It (sampling) shouldn't be seen any differently than someone playing guitar or something

>it (sampling) shouldn't be seen any differently than someone playing guitar or something

can we discuss this notion? When you think about it it's actually a really futuristic way to think

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=KbFIGFv4GLQ
youtube.com/watch?v=OcJHGC8kq5I
youtube.com/watch?v=kz7XROLowMo
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

that is an actual quote from Dean's interview on NPR btw

I'm fucking tired of these talentless hacks looking at songs as interactive playthings. They're only creative property and that's that. Just because you don't respect copyright material or intellectual property doesn't give you the right to use them.

/rant

you aren't seeing the big picture.

What's the difference between using some recording or using some instrument? the instrument isn't original either

No

This is one of the reasons I hate modern music. Any dip can get good at production and called themselves musicians. It's fucking disgusting.

Uh the difference is someone actually played a fucking part on a real instrument.

What I don't understand is that these "producers" can't be bothered to just learn the necessary skills required to make their own sounds. Why do they have to take the laziest way out and use something other people already made?

music is an arbitrary axiom and not even art

only if done creatively

its still a skill how u arrange it

when I sample to make backing beats I try to use small sections and rearrange them, repitch them, reverse them, add effects etc etc

so that they bear very little resemblance to the original recording/track

why does it matter if somebody played an instrument if it still sounds the same?

you're acting like technical ability makes the music sound better

What? Speak English, poindexter. I'm not some art school city slicker starbucks drinker.

feels like summer in this thread

it shows

just like anyone can get a camera now and take pictures with higher quality than the best photographers in the world could a short time ago. That's just the way technology works.

that doesn't make it sound different though.


we are amassing junk data at a rate that is incomprehensible. There is already more than recorded audio than anyone could ever listen to in a trillion years and that's growing exponentially everyday. In the future people aren't going to think anything of it if someone is expressing themselves by selecting and altering bits of that archive.

Firstly, it's a matter of principle. Stop supporting lazy artists.

Secondly, no it does not sound the same. It sounds like something that has already been recorded and then chopped up and copied and pasted. The point is that the same sounds, and really, better sounds, can be made by just playing the real instruments.

>Stop supporting lazy artists
why? what's wrong with being layzy

I know people like that, this is honestly the weirdest attitude.


You steal something and change it, somehow not stealing, you steal something change it very little, suddenly it's stealing. it's really nonsensical when you look objectively

>the instrument isn't original either
Well, it's a tool to create original music. In contrast, music (to be sampled) alreday exists as music.

It's like a hammer that is used to build something from scratch, as opposed to just taking the already-finished something and turning it upside down and calling it something else.

[jerk-off motion]

this picture is the best picture is the best work that this (what his name?) UK dj/rapper made


he literally farts on his records

Why not just create the beat yourself in the firstplace?

early dean blunt is one of the laziest displays of sampling out there. he literally loops samples and do his karaoke thing on top of them, not even bothering to chop em or add some effects half of time. this shit is more lazy than vaporwave. his work from redeemer and forward feels more authoral

I like sampling but it can be done good and bad. You shouldn't samples large sections of a work and barely change it. You should use it as another way to create sections of music, not as a tape recorder to just record and play back.

dean is a self taught musician.
his earlier work was him sd owing down jam sessions from his days with graffiti island

pretty much this, but looping can be really good when done right (see: rebel without a pause) because it makes something no one even knew could exist

dean is basically bang on here tho i've been saying this for ages, like what is the creative difference between using a piano or a synth or a sample, they are all just external things you find and exploit

>better sounds,
there's nothing that makes those sounds better.

There's no inherent value to playing an instrument.

>it's a tool
tools get more sophisticated all the time though.

This archive we have access to is a tool. you can sit down at a computer and find sounds just like you sit at a piano and find melodies.

how do you do that? 99% of the time people are still using samples.

>you can sit down at a computer and find sounds just like you sit at a piano and find melodies.
Which is more difficult (read: takes more talent)?
>how do you do that?
You don't play any percussion instruments?

I'm talking about his work with inga

Creating something new and interesting from something already in existence does take talent. I don't know how you can deny the talent it takes to make heavily layered sample heavy music like Endtroducing or Since I Left You.

Huh how interesting that the people who listen to the shittiest music happen to know nothing about the technical aspects of it

circular logic

This argument is the same argument that people have against synthesizers and electronic drums.

Just because it fucking uses electricity doesn't mean it doesn't take talent and creativity to use correctly. If using samples or synths somehow was so easy that any monkey could do it, then they WOULD be doing it. Making music doesn't become simple just because you use a different method than physically strumming a guitar.

>Creating something new and interesting from something already in existence does take talent
I didn't say it didn't.

What takes more talent: to create something from something, or create something from nothing?

not sure where some of you are getting the idea that music should take skill. or that thats even a way to think about music.

Stop acting like playing synths and drums is the same as literally copying and pasting other people's music

>oh cool a drum beat lets repeat it endlessly
>then layer on some fUnKy SoUnDs

dope trax man

>implying synths aren't sentient and make music by themselves at the push of a button
Gary Numan is a hack.

Probably creating something from something if you make it sound completely different. Any idiot can strum a guitar or press keys on a piano. It's not "from nothing" anyway, the sounds are all available on the instrument with the right combination of keys or fret positions. You're just deciding how to combine them, which is exactly what people using samples have to do as well.

there's good, creative, authoral sampling and there's retarded, plagiarism-tier sampling

the avalanches, negativland and db's recent releases do creative sampling
vaporwave kiddies and some of db's early stuff: bad, lazy sampling

me too

this is correct
that's an absurd question since it fully depends on what you're doing
you can just as easily sample shittily as play the geetar shittily, and it's just as hard to sample well as it is to play geetar well

The question is why does that matter? Art isn't about difficulty. Non-creative types always try to assert that art isn't art if it didn't take 500 hours and 40 different people to create. This is the same kind of argument that music that isn't technically difficult to play isn't good.

Except it isn't "copy pasting". The implication you present by using that terminology is that you're just taking a CD by Queen, saying "hey I made this" and making millions. You know that isn't how it works.

>oh cool a guitar, let's play a major G chord endlessly
>then croon some high pitched lyrics over it, so artsy!

You can make shitty music using anything you twat.

I'm and I'm wishing I typed this post
110% correct

Then how is sampling different than real instruments? You can make shitty, unoriginal, uninspired music using any method you like, including guitar and piano. Please explain to me how sampling is different besides the fact that it's newer.

I never said it was.
But we shouldn't be lenient with bad sampling.

>percussion instruments?
lamo duh. But anyway 90 percent of the time there's still sampling going on even when people are drumming in music nowadays.

>Which is more difficult (read: takes more talent)?
that's not really true. It's way easier to sit down at an instrument. There are established patterns you can use to evoke certain reactions, these are all thoroughly documented, and you are limited to the range of your instrument.

Sampling you are faced with an infinitely more complex material, literally any sound, which you then have to decide which out of billions is going to elicit the most emotional effect and you have to discover that sample by rout listening, you aren't given the biofeedback that a instrumentalist has while he plays a rhythm or melody and his body leads him to meaningful patterns.

>create something from nothing?
this isn't what instrumentalists do.

It's too bad you typed out all that bullshit

I'm not, and I didn't say that we should be. There's no need to be overly harsh like half this thread is either though.

I don't really see why sampling deserves more scrutiny than dime a dozen indie artists playing the same 4 chords and singing about the same 4 things. Why should they get a pass just because they're using one of the most generic instruments on the planet?

You're not just "playing notes" on an instrument, dynamics and harmony come into play.

Depends on your notion of instrumentalist. If you mean a classical player who just follows scores, sure, he is not creating, but if you are writing your own music, then you are creating, and I can assure you almost everyone with an instrument does that.

Stop being a dense fucking dick.

>take an otherwise silent instrument
>use your mind, body and soul to create sounds

>take a recording of what was mentioned above, made by other people
>chop it up and paste it together another way

See how it's different, retard?

So if sampling is "cheating", then what else is cheating when it comes to music? Using established chords?

Did Xenakis cheat by basing his music off of mathematical formulas?

>Using established chords?
You can create your own chords.

Or take an existing piece of music and use your mind, body and soul to create sounds

youtube.com/watch?v=KbFIGFv4GLQ

>but if you are writing your own music, then you are creating
No more so than someone sampling. You're not "creating" notes. The instrument is capable of a certain amount of notes and you're just deciding how to combine them. It's no different than having a bank of samples and deciding how to combine them.

>dynamics and harmony
You can do this with sampling too.

>soul
>mind

these are not real things user

There's a difference between choosing a sample because there's something that will fit into the song, and choosing a sample because you know you can alter it and get the sound you want. The former is more akin to DJing, where the interest is putting sounds in new contexts.

"Sampling is not a valid art form", said the guy who plays no instrument and has no actual knowledge of music theory or even art whatsoever: The Thread

That will take less work because mind body and soul was already used to create it in the first place.

test

You really aren't. If you think that in the history of mankind, there is some combination of notes that have never been played together that YOU are somehow inventing, then you're lying to yourself.

Like, how stupid do we want to be with this argument? Is using an instrument cheating? Really it is, when you think about it. All you're doing is manipulating a tool someone else made to make notes that someone else has also already made. Ordering them in a different way is something, but it'll be pretty similar to something that someone else already made.

This is how retarded the argument gets when you try to argue that originality is the most necessary thing of all time.

And he used mind body and soul to create a completely new, unique, original piece of art.

>You really aren't. If you think that in the history of mankind, there is some combination of notes that have never been played together that YOU are somehow inventing, then you're lying to yourself.
Same logic applies to timbre being manipulated digitally
*less mind body and soul.

Doing I-V-vi-V or any kind of shitty overused pop progression is cheating.
Really, cheating is just using the bare minimum effort to produce a result, if you're basing off some formula, you're working, if you're creating, if you're using a drum machine as a backing track, you're still creating.

>The instrument is capable of a certain amount of notes and you're just deciding how to combine them.
Every stringed instrument technically has an infinite number of microtonal notes
Mixing different samples at various volume is not dynamics by the way, and you can't improvise it either.

le sampling is cheating
fuck off nobody wants to slave hours anymore to create original material just to have some blogger brat pan my album and die broke
sampling saves me time

>like dean blunt needs security
who would be after him?

not him but you can do the reverse though and say that everything is original because the listener is constantly changing
or everything is original because you can never duplicate a file with no errors

fat white boys like yourself

>>oh cool a guitar, let's play a major G chord endlessly
Give examples of this.

Not less, the same. Different piece of music, same mind body and soul.

I'm not going to bother anymore because you are going to completely ignore facts.

>"A phonograph in the hands of a 'hiphop/scratch' artist who plays a record like an electronic washboard with a phonographic needle as a plectrum, produces sounds which are unique and not reproduced - the record player becomes a musical instrument."

someone actually build/designed/invented an instrument
you just followed a set of rules to make a desired sound using it

systems of oppression towards blacks and black males especially

>Different piece of music, same mind body and soul.
Not really, because the genesis already exists. Otherwise, you'd have to create the genesis yourself.

Buckethead released 247 albums in 2015 just by himself. Sounds like you're just shit m8.

Pierre Schaeffer, John Cage, Christian Marclay, and Otomo Yoshihide would all agree too.

...

Neutral Milk Hotel

>Every stringed instrument technically has an infinite number of microtonal notes
Okay, but nobody outside of people experimenting with microtonality every use this. I don't know how this matters when the same is true for samples too.

>you can't improvise it either
How can you not improvise samples? You have a keyboard with a sample bank and you do the same thing as if you would improvise with a piano, keyboard, or synthesizer by itself.

>what is treated guitar/piano

Which song, specifically.

Why is I-V-vi-V more cheating then following a formula? For instance, I know nothing about music theory, but I've copied the formula of Bach's fugues before. That didn't really take any great musical talent.

Here's some more fun questions. Is this cheating? Using a theme that another composer wrote?

youtube.com/watch?v=OcJHGC8kq5I

You don't even have to come up with the theme, you can just change a few of the notes then suddenly boom, you're amazing..

the notion you present is simply not true. the total free creativity of a musician is based upon their relationship to their body: age health stamina practice and discipline finding ways to improve and create. not every drummer can compose a phrase within a series of 32nd or 64th notes and play at that pace indefinitely. with a drum machines, anyone can. free jazz i think will always be the acme of creativity. Which is not to say sampling isnt music and isnt creative: of course it is. you have to have excellent ability to invent and to hear and a great sense of phrasing and structure and inventiveness. but the time/physicality of the music will always be the slow, copy, pasting, nudging, warping, munging, autotuning of samples. you need two fingers and some good ideas. there is a fundamental freedom of expression and humanity discipline and genius that only performance will have. not denegrating other things, but they are in fact different.

youtube.com/watch?v=kz7XROLowMo
youtube.com/watch?v=kz7XROLowMo
youtube.com/watch?v=kz7XROLowMo

lazy sampling ==> literal plagiarism
lazy guitar playing ==> potential plagiarism

why did you post this?

What kind of retardation is this? In the modern age, somehow art has to be tied to completely analog means, otherwise it "doesn't count"? You're the kind of person I mentioned earlier, who thinks that technical difficulty determines quality. This is the results of a non-creative person attempting to understand creativity.

wow u sure showed me breh , one shitty musician has brought down all of civilized society, finally we can begin anew thanks to your help.

They are different but one is not worth less than the other. Composition will always trump physical ability to play and you do no less composing with samples than you do with a guitar or any other instrument. Some genres do require physical playing ability, like you mentioned jazz, but then I don't think anyone has made jazz using samples.

faggot deleted my comment when i called him a fake roadman

Blues player use microtonality, simply by doing slow bends and vibrato.
Fretless basses are common as well, and they're microtonal.
I won't even mention the plethora of traditional eastern music that doesn't follow tones as we do.

I shouldn't have said you can't improvise using samples, but you are really limited in what you can do with it, I doubt it's possible to reach the level of harmonic creativity you can find in improvisation on an instrument.

S H I T

you did>all that bullshit

>You're not just
youre not just sampling either, you have more dynamic options in the way you use a sample than how you articulate a not on and instrument. playing an instrument is still way simpler. >dynamics and harmony come into play.
dynanics and harmony aka playing notes lamo

>>use your mind, body and soul to create sounds
people use the instrument to make sounds. a sampler is just as silent and just as operated by a body

>Depends on your notion of instrumentalist
no it doesn't instrumentalists are almost always playing with shit that other people made.

you are still changig the context of sounds at the end of the day be it a note on a guitar or a sample

this lamo

I'm serious when I say it's harder. I play guitar and make electronic music and the former is way easier. I know people that play instruments and it's almost always just the same up and down shit. It astounds me. I think most people playing instruments traditionally or who only listen to that shit don't really even listen. people just hear shit harmonically and groove with riffs and shit. The whole rest of music, timbre, spacial relations, etc are all just invisible to these people. That's why normies think it's just noise when they hear idm or whatever.

Anyone else notice and or get frustrated by that?

In 1939 it was called experimental music to take 2 variable-speed phonograph turntables and make music with them.

>damage control

This is a good argument, thanks

Oh, so now art and musicianship are being tied to legal matters, sweet! That really helps your argument. Is this how it is for you, you sit there and take notes on how perhaps a melody or chord infringes on some copyright, then you make a list of "good artists" based on who scored the best?

>you can just change a few of the notes
that's how most guitarists and people do shit anyway

>I play guitar and make electronic music and the former is way easier.
Maybe because you are a poor guitarist
>wow barre chords are so easy!!!

he deletes all negative comments
dean is a very sensitive dude

why does Sup Forums hate dean blunt

>dynanics and harmony aka playing notes lamo
Because playing a G and then an A is the same as using glissando between a G and an A, and also the same as doing both with staccato.

>no it doesn't instrumentalists are almost always playing with shit that other people made.
what is improvisation ?

So we've reached the logical conclusion to this argument, which is that all music is bad because there is some aspect of it which isn't original.

This makes me proud to be British