What's your favourite genre to sample???

Mine is definetly the music from the MoTown era. A lot of 60s/70s music. That's my favourite genre to sample but I do find a lot of other stuff in other genres.

--------------------
www.twitter.com/officialshief

[sharp intake of breath]


This is going to be a touchy subject on this forum, I fear!

I actually write and produce the music I put on CD/DVD/radio. Strange that.

In fairness, only sampling will do to get that particular 'produced' kind of sound for some genres. I just had to do some Chemical Brothers soundalikes and I got a decent result by sampling a whole chunk of one of my own existing tracks and reversing/transposing from there. No copyright issues that way. In fact I quite often take a sample of a developing dance track and stick it into EXS24 with a 48 semitone pitchbend range and use it to generate wizzy scratching type fx etc. There's loads of mileage in that kind of thing, but obviously avoiding sampling cliches is the key these days methinks....

My answer to OP: sample your own stuff.

Touchy subject it is likely to be but I have no issue with it (watch this video if you believe sampling to be a bad thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac)

You say you sample 60s/70s stuff, do you use vocal samples like Moby did or instrument tracks too?

Quote leslawrenson:

---

[sharp intake of breath]


This is going to be a touchy subject on this forum, I fear!

---

Or should you say...'t-t-t-touch t-t-t-touch t-t-t-touchy'!

--------------------
http://www.myspace.com/acoustimax

Quote [SyncratiK]:

---

Touchy subject it is likely to be but I have no issue with it (watch this video if you believe sampling to be a bad thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac)

You say you sample 60s/70s stuff, do you use vocal samples like Moby did or instrument tracks too?

---

Some instrumentals. It's like, if I find a part within the piece that I like, I'll sample it. I don't take chunks out of records and call it my own. It's not like that AT ALL!

Sampling is an artform. I'm fond of crate diggin. Finding old records and bringing them back to life to an audience that probably wouldn't have EVER heard them.

Most of the stuff out is compiled of samples. Even if it does sound original.

--------------------
www.twitter.com/officialshief

Quote Tui:

---

I actually write and produce the music I put on CD/DVD/radio. Strange that.

---

Me too.

--------------------
www.twitter.com/officialshief

Oh lord, here we go!

Sampling has a corollary in the visual arts with collage, where you take elements of whatever is pre-made - pictures, text, wallpaper - and you stick it up on the canvas and work the pieces together.

When you look at a good collage, you don't think, "I make my own paintings. This guy is making paintings out of someone else's work." If you do, you've missed the point. It's about integrating things from the world around you, and in art it's all fair game.

Calling out sampling is like calling out Picasso. Yeah, he's not a very good artist, maybe you think. But what about the thousands of other people who worked that way? ALL of them were no good at what they did? ALL of them?

Certainly not. There were those that took it far enough that it became a new thing. Same with sampling. To just be lazy about it, grabbing a record, ripping it, and throwing it on a track wholesale, is just bad collage. It's not creative. But if you get someone who DOES something with it, bam, you've got yourself a bona fide good song on your hands.

Seems to me you're limiting yourself if you don't at least dip in the huge archive of sound out there, don't you think? Sampling is a tool, like a guitar, like a turntable, like a voice. It's what you do with it that matters.

I haven't had the chance to do that with music. For now I've been using a lot of samples of voices from all over the place.

--------------------
the music was fantastic....

Quote:

---

Calling out sampling is like calling out Picasso.

---

..not really. Calling out noise rock bands like Sonic Youth or lo-fi bands like the Unicorns and the Moldy peaches is more like calling out Picasso. Calling out sampling is like calling out scrapbookers.

--------------------
gentle robot - chapel hill rock band

Quote Shief:

---

Quote [SyncratiK]:

---

Touchy subject it is likely to be but I have no issue with it (watch this video if you believe sampling to be a bad thing http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5SaFTm2bcac)

You say you sample 60s/70s stuff, do you use vocal samples like Moby did or instrument tracks too?

---

Some instrumentals. It's like, if I find a part within the piece that I like, I'll sample it. I don't take chunks out of records and call it my own. It's not like that AT ALL!

Sampling is an artform. I'm fond of crate diggin. Finding old records and bringing them back to life to an audience that probably wouldn't have EVER heard them.

Most of the stuff out is compiled of samples. Even if it does sound original.

---

Hi, nice discussion so far.
I'd like to add that I think it is kind of funny how people don't mention what type of music they make! Clearly, sampling other peoples songs in rock music is pretty lame, and NOT sampling other peoples songs in hip hop is lame! (no copyright violations please) Please don't take that as disrespect it's just to make my point. These are 2 totally different styles of music and are appreciated for totally different reasons.
In my experience, I enjoyed sampling classical music and jazz, oh and loads of reggae. But... without sampling 60's and 70's funk and soul we would not have breakbeats and that would be sad.

Quote:

---

and NOT sampling other peoples songs in hip hop is lame!

---

This is the problem with Hip-Hop/Rap these days. Everybody still confined to old ways, stuck in a rut, fitting a mold. Just because others do it doesn't mean that's the only way it can be done. I prefer to work more like the Beatles, take a lil something from here, steal a word or two there, manipulate a bass line or something here and voila a fresh new sound inspired from other music that you like instead of just ripping a whole lead line or prominently known melody or riff.

Of course that is just my opinion. I pretty much don't like 95% of Hip-Hop and Rap out there these days, and it is my favorite genre

As for type of music I make? Electronica I guess, though that word makes me cringe. It's not generally the hyperactive club stuff, I guess.

As for sampling: Daft Punk actually heavily samples all kinds of music. I'm not sure how I feel about them, but they have a few bangers for sure. I can remember a whole room full of people having a very good time with Daft Punk without any chemical help at all!

--------------------
the music was fantastic....

You know, being someone that grew up into synths and electronic music, I was always interesting in synths, drum machines, sequencers and then software etc, but for some reason samplers never did it for me.

Sure, I could see the benefits for drums/percussion, because it basically gave you new drum machines sounds for "free", but for anything, all that tedious sampling, looping, restricted memory and quality - sure, you could get sounds that synths couldn't give you, but they were mostly bad quality, extremely bad to play, artifacts and munchkinisation all over the shop - and the music that happened with the rise of affordable sampling didn't do much for me either.

So I've never been a big sampler afficianado.

Of course, the tools have come a long way, and I will do my own multi-sampling of instruments, or the odd creative thing, but most of the sampling I do if any is more likely to resample bits of my own music or mixes to then edit and do some interesting with, mostly within the context of the same song.

I've never been a fan of the cut/paste/collage method of assembling music, loops and so on - not only does it not really feel right to me, but the results always seem like cut/paste music to me.

Now, I'm not knocking those people who do make music like this - and there are a few that do collage music *brilliantly* and really creatively, and that in itself is a talent (that I don't have).

I guess for people that don't have good musical/playing skills, who find it difficult to come up with their own music, rehashing other loops as a starting point is their bread and butter. In the same way, I couldn't draw or paint anything good to save my life, and yet I can manipulate photos and layer elements in Photoshop and achieve something visually decent. (But it doesn't really make me an "artist" or "graphic designer"...)

But my idea of composing music is not sifting through hours and hours of other peoples music until I find a 2 second loop of theirs that I can then assemble a track around, and somehow feel musically rewarded.

Not my idea of making music at all, I'm afraid...

Sampling doesn't have to mean recording music.

It's a big and small sonic world out there eg from pots and pans in the kitchen to a car exhaust.

Just a thought.

--------------------
www.youtube.com/eyeresearch

dudes like matthew herbert, amon tobin and and matmos sample random sounds like chairs moving and stuff like that, sure there are there other people who have done.

matthew herbert's production on roisin murphy's album ruby blue is one of the best "modern" soul albums in a while (IMO much better than amy winehouse. now that i wrote that i am not sure, the session band for back to black IMO are outstanding)

matmos's approach to sampling for the bjork album vespertine is incredible as well, for a chance of seeing some "live" sampling, watch the bjork - live at royal albert hall dvd.

amon tobin's most recent album the foley room made from samples from field recordings (plus the kronos quartet who play on one track) made one of the darkest, interesting, noir sounding albums in electronic music i have heard in a long time. IMO with the exception of autechre (who again are sample masters themselves) one of the most challenging electronic albums in a while.

people who discount sampling as a valid form of creating music i would recommend to check out some of the examples i made above as they are as creative as the pinnacle of any other genre/sub genre.

Sampling someone else's recordings is for people who haven't got the talent to write original material. I'm just amazed at modern-day audiences, who seem to think this is a fair use of intellectual, or rather artistic, property. When I got into making music, plagiarising was still called - well, plagiarising.

Quote caveman82:

---

people who discount sampling as a valid form of creating music

---

I don't think anyone's said that - sampling, like anything else, is a tool which can be used creatively or otherwise.

Some people do incredibly creative things using sampling - the vast majority, I suspect, do not, and are just lifting and replaying/looping stuff.

BTW, has it ever occurred to the OP that no artist of the Motown era would have been caught dead using someone else's hit record, then slosh some gimmicky sounds on it, and re-brand it as their own work?

Quote Tui:

---

Sampling someone else's recordings is for people who haven't got the talent to write original material. I'm just amazed at modern-day audiences, who seem to think this is a fair use of intellectual, or rather artistic, property. When I got into making music, plagiarising was still called - well, plagiarising.

---

nonsense. It's punk poetry - re-use of material in a different light. I've worked with Grandmaster Flash and Public Enemy (hi Zukes) and sampling is integral to both the art, politics and sonics of the music. There are far more talented musicians involved in some of the acts who employ sampling rather than the dross of MOR rock.... Talvin Singh does it a lot and he is one fine tabla player.... Same with Goldfinger, same with Nitin Sawhney.

There isn't a global view on this kind of stuff - if you don't like it that's one thing, claiming some intellectual superiority because you've written some pieces that have been released is something else. I've worked on huge records and I've sold a LOT (try seven figures) my self.... doesn't mean a damn thing..... art is art, business is business. If the art involves sampling then fine. If it doesnt, then fine. You can't judge a whole musical movement based on some tunes being crap...every track or musical piece deserves it's own critique and judgement, and only then on a personal level. There is crap classical, crap rock, crap rap and crap techno. there are also sublime pieces in every genre too - it's all personal choice.

Claiming that anyone who samples has no talent is equivalent to violinists accusing organ players of having no talent because they don't form the note.

I remember Puff Daddy (or whatever his name is these days) proudly proclaiming that he can't play a single instrument, and that he doesn't want to learn one either, because that would "dilute his art". Yeah, my ar*e.

Narcoman, your post is the very reason why I took a sharp intake of breath.

I don't think this thread is going to do anything other than lapse into a sampling-is-valid vs sampling-is-theft debate. And we've had too many of those already.

By the way, I very much agree that good sampling is as valid a skill as any other form of expression. I also believe in the right of other artists to be paid for the use of their material, and not to be ripped-off, whether it be by the (very) few skilled samplists or by the myriad of talentless chancers.

I think sampling is a valid technique that goes all the way back to early classical music. The people driving the anti-sampling lobby are opportunistic lawyers. Musicians should decide, not corporations or lawyers - and enough musicians have decided its valid.

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

It's that sort of mindset that keeps western popular music firmly where it is now - in the pits. Comparing sampling with the workings of classical music is just funny, but I wont go there.

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

Quote rmidijingles:

---

Yeah, he's not a very good artist, maybe you think.

---

Actually, Picasso was an extremely fine draughtsman - he chose to experiment in African influenced art, cubism and surrealism.

And that, perhaps, is the difference between him and some samplists who don't have traditional musical skills and cannot - often by their own admission - actually 'play' an instrument or know anything about 'music'; they rely on taking/plundering other peoples' work in order to create (ahem) their own.

--------------------
Website / Music Lab Machines / Blog

---

Of course that is just my opinion. I pretty much don't like 95% of Hip-Hop and Rap out there these days, and it is my favorite genre

---

wow its your favorite genre yet you hate most of it?.i surpose im in the same boat as you,i produce hip-hop beats yet i cannot stand this pointless sharade of gunz,bitches,and a few quid.When will it stop? not anytime soon it seems.

there is alot of excellent hip-hop artists out there you just got to know where to look,such as myspace(i know you hate it) and soundclick the last time i look there was over 129,456 hip hop artist's all waiting to be found!!

Music i like to sample? Gregorian chants,japenese orchestra,pan pipes,rock from the 70's-80's

--------------------
Don't Laugh at my Cheese Sandwhich

Quote Tui:

---

I remember Puff Daddy (or whatever his name is these days) proudly proclaiming that he can't play a single instrument, and that he doesn't want to learn one either, because that would "dilute his art". Yeah, my ar*e.

---

Ability to play an instrument in the traditional sense isn't quite the same thing as the sampling debate.

I'm a drummer, but many of the strongest beats I hear come from guys who've probably never held a pair of sticks in their life.

But, these are guys who've PROGRAMMED their beats, not sampled someone else's (and sped it up or whatever).

I find the nicest tracks from all of you on this forum, sample them and sell them for ridicoulus amounts of money in Sweden. Under a name I took from a friend.

I've stayed out of this so far, 'cos I mostly sit on the fence. I use my own samples (either recorded musique concrete or from my old tracks). Coming from a traditional instrument-based background, the thrill of the sampler was hard to ignore (all those sounds you can have, without having to learn to play every instrument yourself!), and a lot of my early tracks used lifted chunks of existing recordings. I soon found that i just felt lazy, and a bit of a fraud. Even though I was building a new track around a riff, or melody - it was the recognisable part that still stood out - the way Fatboy or Moby would do it. To me it smacks of the age old tradition of white men stealing black folks' music and getting twice as rich and famous off it! Of course this extends to the lazy use of samples in most commercial hip hop, again as already mentioned, most of which is shite. But good hip hop always stands up on its own, regardless of the samples, because of how hip hop is (mostly) lyric-based. A regular Moby type track basically relies on a well known melody to sell it - which is rubbish.

Sampling from an Amon Tobin style point of view is so far removed from the Moby school of sampling - and thankfully so. This kind of sampling is more interested in the minutiae of sound, extracting the overlooked and emphasising it to good effect.

One of the finest albums of the last 10 years is Endtroducing, by DJ Shadow - a perfect example of how good sampling can create very new music, which honours its original source and does well to maintain respect to the original artists (imo).

As mentioned, sampling is neither good or bad - but the resulting music most certainly can be.

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

Quote Tui:

---

It's that sort of mindset that keeps western popular music firmly where it is now - in the pits. Comparing sampling with the workings of classical music is just funny, but I wont go there.

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

---

that may be true - but as a classical producer (of some experience) it's kind of here nor there. (I totally agree about the Puff Daddy thing by the way - your observation has, in my eyes, some merit on that one!!)

The point of sampling, when done well, isn't to do it because you can't play anything. Indeed in the examples I gave you have three classically trained musicians - two of them award winning....no, the point is exploring new artistic areas. I can see where your coming from re- smacking a beat on an old Motown classic, but this isn't always the case, the classics are seldom sampled, it's usually some no-mark track that happened to have an interesting part.

Look at David Holmes - an excellent musician and imaginative user of samples. The Oceans 11 soundtrack COULDN'T have been done without samples, samples from tracks that in their original form are (often) pretty crap - the combining of radically different produced sounds and writings FORMS the very soundtrack. You could not do this by performing the pieces - the next best thing would be to get a team of three producers and get them to go off and make the segments in their own style - then sample in the differential pieces....No.... Sampling is an artform in itself. The same as DJing can be, the same as guitaring and piano playing can be....

There is a lo of classical dross - a lot is lauded simply because it is from "days of yore". I've taken apart bits of Debussy with fellow producers and orchestrators and concluded that there are just elements of noodling going on - irrelevant crap I believe would be the more vernacular form.

No - as I said before - judge each piece as it comes. Public Enemy of the mid 80's is just as relevant and profound as "moonlight sonata" (heck, lovely tune but hardly hard to conceive or play). Somethings innate difficulty (ie playing an instrument) isn't; important in its' artistic contribution. To fail to see this is to fail to understand ANY art.

So which would you prefer - John Williams (re)writing classical pieces or CLint Masnell breaking new ground with the Kronos Quartet...? they use samples and they are [ ****** ] genii......on the level of ANY classics.

Classical composers have often used other composers' work. The plainchant masses were based on pre-existing plainchant. In one of many masses on plainchant, one by Taverner had a particular section, on the words "in nomine", which became the basis of many other masses and instrumental pieces.
The Elizabethan keyboard composers used folk songs of the day, such as Sellinger's Round. And so the traditions continues, Brahm's Variations on the Saint Anthony Chorale, Debussy using the Keel Row in the Three Images. Messian using melodic forms from a favourite melody.
Apparently Milhaud's Le Boeuf sur le toit, quotes several Brazilian compositions.
Then there are the constant musical and lyrical themes that return again and again in the blues.
T.S. Elliot in the Wasteland quotes numerous previous writings. The numerous novels that quote the Bible - "In the name of the father", "The power and the glory", "A time for loving". We are part of a culture. That a few lawyers decide that they can make a money out of legal technicalities does not mean we have to go along with it.

Our culture is a tradition, I would say nothing is sui generis. If you produce good music, you produce good music. If you don't you don't. It is a tragic time for or culture if lawyers are the arbiters. If instrumental technical ability is the point of music then lets include it in the Olympics where it can be decided on skill rather than artistic merit.
The fact is incredibly skilled jazz and classical musicians can produce music of little value. And some kid with a sampler can produce exceptional music. Some great music was produced by blues musicians who couldn't really play. The only test of a composition is the finished composition

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

Arguing about what constitutes art, or what doesn't, is pretty pointless, isn't it. Personally, I don't give a damn!

But let's be clear: 90% of the rubbish that has been produced since the late 80s won't be listened to by future generations, except for a few crazed drug addicts perhaps. The fact that somebody would find it rewarding to sample music that was recorded 40 years ago only illustrates my point.

Mentioning Debussy and sampling wannabes in the same breath? That's pretty funny. I'm not even going to try to make sense of that comparison, it is just so absurd.

Quote Muied Lumens:

---

I find the nicest tracks from all of you on this forum, sample them and sell them for ridicoulus amounts of money in Sweden. Under a name I took from a friend.

---

I was involved with a case where a (at the time) well-known "act" sampled a black soul musician's vocal and melody, dressed it up with a new beat and passed it off as their own work, not even citing the black musician. The duo also lifted the sax part from the same record. Again, no permission, and no credit. The record charted inside the top 10 in the UK, and no doubt made the "act" and its record company are fair few quid.

The two black musicians affected are not rich men. They had good careers in their native USA, not brilliant, and had probably been exploited by their management and record companies - like most musicians tend to be.

Whether or not the song was made into a better song by the "act" is not the debate, as far as I am concerned. Having been exploited when the record originally came out, the original artists were exploited yet again, and given absolutely no recompense. Is that fair? If I play on your record as a session guitarist, I expect to be paid. Why should it be different if you use the words and work of another artist by copying it from that box of dusty LPs you took down from your mother's attic?

Those records are not your private cache of riffs and "beats" to rip off and exploit as you see fit. They are the work of other artists, who deserve respect and, more importantly, who deserve to be consulted before you start taking apart their life's work.

And the argument that sampling is justified because classical composers have quoted one another simply does not hold water. Chuck Berry is probably the most quoted guitarist of modern times. His licks and riffs have been used by Keith Richards, George Harrison, Jimi Hendrix, Jimi Page, Pete Townsend, and god-alone knows who else. What none of those guitarists did was to take one of Chuck's LPs, rip sections of Johnny B Goode into their MPC, slap on a "beat" and pass it off as their own.

There is a big difference between quoting another artist within the context of your own original piece and simply copying their recorded material.

Quote Tui:

---

Arguing about what constitutes art, or what doesn't, is pretty pointless, isn't it. Personally, I don't give a damn!

But let's be clear: 90% of the rubbish that has been produced since the late 80s won't be listened to by future generations, except for a few crazed drug addicts perhaps. The fact that somebody would find it rewarding to sample music that was recorded 40 years ago only illustrates my point.

Mentioning Debussy and sampling wannabes in the same breath? That's pretty funny. I'm not even going to try to make sense of that comparison, it is just so absurd.

---

no - all of the rubbish won't be listened to - but what constitutes rubbish? THAT is in the ear of the beholder. Your absolute statement of "fact" is in question here. Precisely because "art" is NOT a science. To some Gershwin is genuis - to others it's pop music of the day. Same for ANY era.

Debussy was one example - there is plenty of extremely average music from the greats - not everything they did was great. Look at their contemporaries at any given age and you'll see a lot of duplication. It's not a problem though - and that is the point. It's also not for you to agree with or disagree - it's the professional opinion of me !! (heh). I picked on Debussy randomly - but let's focus on this - his "quartet in g minor - opus 10" is dull. Dull and unimaginative - in fact I've not heard any version of this which moves me - even the mighty Brodsky Quartet . But that's just my personal opinion - one with which many would disagree.



Any musical form doesn't require your individual endorsement, of course not and I'm sure that in no way would you insinuate that it must. But neither is it deserving of minor condescension - as if not being good enough on any level to exist - which, by the way, I don't either.... I think I've earned my stripes (heh). Music isn't science although it's theory may be scientific (lots of simple maths). To devalue any art or entertainment form based on its "topology" doesn't carry weight, especially since the acid test for music is whether people like it or not.

My own personal music is 100% based on my artistic leanings (although composing is no longer my biggest earner) and , as much as I despise rock acts like Nickleback or "cookie cutter hip hop" like P.Diddy , I cannot decry both their right to do what they want and others right to love 'em. . I certainly cannot curse their method of noise making - I happen to love a lot of public enemy and QOTSA. Two acts who've done their work using identical technology to the aforementioned guff (IMO).

Quote leslawrenson:

---

I was involved with a case where a (at the time) well-known "act" sampled a black soul musician's vocal and melody, dressed it up with a new beat and passed it off as their own work, not even citing the black musician. The duo also lifted the sax part from the same record. Again, no permission, and no credit. The record charted inside the top 10 in the UK, and no doubt made the "act" and its record company are fair few quid.

The two black musicians affected are not rich men. They had good careers in their native USA, not brilliant, and had probably been exploited by their management and record companies - like most musicians tend to be.

Whether or not the song was made into a better song by the "act" is not the debate, as far as I am concerned. Having been exploited when the record originally came out, the original artists were exploited yet again, and given absolutely no recompense. Is that fair? If I play on your record as a session guitarist, I expect to be paid. Why should it be different if you use the words and work of another artist by copying it from that box of dusty LPs you took down from your mother's attic?

Those records are not your private cache of riffs and "beats" to rip off and exploit as you see fit. They are the work of other artists, who deserve respect and, more importantly, who deserve to be consulted before you start taking apart their life's work.

And the argument that sampling is justified because classical composers have quoted one another simply does not hold water. Chuck Berry is probably the most quoted guitarist of modern times. His licks and riffs have been used by Keith Richards, George Harrison, Jimi Hendrix, Jimi Page, Pete Townsend, and god-alone knows who else. What none of those guitarists did was to take one of Chuck's LPs, rip sections of Johnny B Goode into their MPC, slap on a "beat" and pass it off as their own.

There is a big difference between quoting another artist within the context of your own original piece and simply copying their recorded material.

---

You make some valid points, but sampling is a part of music production and is here to stay. of course those artists should have got compensation, but is it the sampling producer's place to start worrying about that? is it his fault that they were not compensated correctly? no. he heard something that he could work with as a producer, and he produced a track. simple. Its just like anything else in life, some people sample well, and some people don't.

In this business, it's all about end product. People dont hear a record and this 'ooh,there is a sample in that track, I'm not going to enjoy it'. As long as they hear a good track, they will dance to it, listen to it, and buy it. Whatever genre of music.

You need to remember that whole genres of music have arisen out of sampling. Should we now be deprived of that choice? I don't think so. As long as the correct people are compensated properly, sampling is just another tool in a producer's armory.

Quote narcoman:

---

Quote Tui:

---

Arguing about what constitutes art, or what doesn't, is pretty pointless, isn't it. Personally, I don't give a damn!

But let's be clear: 90% of the rubbish that has been produced since the late 80s won't be listened to by future generations, except for a few crazed drug addicts perhaps. The fact that somebody would find it rewarding to sample music that was recorded 40 years ago only illustrates my point.

Mentioning Debussy and sampling wannabes in the same breath? That's pretty funny. I'm not even going to try to make sense of that comparison, it is just so absurd.

---

no - all of the rubbish won't be listened to - but what constitutes rubbish? THAT is in the ear of the beholder. Your absolute statement of "fact" is in question here. Precisely because "art" is NOT a science. To some Gershwin is genuis - to others it's pop music of the day. Same for ANY era.

Debussy was one example - there is plenty of extremely average music from the greats - not everything they did was great. Look at their contemporaries at any given age and you'll see a lot of duplication. It's not a problem though - and that is the point. It's also not for you to agree with or disagree - it's the professional opinion of me !! (heh). I picked on Debussy randomly - but let's focus on this - his "quartet in g minor - opus 10" is dull. Dull and unimaginative - in fact I've not heard any version of this which moves me - even the mighty Brodsky Quartet . But that's just my personal opinion - one with which many would disagree.



Any musical form doesn't require your individual endorsement, of course not and I'm sure that in no way would you insinuate that it must. But neither is it deserving of minor condescension - as if not being good enough on any level to exist - which, by the way, I don't either.... I think I've earned my stripes (heh). Music isn't science although it's theory may be scientific (lots of simple maths). To devalue any art or entertainment form based on its "topology" doesn't carry weight, especially since the acid test for music is whether people like it or not.

My own personal music is 100% based on my artistic leanings (although composing is no longer my biggest earner) and , as much as I despise rock acts like Nickleback or "cookie cutter hip hop" like P.Diddy , I cannot decry both their right to do what they want and others right to love 'em. . I certainly cannot curse their method of noise making - I happen to love a lot of public enemy and QOTSA. Two acts who've done their work using identical technology to the aforementioned guff (IMO).

---

well said

There is also the assumption on this forum that sampling involves taking entire records and that's it. More often than not sampling is one texture, hit or a percussion loop that is blended into the mix.
Jazz has always collected solos along the way. One recording will have a popular solo which is then incorporated into the performance or arrangement played by another band.
By using our culture it makes music richer. However if you want everything sui generis there are plenty of contemporary classical composers who use nothing from the past, except certain mathematical concepts. It may have intellectual and legal purity but I find it terrible stuff to listen to. Without being provocative I find early hip hop - Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, Lovebug Starsky, Busy Bee etc. - far more enjoyable and musical than Brian Ferneyhough, James Dillion and the other so called maximalists.

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

Nacro's said it all. Well.

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Our culture is a tradition, I would say nothing is sui generis. If you produce good music, you produce good music.

---

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

By using our culture it makes music richer. However if you want everything sui generis there are plenty of contemporary classical composers who use nothing from the past, except certain mathematical concepts.

---

You just wanted to say "sui generis" again, didn't you?

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

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

Quote narcoman:

---

- Massive attack have sold quite a lot of records I reckon (heh).... somewhat more than Mr Cobham.

---

I guess that's where the disconnect lies. You talk about record sales, I talk about creativity. Sometimes the two meet, but not always.

Quote Richard Graham:

---

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.

---

Yup, those albums (incl. 'Eclipse') were sensational at the time (I'm old enough to remember ). To this day, Inner Conflicts sounds to me as if it travelled back in time from our distant future, when we are going to be ruled by grey aliens and live in holographic underground cities.

Quote desmond:

---

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

---

Me too. I'm not that interested in my own opinions anyway.

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

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.

---

No, I think its objectionable to base your own success as an artist on someone else's work, a la Basic Attack/'Stratus'. Im not going to try to explain that again.

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

However I do think you are categorically wrong in how much copying happens in classical music and hope I have shown this above.

---

You have done no such thing. Read my posts again.

I really have nothing more to say, except maybe that, in a way, I feel a bit sorry for the OP for giving him such an earful. Nothing personal for sure, but sometimes I get bored with being politically correct all the time. Anyway...

Go forth and be happy.

Quote molecular:

---

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...

---

You could be right, my examples were a bit of a scattergun approach, and what's more, Tui didn't bite, either.

Actually, what am I on about, I like Don't Look Back In Anger!

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

Quote Richard Graham:

---

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?

---

To be honest I wouldn't really see that as "recognition by my peers".

To me, personally, recognition would be for whoever to contact me and say "Hey guy, I liked so and so track, how about we collaborate on something because you've clearly got something special here and I like your skills."

But that's just my opinion.

Also, being sampled by someone and having your own stuff played on the radio clearly isn't even the same ballpark.

D.

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

Quote Darclinc:

---

Also, being sampled by someone and having your own stuff played on the radio clearly isn't even the same ballpark.

D.

---

Could you explain why you think this? Presumably you think it's better to be played on the radio? I've only had one track I drummed on played by on Radio 1 by Peel (RIP), and obviously I was chuffed to bits. But if Shadow or Beck sampled the drums off the intro to that song, I think I'd be more chuffed, not less!

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

i dont think anyone i know would call massive attack hip hop.

its been said before.. theres a load of great MUSIC thats sample based. end of.

from grime to hip hop... im always going to relate to what these people are doing because these people arent self important, self indulgent elitists convinced that their way is the be all and end all.

theres also an argument that making music with samples only is more restrictive, because you have to find or manipulate a sound to work well.

I know a load of people who make sample based music who COULD get people in to play an inst, but would prefer to dg.

Im easy either way. anything goes for me as long as it sounds good. Some of my favourite ghostface tracks are almost entirley another song with a beat on start to finish and its ill cus hes amazing and its got panache.

I understand Tui perfectly, and I see no need for anyone to change their views other than simply being open minded. That is a personal issue though.

...and if I may add to the discussion a simple point - from the perspective of a DJ, he/she is already playing other peoples music and generally have a passion about other people's creations. To sample snippets/phrases out of them is a matter of liking what you're hearing and wanting to add to it, whether you are a musician in your own right or not.

There was a time when using a microphone was seen as a sign of weakness, that your voice would not carry on it's own in a live situation. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Quote snipsnip:

---

i dont think anyone i know would call massive attack hip hop.

---

If you're referring to my comment, then no, I wouldn't either. But Trip Hop, being the British (or Bristolish!) version of Hip Hop (in a basic sense) refers to Hip Hop as it's major influence - hence the inclusion of them under a broad umbrella, in the same way that cLOUDDED are.

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

Quote Richard Graham:

---

Could you explain why you think this? Presumably you think it's better to be played on the radio? I've only had one track I drummed on played by on Radio 1 by Peel (RIP), and obviously I was chuffed to bits. But if Shadow or Beck sampled the drums off the intro to that song, I think I'd be more chuffed, not less!

---

Sure I could explain.

I do think it would be better to be played. Don't get me wrong, I would be "kind of flattered" if someone famous decided to sample one of my tracks. But still, at least I know that if I were played on the radio it was because I was selected based on my own merit, because it's me on there, my skills, not a very select part of my work that's been sampled by some famous guy and thus now "my work's getting recognition from my peers" because it's riding on the back of his fame. Ultimately I too will probably disappear into the crowd of other names that are credited on that album cover, if I am credited at all. What so great about being "famous" by association, kinda like that dirty slag, Paris Hilton ?

"Hey, did you know such and such got sampled by DJ Shadow on this record."

"Really ? Who is this guy ?"

"I've no idea ! But how about that DJ Shadow, he sure kicks ass, he's so talented, etc."

That doesn't mean anything to me as an artist striving for individuality, really, and it sure wouldn't feel like true recognition for all the years I've put in to get where I am today. True recognition would perhaps be to become famous for yourself and for who you are, wouldn't you agree ?

Just my view on the matter.

D.

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

Valid point, Darclinc, but to add there is also the very possible chance of others tracking down your work because the particular sample they've heard sounds good to them, I do it constantly, almost obsessively actually. If I hear a sample in a tune, I usually want to hear and own the original (if it's a good 'sound'). In that respect, sampling can be mutually beneficial to each artist.

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

I have no desire to be famous: I'd much rather be recognised by someone who knows, as being good at what I do. If Massive Attack, DJ Shadow, RZA or Beck sampled me, that would be proof, and a great honour. If that makes me a 'slag' like Paris Hilton, I your eyes, so be it.

An aside: I wonder how many people got into Cobham through hearing him on Blue Lines?

Tangent: is Cobham a slag because Massive Attack sampled him?

Incidentally: I've not used samples of records in my music for years and years, but only because I'm perverse like that. For me the DIY ethic is just that: Do It Yourself. But not everybody subscribes: and I wouldn't call out the RZA, MA, Beck, Shadow etc. These are all great talents.

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

Quote geefunk:

---

Valid point, Darclinc, but to add there is also the very possible chance of others tracking down your work because the particular sample they've heard sounds good to them, I do it constantly, almost obsessively actually. If I hear a sample in a tune, I usually want to hear and own the original (if it's a good 'sound'). In that respect, sampling can be mutually beneficial to each artist.

---

Fair enough, if it's mutually beneficial like that then I'm all for it. However, if I absolutely had to choose one or the other I'd choose to have my own stuff heard, personally.

D.

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

Quote Richard Graham:

---

I have no desire to be famous: I'd much rather be recognised by someone who knows, as being good at what I do. If Massive Attack, DJ Shadow, RZA or Beck sampled me, that would be proof, and a great honour.

---

Are you saying that if you walked into the record store and picked up the latest Shadow album, listened to it and found one of your tastiest licks on there, you'd feel a sense of reward and recognition for your work ?

I'd feel ripped off, mate.

D.

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

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.

---

Amon Tobin has sampled my work and I got paid very well - i've made FAR more dosh out of the sample use than the track ever made on its own. Publishing see.....

Quote Richard Graham:

---

Quote molecular:

---

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...

---

You could be right, my examples were a bit of a scattergun approach, and what's more, Tui didn't bite, either.

Actually, what am I on about, I like Don't Look Back In Anger!

---

oh well. each to their own, as someone said somewhere else in this thread. for what it's worth, I'm with you. I got embroiled in a long and painful thread here once because I was holding out that DJing and turntablism, if skillful and creative enough, could be considered musicianship. I was frankly appalled at the tunnel-vision of some the replies I got. Most of them turned out to be piggybacking a perfectly interesting discussion for the sake of having their bi-monthly rant on the cheap, so I stopped worrying about it...

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

Hey T,

I only mentioned the record sales thing because you did - you know how I am on the whole artist first debate!!


edit - ah , it wasnt you. My apologies...

As for Massive Attack sampling instead of performing - that's not the point. Massive attack have a LOT of money - they could have hired the right players to do the job (they could have hired (**oops nearly gave the game away **) on drums for a start - leading session player and award winning jazzer extraordinaire). Sampling is an art like no other - it's a statement more than a skill. To you the statement is "i can't be bothered" but to others the statement can be taken as "[ ****** ] the system" "this is better" "my comment on the background of this" " an update to history " etc etc etc.... Same as choosing a Fender Twin over an Marshall JTM.....

Quote narcoman:

---

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.

---

Amon Tobin has sampled my work and I got paid very well - i've made FAR more dosh out of the sample use than the track ever made on its own. Publishing see.....

---

QED2.

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

Quote narcoman:

---

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.

---

Amon Tobin has sampled my work and I got paid very well - i've made FAR more dosh out of the sample use than the track ever made on its own. Publishing see.....

---

Yeah sure, but you got paid didn't you, which makes it a fair trade, obviously.

Although, if you didn't and he made a bunch of money of your work, would it still be OK ? Of course not. That's what all my posts have been based upon, clearly.

Furthermore, I wasn't referring to Amon Tobin directly, I merely used him as example of a artist that samples. I love Amon Tobin actually, he's one of my all time favorite artists.

D.

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

but that would be illegal - no-one is talking about illegal sampling. Tui is opposed to sampling other peoples works whether cleared or not. VERY few records these days involve illegal sampling. Clearing it is easy and (usually ) cheaper in advance.

What's sampling? Is that where you steal someones compositional skill and recording session, along with their producer and very expensive hardware, import it into a £500 sampler and call it your own music? Ok, I use samples but I would'nt base my whole composition on a recognizable riff, surely it's better to express your own creativity than emulate someone elses but then I guess you have to cater for people who do'nt mind listening to 447 different versions of the same song!

Do'nt be so bloody lazy, write your own music!

--------------------
Rab

Edited by Rabid47 (13/05/08 05:08 PM)

Quote Rabid47:

---

What's sampling? Is that where you steal someones compositional skill and recording session, along with their producer and very expensive hardware, import it into a £500 sampler and call it your own music?
...

Do'nt be so bloody lazy, write your own music!

---

That's another way of putting it.

Quote narcoman:

---

Tui is opposed to sampling other peoples works whether cleared or not.

---

Oh, can't say I agree with that.

After all, it's your property, so you are free to do with it as you please, innit ?

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

One of my favourite albums is Dreadzone's Second Light which makes extensive use of sampling, both of speech from (old) films and of the music that the original music on the album is half in the style of.
Personally I think an assertion that any of the sampling on that album is not 100% artistically legitimate is a lunatic notion.

Use of samples can bring about a synergistic result of a nature that would not be possible without using those samples. Without the samples Second Light uses it would not be the, to me, the colossal pleasure to listen to that it is - I want those samples there and in that context. I listen to music for pleasure and if it is a pleasure to hear the samples used in the way that they are used on Second Light then that is all the reason they need to be there. If I watch A Canterbury Tale and see the scene of Eric Portman giving his 'follow the old road' speech then I can experience the type of pleasure one might from watching a film - I would take great issue with a person who said I was not able to hear that speech where it is used on Second Light giving the spine tingling effect that it does in that very different musical context.

Quote Rabid47:

---

but then I guess you have to cater for people who do'nt mind listening to 447 different versions of the same song!

---

I have no problem with that, just think of jazz standards, hundreds of versions of the same song. Because Julie Andrews recorded "My Favourite things" does that make the John Coltrane version unacceptable? I didn't realise I was not to take the Crosby, Stills Nash and Young or Matthew's Southern Comfort's versions of "Woodstock" seriously because Joni Mitchell had already done it.

Back to classical music, are you suggesting only one version of the "In Nomine" mass is acceptable, all the others must be rejected? After all they are all based on the same plainchant, which after all is a song, albeit a religious one.

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

Quote Rabid47:

---

What's sampling? Is that where you steal someones compositional skill and recording session, along with their producer and very expensive hardware, import it into a £500 sampler and call it your own music?

---

No. No it's not.

Quote Rabid47:

---

Ok, I use samples but I would'nt base my whole composition on a recognizable riff

---

Good for you.

Are we talking about sampling here, or about ripping people off? Anything from using a great single snare drum sound to programme with, to contorting some kind of chord sequence into something completely different is sampling. I think original question is being hijacked here... If all people want to do is proclaim that 'ice ice baby' sold us a pup, they needn't get so het up about it, I think we all know that...

My favourite music to sample from is mariachi bands!

let's hear it!

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

Sampling is a valid art form. There is no doubt about that in my mind. I use (licensed) samples all the time, as well as sampling my own stuff. As has been said by others, there is a certain type of effect or sound that can only be rendered though sampling.

However, I think the OP was implying that he was simply going to rip some motown samples without having them cleared, which would be wrong. Using uncleared samples, whatever people think about its artistic validity, is illegal. Full stop.

If that's not what the OP was implying, and he is intent on clearing the samples for use, then I apologise in advance.

Quote Neil C:

---

Use of samples can bring about a synergistic result of a nature that would not be possible without using those samples.

---

So recorded music before samplers were invented obviously had no synergistic results? Makes you wonder why people bother to sample it. The original musicians used instruments to produce their music and while the occasional tape-loop might be used, I'm sure more skill was required to produce an album than simply chopping up audio, time-stretching, pitch-correcting etc. most of which is handled by software anyway, making sample-based composition a piece of p*ss, even for a dummy like me! Loop-based sampling seems to be geared towards those who can't or won't play their instruments and certainly won't make the effort to compose. I think it's funny when sample-based artists say that they're really pleased with their work when the only major work involved seems to be someone elses. You've only got to listen to Frank Zappa's Synclavier work to realize the full creative uses of sampling. No loops there! When people start using their samplers to compose, rather than copy, I'll be more inclined to think of the sampler as a musical instrument. I play bass, guitar, keyboards, drums and sax.....oh, I can also press buttons....


Certainly stirred up a hornets nest, here......

Good for me!

--------------------
Rab

Quote Ian Stewart:

---

Because Julie Andrews recorded "My Favourite things" does that make the John Coltrane version unacceptable?

---

No. It's the Julie Andrews version that's unacceptable. Would it have been any better if Julie Andrews had sampled the John Coltrane version?

(John Coltrane was talking to Miles Davis backstage before a gig and expressed concern that, no matter what his set list consisted of, every gig of a nine month tour seemed to evolve into yet another version of 'My Favourite Things' (sometimes, the whole gig) and he had a real problem of not being able to stop playing it. Mile's advice was short and to the point: 'Try taking the motherf***ing horn out of your mouth...'. What a pro!)


R-r-r-r-raindrops and r-r-r-r-roses..(in a Pentatonic scale!).


(You're not THE Ian Stewart, are you?).

--------------------
Rab

Quote Rabid47:

---

(You're not THE Ian Stewart, are you?).

---

There are several :

The keyboard player with the Rolling Stones - now dead.

The Neo-Nazi musician - now dead

The band leader who played with Carroll Gibbons at the Savoy (don't know if he is still alive).

The mathematician.

The excellent Canadian electro-acoustic composer.

I'm another one. My name is a real problem and as I lived in the Mediterraean and dealt with many Italian and German music organisations I got used to being called Jan. I nearly used that as a professional name but when I started out, thirty years ago, Jan was always a girl's name in the U.K. It would have been embarrassing because I did a lot of cocktail music and I didn't want people think they were booking a girl and I turned up. Especially as I had a girl's hairstyle at the time. The trouble is I don't like my first name and anyway I thought using three names was pretentious. With the Scottish diaspora there are going to be a lot more males with my name.

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

Quote Rabid47:

---

Quote Neil C:

---

Use of samples can bring about a synergistic result of a nature that would not be possible without using those samples.

---

So recorded music before samplers were invented obviously had no synergistic results?

---

he said 'OF A NATURE'. read the post, dude.

Quote Rabid47:

---

...making sample-based composition a piece of p*ss, even for a dummy like me!

---

It's only as easy as you make it. Yes - taking someone else's bass line and another someone else's drum loop and whacking them together is pretty much as easy as whacking two lego bricks together. However, if you want to make it difficult and rewarding and creative...

Quote Rabid47:

---

When people start using their samplers to compose, rather than copy, I'll be more inclined to think of the sampler as a musical instrument.

---

I've got one word for you: Squarepusher. And for everyone out there who is thinking of replying with a kind 'oh, he might be good but the general point remains true...' when you haven't heard any squarepusher (or similiar) - don't bother. Go and LISTEN to some ingenious and creative music created using samples. Then come back.

Everyone (including me...) is reeling off names that are either good (in defence of sampling) or rubbish (against sampling). Well, while some samplers are simply amazing, some people who make music using samples just have no dignity, self-esteem or work ethic. Given that y'all are engineers in one way or another, it can't have escaped your attention that the same is true of musicians...

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

Frontier Psychaitrist by Avalanches, genious use of samples,
That horrid Suger Babes thing with the Gary Numan sample or the other girly band one with the Depeche sample, lazy song writing. Ready made hooks for kids with no taste who'll buy a record based purly on the music video. The girls are quite lovely though. Is it wrong to watch MTV bass with the sound off?
So like all musical genres some of it's total sh**e and some of it's amazing.

--------------------
http://soundcloud.com/anthony-wall/sets/audio-reel
http://songsforvoiceandpiano.com/