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