever, but samplists are telling me, by their very approach, that they haven't got it in them to compose, record and produce a piece of music anybody would want to listen to. If they think they do have that talent, well, they can sit down and write something that's worth the time of day. Don't brag about platinum record sales, or come up with silly comparisons that involve classical composers. That's just digging an even bigger hole for oneself.

I've heard plenty of tracks, based on sampled material, that made it into the charts, from Toto to Billy Cobham. And I think to myself: What utter nonsense, what a waste of time. If the younger audience were to get the chance to listen to the authentic tracks (think "Africa" or "Stratus", for example), they would get a real, complete and satisfying experience out of this music. Instead, all they are afforded is a little hook or bass line, which, in my book, is about as satisfying as a coitus interruptus.

I remember playing "Spectrum" to a young and aspiring sound engineer. He'd never heard of Cobham before, but I watched his jaw drop. He couldn't believe how fresh, contemporary and exciting it all sounded.

So no, no arguing, however sophisticated, is going to convince me that lifting someone else's creative outpourings is a credible form of artistic expression. Call it what it is: A nice hobby for the lesser talented. There is nothing wrong with that.

---

I think you maybe need to clarify as to what kind of sampling you're talking about - lifting a vocal hook or bassline (a la Fatboy Slim), bunging some beats behind it, a snare rush and bingo - new tune - then I agree with you. It's lazy and it's cashing in on others' hard work.

If you mean all sampling, in any form (1 snare hit? A reverb tail?), then that's way too broad a generalisation. Will you stop listening to all the music you like, if you suddenly find out a kick drum was sampled from somewhere else - even if it was laid side by side to the real drummers' beat? I doubt it.

My hope is you're referring to the OP question about lifting from Motown, etc.

Snipsnip - keep a civil tongue in your head. Mate.

--------------------
I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over
Twitter

well even if he was right, he couldnt be more patronising with it.

the fact that he's wrong makes him sound like an idiot.. which i reserve my right to point out.

Quote snipsnip:

---

well even if he was right, he couldnt be more patronising with it.

the fact that he's wrong makes him sound like an idiot.. which i reserve my right to point out.

---

He's only 'wrong' because you don't agree, but making personal comments is the thing that usually gets these threads locked down - and so far this is a valid and interesting debate. It's just a differing opinion, that's all.

--------------------
I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over
Twitter

thats a good point!

I just get annoyed with elitists.

no - he's not an idiot. Just has a strong opinion on sampled stuff....where my beef comes is with the dogmatic attitude. Especially when it comes to the classical composers..... it's not as if you're the only one who understands this stuff bro' ..... comparisons are totally valid, only an elitist would deny that and I guess that's the problem T. Otherwise - i think you're on sound ground.....

As for your example with Toto etc - you need to understand that the music of Toto has no relevance to modern youth society. Kids have ALWAYS identified with music that seems to represent them (heck man, I was young in the hey day of Toto and I thought "what a load of old man crap" - backed up by the fact that they were all ex-session players...duller than dishwater - i was into the Pistols). Sampling Toto gives you a backdrop of your parents sonics with a new "grafitti" as art based subtext. It's fine to say you don't like this , but to not understand it is to not understand your own musical preference very well.....music isn't about harmony, structure and rhythm...it's about making connections - otherwise it's art for arts sake. If you can't make a connection then you're a poor musician.

The dumb elite are as unwanted as the dumb samplists hacking a beat against a motown sample. The dumb elite have theory coming out of their pants, but no ability to connect with anyone. A waste of time. The same goes for the bedroom hack with no musical theory. Find the balance.....You need technique, theory and knowledge COMBINED with art, desire to change and the where-with-all to do something different. P.Diddy isn't even a good rapper in his field, but the likes of Kanye West and Ludacris are great musicians. Personally? I can't stand Elton John, but for me to label him as talentless would be wrong.

One of my best friends is head of music at Oxford University - what he doesnt know about theory isnt worth knowing. He's fascinated by all music - and that includes the use of sampling...... I understand your frustration with bogus pop crap (yup, gettit completely) - but that's not the tools fault nor the people using such tools creatively. Elect to use the tools for your own end - it's when the tools BECOME the music that it's a problem and to that end I agree.

so in conclusion - keep up the opinion, it's all valid and I'll defend that right all the way for and with you.....but take it easy with the arrogance - it doesnt sit well with your opinions, it makes you look stupid, and to end it all, you're not, by a LONG way, the most experienced around here.

Quote Tui:

---

So no, no arguing, however sophisticated, is going to convince me that lifting someone else's creative outpourings is a credible form of artistic expression. Call it what it is: A nice hobby for the lesser talented. There is nothing wrong with that.

---

If rational argument will not convince you, then might listening to some work that uses sampling?

You've obviously heard Massive Attack's 'Safe From Harm', which samples Cobham's Stratus. Now I love Cobham's stuff, but Safe From Harm is a whole different work built around the backbone of Cobham's bass, drums, and keyboard motifs. Safe From Harm, acutally, is a song (a very good one imho). Stratus is not a song, it's an instrumental, and MA didn't just rip it off or copy it wholesale. Safe From Harm demonstably *adds* to Stratus, (lyrics and a melody, as well as some nice scratching and a bit of rap from Tricky Kid). Stratus is great, but this does not detract from SFH's greatness.

Another track I love that uses samples, is Beck's Loser. Beck has no shortage of talent, or originality. If you are calling Beck a hobbyist, or a lesser talent, you must be some kind of godlike genius!

Also Gravediggaz used some samples from various places... my dad has always been a big fan of jazz, I stuck 6 Feet Deep on and he loved it. It's a question of who uses the samples and how the samples are used. You're making huge generalisations, perhaps because you dislike people using other people's work as part of their own. Like most sweeping statements, though, they don't bear much examination.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Beck Hanson (for that is he !!) is also a formidable blue-grass guitarist - one of the best....

What is it with the occasional foul tone on this forum - is that the famed British (or English?) gentleman attitude coming through? Don't worry, I've lived there long enough to know about it. I used to get offended by name calling, until I realised that this sort of thing always falls back on the originator. So hey, let it all hang out. The only person to be a little concerned might be Ian, he is the one who has to pay for all this!

narcoman, what's up. You say "music isn't about harmony, structure and rhythm". Oh? Wikipedia defines music thusly (and as we know, Wiki is always right): "Music is an art form in which the medium is sound. Common elements of music are pitch (which governs melody and harmony), rhythm (and its associated concepts tempo, meter, and articulation), dynamics, and the sonic qualities of timbre and texture." Yet, you offer a new definition: "It's about making connections". Fancy that. Who would have known..?

Then you chastise me for my apparent arrogance, because I dare to suggest that making music has something to do with, err, making music. You also think that I'm "not the most experienced around here." I don't recall claiming I was, but I started to make money by performing classical music 32 years ago, and was awarded a BA in classical percussion and piano 25 years ago. I have been composing music since I can remember, and I began selling my work some 10 years ago. So I guess I feel pretty comfortable about having an opinion about various aspects of music. Just read my bio...

BTW, like pretty much everybody else here, I use plenty of sampled sounds from dedicated libraries - gigabytes upon gigabytes. However, I've paid for those sounds, and they were recorded for the purpose of getting used by electronic musicians. I also sometimes create my own sample libraries. However, I wouldn't, in a million years, consider raiding my CD collection, and like some sort of scavenger, rip out little bits I like. I find that concept pathetic. You think that's an elitist view?

Quote Tui:

---

I find that concept pathetic. You think that's an elitist view?

---

I do.

Quote Tui:

---

What is it with the occasional foul tone on this forum - is that the famed British (or etc etc

---

Hey

Well - I am defending your right to say what you like - so I think I'm being pretty even handed.

I did read your biog', and that's how I drew my conclusions. I certainly don't think you're ill informed, quite the opposite. I assume that you are a very educated music bod'... my point on that is that there are people on here who are even more experienced (either professionally, or just raw time and experience or both !) , yet who don't feel the need to belittle the production methods of others.....

Your opinion on this matter is totally valid but just somewhat scathing of those that don't do as you do.

Now - on the subject of your use of sample libraries - I NEVER use them. Don't need to - I operate an award winning studio orchestra which does a lot of tv,film and video game work. It's half my bread and butter - I don't like sample libraries in that sense, because (for me and me only) they cheapen the orchestral performing art. Now - I make the distinction between it being my opinion and fact. I have nothing against others who choose to use this method of production - good luck to them - and I've worked for some of the best in producing MIDI score - James Newton Howard and Sean Callery to name but two, but I certainly don't like it !

I haven't really opposed any of your views on this - I am taking issue with the slightly arrogant stance (perhaps that is just how it comes across but nearly every on of your posts on this matter has some sparking word of your world being better - even the ' lived amongst them' line (paraphrasing obviously)....)

Interesting your comment on what music is - I was thinking of it more on a human level - why we actually do it. The definition you gave is much more business like. Yup - technically music is rules, rhythm and harmony. But that's not WHY it is - which is MUCH more important..... without the reason for music no one would give a flying fig about Brahms, Beck or Bloody Big Beats hip hop. Without "why" then the rules, rhythm and harmony become a waste of time.

Anyway - no insult intended, I respect your opinions on the subject, just not sure you're expressing them in a way that will get you much sympathy from others - although I suspect you don't need it !

Quote narcoman:

---

Your opinion on this matter is totally valid but just somewhat scathing of those that don't do as you do.

---

That's a misreading of my words, and absolutely not the point I'm trying to make. People can create music by whistling into a kitchen sink whilst reading the Daily Mail, for all I care. It would still be something they intentionally, originally and creatively do by themselves. Loading a finished recording by some named artist into the computer, messing around with a few beats and applying filters and compression is not. That's plagiarising.

Quote narcoman:

---

I don't like sample libraries in that sense, because (for me and me only) they cheapen the orchestral performing art.

---

I generally agree with you, with the exception that, due to the possibilities of sequencing, orchestral and other sounds can be used differently and creatively in ways that otherwise would not be possible. More importantly, when somebody sits down and writes a piece of music with a sampled piano and string section, it is still their own, unique composition. That - and only that - is relevant. It is not up to me to judge the merits of someone's creations. In a higher, philosophical sense, all creations are equally valid anyway.

Quote narcoman:

---

I respect your opinions on the subject, just not sure you're expressing them in a way that will get you much sympathy from others - although I suspect you don't need it !

---

Quite. If I wanted sympathy, I'd join the boy scouts.

Quote Tui:

---

Comparing sampling with the workings of classical music is just funny, but I wont go there.

---

I don't understand that statement. You seem to be saying that if I take a pre-existing theme - plainchant, folksong or from classical music - and incorporate it into a composed classical work, then that is acceptable. However if I sample a texture or rhythm loop and incorporate it into a composition that is not acceptable.

Sampling covers an extensive range, from playing a track and grunting "a-ha, check this out, alright, you know what I'm saying" to integrating something so successfully it is sometimes difficult to recognise it the first time.

You could equally argue that the polyophonic church composers lack a melodic sense because they started with plainchant or folksongs. Or the blues musicians lack skill because they only used a couple of chord progressions.

Regarding your question of rudeness, in Britain we have the belief that the British are polite. In my experience of web forums it is the Americans who are polite and the British and Canadians who can be exceptionally rude.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Quote Tui:

---

Comparing sampling with the workings of classical music is just funny, but I wont go there.

---

I don't understand that statement. You seem to be saying that if I take a pre-existing theme - plainchant, folksong or from classical music - and incorporate it into a composed classical work, then that is acceptable. However if I sample a texture or rhythm loop and incorporate it into a composition that is not acceptable.

Sampling covers an extensive range, from playing a track and grunting "a-ha, check this out, alright, you know what I'm saying" to integrating something so successfully it is sometimes difficult to recognise it the first time.

You could equally argue that the polyophonic church composers lack a melodic sense because they started with plainchant or folksongs. Or the blues musicians lack skill because they only used a couple of chord progressions.

Regarding your question of rudeness, in Britain we have the belief that the British are polite. In my experience of web forums it is the Americans who are polite and the British and Canadians who can be exceptionally rude.

---

Go to Gearslutz and see which nationality is the rudest (not everyone obviously)...!!

Tui, I hope the tone of my posts didn't come across as rude. I wasn't trying to attack you, just your point of view.

What do you say to the argument that 'Safe From Harm' adds to 'Stratus'?

Is it just that you don't *like* the words, melody, rapping, and ornamentation supplied by Massive Attack?

You seem to be saying that using a piece of music and adding elements which were not in the original, is 'wrong' in itself, and to be looked down on as the work of a 'lesser talent', no matter what the quality of the additional material. Is that a fair summary of your postition?

Would this also apply if the borrowed/stolen elements were played, and not sampled?

What about classical composers who invent variations on pre-existing themes? (I'm not arguing againt you, I'm just asking what you think of their efforts: is this music necessarily 'less' than it would be if they'd written from scratch?)

I think most people on this forum would agree that there is the potential for a lot of very unoriginal, lame music, created from samples.

The question is, is ALL music which involves sampling other music, NECESSARILY lame, *because* it involves sampling?

A further question is then, why is *this* form of musical 'borrowing' (you'd call it theft, maybe?) in particular, so offensive? Can this degree of offense be justified, in view of the fact that it is not only acceptable, but actually *essential* for musicians to borrow all kinds of other material from their predecessors?

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Tui, you're clearly not going to be dissauded, nor do you appear to be engaging in the discussion with any other intent than to push your opinion - which is fine. however, i do think you've made your point now.

personally, i disagree. there is no such thing as "original" art, and there never has been. everything is built from centuries of influence and allusion...

Quote Raymond Chandler, in 'The Simple Art of Murder' said:

---

There are no vital and significant forms of art; there is only art, and precious little of that. The growth of populations has in no way increased the amount; it has merely increased the adeptness with which substitutes can be produced and packaged.

---

playing a four-four back beat is not original, no matter whether it's Billy Cobham doing it or the guy from the Kooks. sampling in its best forms is the musical equivalent of quotation. in its worst incarnations it is downright plagiarism.

that's my opinion; you have yours. we are each entitled to express our opinions without having to force the other to believe them.

--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Regarding your question of rudeness, in Britain we have the belief that the British are polite. In my experience of web forums it is the Americans who are polite and the British and Canadians who can be exceptionally rude.

---

Right, thanks for clearing that up for me. That's settled then.

Quote Tui:

---

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Regarding your question of rudeness, in Britain we have the belief that the British are polite. In my experience of web forums it is the Americans who are polite and the British and Canadians who can be exceptionally rude.

---

Right, thanks for clearing that up for me. That's settled then.

---

That's great - now can you answer my question please as I genuinely, don't understand your view?

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Quote Tui:

---

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Regarding your question of rudeness, in Britain we have the belief that the British are polite. In my experience of web forums it is the Americans who are polite and the British and Canadians who can be exceptionally rude.

---

Right, thanks for clearing that up for me. That's settled then.

---

That's great - now can you answer my question please as I genuinely, don't understand your view?

---

Ditto. I'm beginning to wonder if Tui is ignoring my posts on purpose.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Quote Richard Graham:

---

...

What do you say to the argument that 'Safe From Harm' adds to 'Stratus'?

Is it just that you don't *like* the words, melody, rapping, and ornamentation supplied by Massive Attack?

You seem to be saying that using a piece of music and adding elements which were not in the original, is 'wrong' in itself, and to be looked down on as the work of a 'lesser talent', no matter what the quality of the additional material. Is that a fair summary of your postition?

Would this also apply if the borrowed/stolen elements were played, and not sampled?
...

A further question is then, why is *this* form of musical 'borrowing' (you'd call it theft, maybe?) in particular, so offensive? Can this degree of offense be justified, in view of the fact that it is not only acceptable, but actually *essential* for musicians to borrow all kinds of other material from their predecessors?

---

I'm not sure I can make my point any clearer, but I'll try. Basically, I'm surprised at the very existence of this discussion. Are we all so used to cut and pasting, and plagiarising, that we don't notice anymore when it happens? Maybe that's the reason. Until digital technology came along, stealing someone's ideas required a certain amount of effort. Today, it's child-play.

Of course I know that the "great" composers of the past borrowed music from all over the place. I take that as a given, it's hardly a secret. You learn about it at school. Everyone who creates any kind of art is influenced by those that came before them.

But people like Debussy (mentioning his name in this context it truly bizarre), Brahms or any of the other universally recognised composers didn't employ a bunch of copyists to lift hook-lines from other compositions, add some tympani banging and choir-shouting, and let the whole thing repeat for 5 minutes.

Do I think 'Safe From Harm' adds to 'Stratus'? TBH, I only ever listened to this track very briefly, perhaps twice, in passing. There might be some artistic value in there that I missed, I honestly don't know. However, the very idea of lifting a groove, played by some of the finest musicians on the planet (say hello to Lee Sklar), and selling it as a new recording I find too grotesque to contemplate. I find it unethical to the extreme. That's why I suggested this technique might be a nice hobby for amateurs... But for pros, who release music to the public under their own name? Considering that the public has no idea how the recording came about, but naturally assumes that it is original and performed by the artists listed on the CD? With Stratus in particular, we are talking about a very, very complex piece. It starts with an elaborate drum solo (in itself a classic), which leads into a single-tom roll where the engineer decided to pull up the reverb until it distorts the f*ck out of everything in a most musical way (now *that's* art ). Then we have the actual tune which consists of several parts, every one of them beautifully conceived and executed. A classic composition, and classic performances. Stratus is so much more than its main groove, I would call it almost epic. There is no other piece of music I'm aware of that projects a similar atmosphere, it is truly unique.

Now to your point. If Massive Attack thought they can improve on this, or add something worthy to it, they could have hired a studio, and re-record Stratus. Let's hear what they have to say. Let's hear their rhythm section perform the groove (my sympathies to the drummer who tries). Let's see how many albums they are going to sell that way. Did they take that risk? No. They probably figured early on that they couldn't get away with it, and that their own skills weren't quite on the level. So they chose the easy route and "sampled", i.e. lifted the core and foundation for their track from a CD. Am I disgusted? You bet, particularly at the apparent lack of appreciation for what the original track is all about. If it was possible to 'rape music', I'd say this is how you do it. It is low, in my book.

OK, so I'm an old fart, I know. I come from a time - long gone - when, if you wanted to record music, you had to make it happen, and no fancy technology could help you out. You had to practice your part over and over, and when you sat there with your phones strapped on, and time is money, you had to give it your best shot and play your heart out - only to arrive at a result that sounds at best professional, but nowhere near as inspired as what monster musicians like Cobham (or Porcaro in 'Africa') lay down between two cups of tea.

This is nothing to say about the apparent musical skills of Massive Attack in other works. Frankly, I don't know their music. As I said earlier, I don't place judgement on anybody's art, it's all fine by me, and I support it (also in a practical sense, I recently paid for the recording of a local Thai musician, because I liked his songs). But please, let's not confuse lifting music wholesale with creativity. That doesn't compute.

Quote Richard Graham:

---

I'm beginning to wonder if Tui is ignoring my posts on purpose.

---

Not at all. But sometimes I need to sleep...

Personally I like the Destiny's Child VS Nirvana mashup.

What's your favourite?

I think TUI you should have a listen to the track mentionned before: Massive Attack, Endtroducing by shadow and give us an honest opinion.
As it has been said before in Rap, Trip Hop, House as well as Rock you have great band and awful one.
P Diddy is an awful one IMHO however it is a matter of taste and everyone's is different.
true you have rip off: check it on youtube
Shapeshifters: Lola's theme
Johnnie Taylor: What about my love
You should have a listen to Hocus Pocus (French Rap band with live instrument). The backbone of their tracks is sampling, but they have a brass and a string sections, live drummer, fender rhodes.
Sampling created the culture of crate digging which gives some artist attention thst they would have never got.
However the sampler should ask the original artist for any commercial release.
I did not know Johnnie Taylor before, now I'll be on the look out for some of his vinyls.

To answer the OP questions, I listen to anything when I look for samples.

--------------------
TSL PPM meter for sale PM if interested.

Quote Korff:

---

Personally I like the Destiny's Child VS Nirvana mashup.

What's your favourite?

---

- Massive attack have sold quite a lot of records I reckon (heh).... somewhat more than Mr Cobham. Massive Attacks use of the sample DOES (IMO) improve upon the original piece - (which I'm afraid to say I find somewhat bloated). For me - Billy in the Mahavishnu Orchestra is where its at - a lot more pleasing....

- I've worked for Billy on a number of occasions (all soundtrack work) - you should see some of the sample based hip hop acts he raves about.

- I can think of three drummers I know first hand who can give Cobham a run for his money - the important thing is Billy did it first.....

Quote narcoman:

---

- Massive attack have sold quite a lot of records I reckon (heh).... somewhat more than Mr Cobham. Massive Attacks use of the sample DOES (IMO) improve upon the original piece - (which I'm afraid to say I find somewhat bloated). For me - Billy in the Mahavishnu Orchestra is where its at - a lot more pleasing....

---

Whatever the number of records sold, I love and respect Cobham and personally I listen to him far more than Massive Attack (these days). I too think that 'Safe From Harm' improves on Stratus, for similar reasons to Narcoman's - they cut out the drum solo and go straight to the heart of the piece. Of course, Massive Attack are 'standing on the shoulder of a giant', to quote Tui (and where did you 'sample' that expression from, Tui?), but those vocals, scratching and rapping are both original and beautiful.

Anyhoo, Narc, have you checked out some of Billy's later solo albums (apart from Mahavishnu, which I also rate highly)... Spectrum is the most famous (why is that??), but Inner Conflicts, A Funky Thide of Sings, and Crosswinds, all contain fabulous music. I'm still a BC noob, really, but he is 'top boy' as far as I'm concerned.

Quote narcoman:

---

- I've worked for Billy on a number of occasions (all soundtrack work) - you should see some of the sample based hip hop acts he raves about.

---

QED. If these acts are good enough for Billy Cobham, they ought to be good enough for the rest of us.

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Ah, stop laying into Tui, he's entitled to his opinion and we don't all have to convert other people to our own differing opinions to prove them "wrong" or us "right" (whatever that means...)

I personally am more interested in the debate about sampling, rather than the debate about Tui's opinions or the way he expresses them...

Quote Richard Graham:

---

Of course, Massive Attack are 'standing on the shoulder of a giant', to quote Tui (and where did you 'sample' that expression from, Tui?)

---

Ooh, that was sneaky...

Quote Tui:

---

Of course I know that the "great" composers of the past borrowed music from all over the place. I take that as a given, it's hardly a secret. You learn about it at school. Everyone who creates any kind of art is influenced by those that came before them.

But people like Debussy (mentioning his name in this context it truly bizarre), Brahms or any of the other universally recognised composers didn't employ a bunch of copyists to lift hook-lines from other compositions, add some tympani banging and choir-shouting, and let the whole thing repeat for 5 minutes.

---

No, not exactly like that, but Bach took Vivaldi's music wholesale for his organ concertos. Bartok, Holst, Vaughan Williams and many others took folksongs wholesale and added orchestration.

As for "hook-lines" this is common in classical music, Copland in El Salon Mexico for instance. New research has suggested Beethoven may have based one of his themes on a Jewish melody (can't remember which one off hand).

As for choirs shouting in the context of quotations you only have to look at Berio's Laborintus 2. For sampling in classical music, Berio's use of Sicilian folk song recordings (I think its Naturale).

If I understand you correctly, its fine if I take a previous theme, provided it is written out and played by real musicians. However it is wrong to take a recording and transform it electronically. I obviously disagree with you on this. However I do think you are categorically wrong in how much copying happens in classical music and hope I have shown this above.

--------------------
No longer a forum member.

I think most people's views on the rights and wrongs of sampling will change quite a bit if for example an Amon Tobin or DJ Shadow samples their work and makes a ton of money of it. Then we will see who truly approves and who doesn't ...

Personally I don't sample other people's work and I never will. Each to his own though.

D.

--------------------
www.thirdfloormusic.com

Quote Tui:

---

If Massive Attack thought they can improve on this, or add something worthy to it, they could have hired a studio, and re-record Stratus.

---

question - what if the original performer is dead?

you seem to be saying that sampling is "easy", whereas it's still ok to steal and plagiarise to your heart's content as long as you use real musicians.



--------------------
hourglass | random thoughts | doubledotdash!? collective

Quote Darclinc:

---

I think most people's views on the rights and wrongs of sampling will change quite a bit if for example an Amon Tobin or DJ Shadow samples their work and makes a ton of money of it. Then we will see who truly approves and who doesn't ...

Personally I don't sample other people's work and I never will. Each to his own though.

D.

---

Bring it on. If DJ Shadow sampled something of mine, I'd get paid for it, have a massive ready-made audience for my skills, be in the public domain to a far greater extent than now, be able to say to my friends 'hey, listen to this record... I did that drum loop (for example)!', be known as 'the drummer who played X', etc. What's not to like?

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

You know what, you're right, I can't really think of something more satisfying than people appreciating my music only when someone famous happens to sample it.

--------------------
www.thirdfloormusic.com

Quote Tui:

---

But people like Debussy (mentioning his name in this context it truly bizarre), Brahms or any of the other universally recognised composers didn't employ a bunch of copyists to lift hook-lines from other compositions, add some tympani banging and choir-shouting, and let the whole thing repeat for 5 minutes.

---

This is exactly the kind of outrageous caricature that makes me keep trying with you, Tui, even though I know you have no time for 'sophisticated arguments'!

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Quote Darclinc:

---

You know what, you're right, I can't really think of something more satisfying than people appreciating my music only when someone famous happens to sample it.

---

Ignoring the sarcasm for a minute, why would recognition by one's peers through being sampled by them, be a worse way of being appreciated than having a DJ play your record on the radio?

--------------------
Battle flags are flown at the feet of a garden gnome.

Quote Richard Graham:

---

Is 'Don't Look Back in Anger' a terrible song, because the piano at the start sounds like Imagine?

---

I feel this particular question is letting down an otherwise valid point...

--------------------
Anto mo Ninja, Watashi mo Ninja

Quote desmond:

---

Ah, stop laying into Tui, he's entitled to his opinion and we don't all have to convert other people to our own differing opinions to prove them "wrong" or us "right" (whatever that means...)

I personally am more interested in the debate about sampling, rather than the debate about Tui's opinions or the way he expresses them...

---

I don't really think anyone is laying in to Tui (and I think he can handle himself) - I think folk are more aghast at his refusal to accept any form of sampling as valid in its own right. I'm also more interested in the discussion on sampling, but I'm actually coming around to Tui's way of thinking. I think it's quite honourable to seek the purity of creativity and expression that writing all your own music can bring. Whilst I like a lot of music that contains samples, and do still think they are valid, creative, artistic and worthy - I don't want to do it myself. I do want to create something that is as unique as possible (though derivative, accepted). I would most definitely feel a bit of a fraud if I got rich and/or famous off the back of a well chosen sample. I think if you make music, in one sense all you have is what you can create yourself, from yourself, and I do think one would be more satisfied with expressing that. At least it's true.
But what i think needs to be accepted is that the music that has always sampled (Hip Hop), did this out of necessity ("two turntables and a microphone"). A new genre was created out of economic need, and I think Hip Hop is still one of the most innovative and creative forms of musical and lyrical expression because of it's use of samples (and please note, I mean Hip Hop, not pop music masquerading as Hip Hop). I suppose Massive Attack would fall under this broad umbrella, because of their influences?

--------------------
I honestly think you ought to sit down calmly, take a stress pill and think things over
Twitter