Peoples views on sampling ?

I've been on this soapbox before.

Samples can be fun, and can sometimes be used for actual musical effect.

Downsides:

(1) They sound fake. Earlier samples (poorer quality) actually made for better music. Compare an old Warner Bros. cartoon (unrealistic capture of reality) with current digital characters. Where a movie director tries too hard to make the digital stuff look "real", its fakeness becomes much more annoying. To use a musical example, early songs using electronic drum machines tended to try to make them sound like real drums -- that didn't work so well. Using drum machines AS MACHINES that can play "too fast," "too many notes," and "too perfectly in time" led to more musically interesting results (indeed, as whole new musical style).

(2) They lead to poor instrumental writing. If you're writing a piece intended for real musicians, using samples can be very misleading. Samples don't need to pause for breath. Their arms don't get tired. A jump of an octave plus a tritone is as idiomatic as a minor second.

Bottom line: if you use samples, compose music that is idiomatic FOR THE SAMPLER, not for the real-world instrument being sampled. Push the differences, not the similarities.

ORIGINAL: rumleymusic

I think someone once said good composers write,great composers steal

Actually, it goes "Good composers borrow, great composers steal". -Stravinsky. I think what he meant by that is that it is okay to take an idea from another composer, as long as you can make it your own and not simply copy.

Personally I think its a good thing.It allows music to be more of a universal...bringing in a creative flow from numerous people rather than a single ego.It looks outwards and recognises,values the creative output of others.Haha I sound like a real hippy today.Nevermind that anyway.What do you think about sampling ? Yay or Nay ?

Personally...I think ego is the most important ingredient in great music. One person who asked me to score a short film once also asked if I would be okay collaborating with another composer. The very idea made me nauseated. Anyway, I think sampled instruments are fine, if you are somehow able to make the performance sound dynamic and convincing. However, sampling musical segments (for example, looping), i think is a disgusting practice, and shows little effort or seriousness. I would never do it...........unless someone paid me.....

Yeah I knew the quote went something along those lines...thanks for bringing home the actual quote I'm not so sure if ego is a definate ingrediant in a composers success or not.Seems to me everything is becoming more and more polarised.Music will reflect this trend or not ?
Kev

ORIGINAL: kev11111111111111


.... If all the school can bring is a gloom and doom generation of writers sticking to the rules then what excately is the point ?

That's the formula the pop music star system has used for over 50 years.

Oh, the point -- to make gobs of money, of course.

There's quite a few more things around us than just what's listed in the periodic table. Life samples all the time. It's a natural thing. Monoliths are highly artificial, besides being very, very boring. Monocultures die much faster as well.

It's a good thing I'm not a religious person, or you could guess the next line.

I am proud of myself when I write something original. To me, that's the entire point: to say something original with music. I never understood why anyone would sample someone elses music (even if edited) in to their own. Some will defend it, and that's fine if it suits them (I guess), but to me it just defeats the whole purpose of being a writer of new, original music.

I think this thread has contributions to it which are actually talking about two different things. kev11111111111111: can we get a clarification on your original question? when I hear the term "sampling" I am thinking about using samplers triggered by MIDI to create (eventually) an audio output. some of the replies above are addressing that scenario. others, however, seem to be responding to using what I refer to as "audio loops" - which is an entirely different thing. audio loops are phrases of audio created by someone and recorded to be copied and pasted into a project.

for my take, concerning both (just in case):
for samplers, I see no difference in using samplers triggered by MIDI than I do someone using a synthesizer. it uses MIDI signals to trigger a hardware synth. same thing. synthesizer workstations allow the musician to edit MIDI on the keyboard's onboard processor and save it. there's really no difference IMO than using MIDI to trigger samplers on a computer.

as far as audio loops:
I suppose they have their place and I wouldn't say that anyone using audio loops is not a musician. but if that's ALL they use then I would agree with Nick's statements above. is it creative to paste together a song out of loops only? sure. but it's not the same thing as creating a song. using loops to augment one's creative talent is one thing. using loops to "create a song" is quite another. that's really not much more than creating a mix from other songs (DJ'ing). Nothing wrong with DJ's, mind you, but they're not creating anything unique - they're just pasting together work which others have created for a specific purpose.

It's cheap and it's the way people with a lack of creative imagination make money out of music.
They can't write a catchy hook so they take that magic ingredient from a tried and tested hit, build a track around it and subsequently get their own hit.
There are so many talented artists out there trying to take music forward but they go unheard while the radio pumps out the sound of the last few decades in snippets and loops.

Die DJ/'musician' die.

Dunno, all the cases I heard about such illegal sampling, it turned out the artist had payed for its use, and I think that it's actually more of an 'industry' thing than a 'piracy' thing.

Don't recall any pirated sample-songs that made it big in the charts, not recently. Don't even think it would last long on myspace or soundclick. Could you give examples to the contrary? Maybe I'm missing something.

ORIGINAL: Roflcopter

It's cheap and it's the way people with a lack of creative imagination make money out of music.
They can't write a catchy hook so they take that magic ingredient from a tried and tested hit, build a track around it and subsequently get their own hit.
There are so many talented artists out there trying to take music forward but they go unheard while the radio pumps out the sound of the last few decades in snippets and loops.

Die DJ/'musician' die.

Dunno, all the cases I heard about such illegal sampling, it turned out the artist had payed for its use, and I think that it's actually more of an 'industry' thing than a 'piracy' thing.

Don't recall any pirated sample-songs that made it big in the charts, not recently. Don't even think it would last long on myspace or soundclick. Could you give examples to the contrary? Maybe I'm missing something.

Ooh, i was a bit cranky when i wrote that but no i'm not talking about sampling without paying the royalty i just don't think it's proper writing...'cause it ain't.

sampling forms the backbone of the music that got me into music.. it depends on what/how the sampling is done.. there's blatant plagiarism and there's creative sampling.. a big difference.

go look up "timbaland finnish" on youtube for a big example of plagiarism.

I don't mind it ,but I do find it funny where some go on about playing something etc. and assume all samplists are just good at chopping up sounds (go listen to 4hero's later work it's LIVE on real instruments) . Just by sampling things and crate digging records you learn loads about all sorts of music. Although now, due to sample clearance people that changed the whole dynamic of sampling things.

do you think mr cooper/ the winston's would be so well known if it wasn't for his work being sampled later (the amen break)?

some things can only be done on samplers, and not in the real world..



acen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8v7dRXuzEw&feature=related
2:30

acen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfMlQJ5SeFo&feature=related
3:25

4hero - journey from the light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daQwHoyv46A

1:40 - time stretching.. yes 1993!!
you might notice something familiar sampling wise around that time also.

as for me, do I own a rhodes piano / wurly NO.. samples of them in reason.. could I ever afford the 3 grand pianos I have as reason refills? heck no.

it all boils down to what you do with the machine (sampler) . All the bands who were totally against computers, what are they bouncing their audio on to now.. so yer sampling HAS made it far more accessible for people to make music.. It's a means to an end for me , to convey what I want to.

ORIGINAL: Fog

sampling forms the backbone of the music that got me into music.. it depends on what/how the sampling is done.. there's blatant plagiarism and there's creative sampling.. a big difference.

go look up "timbaland finnish" on youtube for a big example of plagiarism.

I don't mind it ,but I do find it funny where some go on about playing something etc. and assume all samplists are just good at chopping up sounds (go listen to 4hero's later work it's LIVE on real instruments) . Just by sampling things and crate digging records you learn loads about all sorts of music. Although now, due to sample clearance people that changed the whole dynamic of sampling things.

do you think mr cooper/ the winston's would be so well known if it wasn't for his work being sampled later (the amen break)?

some things can only be done on samplers, and not in the real world..



acen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8v7dRXuzEw&feature=related
2:30

acen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfMlQJ5SeFo&feature=related
3:25

4hero - journey from the light
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daQwHoyv46A

1:40 - time stretching.. yes 1993!!
you might notice something familiar sampling wise around that time also.

as for me, do I own a rhodes piano / wurly NO.. samples of them in reason.. could I ever afford the 3 grand pianos I have as reason refills? heck no.

it all boils down to what you do with the machine (sampler) . All the bands who were totally against computers, what are they bouncing their audio on to now.. so yer sampling HAS made it far more accessible for people to make music.. It's a means to an end for me , to convey what I want to.

Great post.

I see sampling as just another technique for composition. It can be done creatively or it can be done poorly. The first heavily sampled album I ever heard was "The Globe" by Big Audio Dynamite back in '91. In it, ex-Clash guitarist Mick Jones took (his own) riffs from old Clash tunes, sliced & diced them and patched together a totally new, creative sound. That was what convinced me that sampling can be a really powerful tool for people who know what they're doing.

ORIGINAL: Bonzos Ghost
The stuff that bugs me are the songs that feature a few repeating sampled loops off someone else's album with someone rapping over top of it. I don't feel that there's a whole lotta creative genious at work there.

Agreed, I do draw the line there! I just heard that "Every Breath You Take" rap for the first time not long ago. For the first 30 seconds I was like "Huh? I wish that stupid dj would quit clowning around and let me hear the song!"

Ooh, i was a bit cranky when i wrote that but no i'm not talking about sampling without paying the royalty i just don't think it's proper writing...'cause it ain't.

Yeah well, there is of course always the occasional cheapo who doesn't want to pay the piper, and who gets caught, like Kanye West ATM:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7416823.stm

And then those few seconds can cost you dearly.

can you really order someone not to perform a song?

I don't think that's OK, both from a legal POV or economic. There is no public or personal hazard or grief from playing/selling the song, so as long as everyone pays their dues.... the estate also makes more money that way, and the free publicity will last for years. Oh, that song...

BTW I think that was George H. privately, not with/for the Beatles.

ORIGINAL: opaque slogan

ORIGINAL: kev11111111111111

just curious to see what peoples views are on sampling music ?

It's cheap and it's the way people with a lack of creative imagination make money out of music.
They can't write a catchy hook so they take that magic ingredient from a tried and tested hit, build a track around it and subsequently get their own hit.
There are so many talented artists out there trying to take music forward but they go unheard while the radio pumps out the sound of the last few decades in snippets and loops.

Die DJ/'musician' die.

LOL Do we have a Morrisey fan in the midst ?:) I think thats a bit harsh though..I'm sure theres plenty of decent writers out there who can create good melodies and use samples too.Never say never !

ORIGINAL: stratcat33511
I think technology makes it easier for Monkeys to put sounds together and call it music composition

Again I think this is a bit harsh.Though ofcourse there are for sure A LOT of people that think of themselves as producers but really are just loopy loopers .What about the other side of the coin though ?I think unlike pure musical composition Music Tech is still in its early days.An earlier poster remarked that most of what is being done in music,has already been done.I'd pretty much agree with this.Sure theres people using atonal techinques etc,but I can't see the day when your average Joe is gonna go to Virgin to buy a copy of the latest serialist artist (wow like the maths in this piece is really gonna grab u by the balls man) !
I think technology is opening doors for sure in this sense.Early days...who knows the full potential of the DAW ? Thanks for your post.Hope I didn't go on to much there and make you YAWN !! LOL
Kev

ORIGINAL: krizrox

art is in the ear of the beholder :-) Rock on!

+ 1 to that Krizrox !!!