listenin' to the man machine by kraftwerk this mornin', that thought arose
for those that don't knkow
the man machine is the sample for rockin' it, by the treacherous three

like, to me, isn't that the essence of black folk music?
we hear some shit we like
and think we can rock it better, the way we like
so we take some song, and treat them like they're our session musicians
and we go in over it

i mean, isn't the original music just a bunch of session musicians anyway?

why pay the artist or owner more than what they paid to make the song?
lol
fuckin' capitalism, you got to love it
of course, when you get into copyrights and all that
it becomes murky
but a wonderful world of hip hop this would be if you could just pay for the sample like it was just a bunch of session musicians

It seems like every new "hot" young producer isn't sampling anymore, whether it be for financial reasons or just because that's not the world they know.

i heard the big pimpin' sample and all the magic was out the window
then i found a few other of his samples
i admit, he does obscure it enough where you would think he
came up with it
even the neptunes
they play shit over or reinterpolate it a bit
but everybody samples to some degree
even mr i don't fuck with samples himself, swizz beats

>i heard the big pimpin' sample and all the magic was out the
>window
>then i found a few other of his samples
>i admit, he does obscure it enough where you would think he
>came up with it
>even the neptunes
>they play shit over or reinterpolate it a bit
>but everybody samples to some degree
>even mr i don't fuck with samples himself, swizz beats
>

Timberland, Swizz Beats and Neptunes. All them fools been in the game 15 years plus, where you been?
_________________________________________
The Combat Jack Show is THE best hip-hop related internet radio show
Catch up http://pncradio.tumblr.com/

i don't listen to these new niggas to know whose ynh now, so...

i'll refer back to what i knew as ynh

I assume you're talking about popular/urban radio and in that case, it might be. Probably. And I could care less lol.

I'm swimming in sample-based releases right now, ranging from releases bought from Best Buy to amazon to bandcamp-only. And I'm ok with that. I'm not sure there's even any negatives to it not being on the radio. What does it matter?

__
I don't like the beat anymore because its just a loop. ALC didn't FLIP IT ENOUGH!

Flip it enough? Flip these. Flip off. Go flip some f*cking burgers.(c)Kno

Allied State of the National Electric Beat Treaty Organization (NEBTO)

Let's be honest, a lot of the dudes making sample beats on the "underground" right now work with garbage MCs.

>Let's be honest, a lot of the dudes making sample beats on
>the "underground" right now work with garbage MCs.


__
I don't like the beat anymore because its just a loop. ALC didn't FLIP IT ENOUGH!

Flip it enough? Flip these. Flip off. Go flip some f*cking burgers.(c)Kno

Allied State of the National Electric Beat Treaty Organization (NEBTO)

well how many samples do you want? do you want only specific types? here's two of the more popular albums to come out recently, not majority samples but samples nonetheless.


Young Jeezy - TM103
OJ: "Banka" by Meiko Kaji off her 1974 album Golden Star Twin Deluxe.
Supafreak: "Superfreak" by Rick James off his 1981 album Street Songs.
Leave You Alone: "Garden of Peace" by Lonnie Liston Smith off his 1970 album Dreams Of Tomorrow.
F.A.M.E.: "Air for Life" by Above & Beyond with Andy Moor off their 2006 album Tri-State and "You and Love are the Same" by The Grass Roots off their 1968 album Feelings.
I Do: "Cause I Love You" by Lenny Williams off his 1978 album Spark of Love.

Jay-Z & Kanye West - Watch the Throne
"No Church in the Wild" contains samples from "K-Scope" as performed by Phil Manzanera, "Sunshine Help Me" as performed by Spooky Tooth and "Don't Tell a Lie About Me and I Won't Tell the Truth About You" as performed by James Brown.
"Niggas in Paris" contains samples from the Reverend W.A. Donaldson recording "Baptizing Scene" and dialogue between Will Ferrell and Jon Heder in the film Blades of Glory.
"Otis" contains samples from "Try a Little Tenderness" as performed by Otis Redding, "Don't Tell a Lie About Me and I Won't Tell the Truth About You" by James Brown, and "Top Billin'" as performed by Audio Two.
"Gotta Have It" contains samples from "Don't Tell a Lie About Me and I Won't Tell the Truth About You", "People Get Up and Drive Your Funky Soul" and "My Thang" as performed by James Brown.
"New Day" contains samples from "Feeling Good" as performed by Nina Simone.
"That's My Bitch" contains samples from "Get Up, Get Into It, Get Involved" as performed by James Brown and "Apache" by Incredible Bongo Band.
"Who Gon Stop Me" contains samples from "I Can't Stop" as performed by Flux Pavilion.
"Murder to Excellence" contains samples from "La La La" as performed by Indiggo and "Celie Shaves Mr./Scarification" as performed by Quincy Jones.
"Why I Love You" contains samples from "I Love You So" as performed by Cassius.
"Primetime" contains samples from "Action" as performed by Orange Krush.
"The Joy" contains samples from "The Makings of You (Live)" as performed by Curtis Mayfield and "Different Strokes" as performed by Syl Johnson.

It was practically on it's way out, prior to JB/KW and the heatmakerz. And that was damn near 10 years ago.

don't see it lasting long, not on the commercial level.

At least as far as the classic definition of a hip hop beat, the sample, then in the keyboard computer beats dominated rap music.

But now the EDM sound has taken over R&B too, and it's WAY more poppy and dance than ever.

Dudes like Salaam Remi and Pete Rock are hurting with the big budgets these days.

Pay the fees once for arranging, musicians, studio time, etc.

And you're done.

No clearance fees, partial publishing, royalties — none of that.

I think hip hop is near sighted though. People look at 15 or 20 grand (paid one time, all at once) to create one song as a worse deal than paying $100,000+ for a popular sample over the course of several years through other fees.

I'm sure my figures are off. Would love someone who actually knows what they're talking about to clarify a little better.

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

As a result of shrinking budgets, guys who were getting paid $30K a beat are now lucky if they can get half of that. And a lot of guys are so stubborn, they'd rather not get placements, then take that, so as a result, they sit on the sidelines, while the new dudes, who will take pennies for their work (and in some cases, literally nothing) get the work.

I think, if somebody with the right approach came along, we could see such a thing as a successful "hip hop arranger."

I would welcome that with open ears, honestly.

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

As has been discussed to death here, the days of the super producer are over. A&Rs think they can find the next dude on a message board or twitter (and they may be right, who knows).

So the idea of paying quality session musicians what they'd want to come in, and then getting such a small placement fee for their beats, and incredibly lower royalties due to diminishing sales, isn't appealing to a lot of people.

I know of one producer who has someone come in and replay stuff he's sampled, but I don't know the costs involved. Can't be cheap, right?

What we're gonna see more and more of, are keyboard and computer beats with no samples and no live instrumentation at all.

Hell, look at the producers who've emerged in the last few years.

Lex Luger
Jahlil Beats
Cardiak

that alone is one of the reasons why Rap Music doesn't endure for so many because how many Producers can truly get old and folks still want to hear there stuff years later?

and who is to say that these labels ain't been checking out local cats and just fronting the image of said So called Super Producer for years?

some of these so called Super Producers got as many ghosts in there camp as the ones chasing Pac Man.

________________________________

(屮ﾟДﾟ )屮

I've never actually listened to that album more than once. And that was right when it was first released.

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

you mean, like hire him or quincy jones
to make some epic shit
like their 70s soundin' catalog
or whatever

and then they come back and sample and chop what
was arranged?

or...?

. . .there is a demo idea for a song presented —maybe even a rough sketch that contains samples— to the arranger. The beatmaker basically hands the idea over to the arranger and the arranger either orchestrates or gets a live band to play their interpretation of the beat. Not necessarily "replaying" it; more like reinterpreting it.

Unless, of course, there weren't any samples in the original song idea. Then it's just treated like a production and arrangement job. Whether or not it would be a big orchestrated production, 1970's style to use your examples, would be entirely up to the producer and arranger.

It would put the focus back on the studio and shaping musicians, that's for sure.

I think it would be a fun experiment. For live performnace, the beatmaker could just go in and sample their own record, so the need to tour a whole band would be absent.

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

This happens ALL the time... That's why people like Ken Lewis get the big bucks

I'd like to know more. . .

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

I first noticed him on Fabolous "Can't Let You Go"...I'm sure he's worked with others. His name pops up in credits from time 2 time but never as a producer.

http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.17245/title.producer-ken-lewis-retracts-claims-made-that-shyne-was-dropped-by-def-jam

He does a lot of work.

Thanks to both of you.

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

not that it wouldn't have its place, but there's an aesthetic to sampling (chopping, combining, truncating, pairing multiple eras and qualities and "feels") that you don't get from having one current-era live recreation of some music

these ppl don't get that its not just a musical arranging crutch, its a sophisticated textural pursuit

and acts outta be creating there own thing. its one thing to take things here and there, but its a whole different matter to be a walking jukebox and never create an original piece of nothing.

i blame the label heads though for allowing that to be tbe rule as to the exception.

sampling is so out of hand that alot of folks don't even know who did the original and just accept what is pushed by these labels.

sorry but ain't no sample replacing a Ray parker Jr, Greg Philiganis, Jeff Pocarao and other top flight session cats.

Some of hip-hop's best musical moments came out of GREAT sampling...

I mean, there's an art to the Bomb Squad, Primo, Pete Rock, Prince Paul, early '90s Dre, RZA, Organized Noize (they were the best at mixing sampling with live instrumentation)and the like...

But that's just me....

i used to feel the same way,
but when i went back and listened to stuff like "it takes a nation of millions to hold us back" and "paul's boutique"
and "amerikkka's most wanted" and "breaking atoms"

it changed my mind.

it sounds more like a new record
than an old record.



but instead of having an aranger tell the musicians what to play,
you have an arranger reorganizing the sounds that already
existed on record to create a new composition.





hell... even a record like "licensed to ill" that has
fairly recognizable samples sounds more like
a new record than an old record.


and even when i hear samples i recognize,
i sometimes enjoy hearing them in a new context.

ain't nobody hearing any of the Hip Hop Writers and producers going to mistaking them for Smokey Robinson, Holland,Dozier and Holland, Stevie Wonder,etc.


cats ride off a groove and then write on top of that,which is one of the reasons why most cats in the genre don't last long.

create and do your own thing period.

if you want to cover that is cool, however sampling and looping has watered things down and always did.

the truth is because these labels were racist and spiteful they allowed the bext generation of acts to ride off of sampling and looping and then turned around wanted coin,but not because of said originator act.

it was cute when one didn't know any better, however if James Brown,George clinton,rick James and Sly Stone got paid every time they were sampled then they could have there own Mount rushmore.

however somehow it didn't balance out. all it did was bread familiarity and hurt the creative process of you doing you.

put it like this where are those acts now if they were so great with it back then?

just as i thought Crickets.

acts who do words and music and or make songs that timeless ain't gotta be making movies or Boutique this or that to keep a steady check unless they want to.

i'm not really the one to speak on this
b/c i don't dig rap as much as i dig soul or even rock.

so i can't be objective.

but truthfully,
i'd put kanye's latest (my beautiful dark and twisted family)
up against any other 2nd tier classic.
no, it's not as great as "off the wall" or "what's going on,"
but it's in the same leauge as fleetwood mac's "rumours."


ice cube's "ammerikkka's most wanted"
is one of the best albums i've ever heard.

notice i didn't say "one of the best RAP albums i've ever heard."
it's one of the best albums i've ever heard. no qualifiers.
i can see why somebody would think it was just as
great as anything else that's ever been released.

honestly, same goes for "nation of millions."





i'm sure there are others,
but like i said... i'm not a huge fan of the genre
so i really shouldn't start talking about it.



the beastie boys' "fight for your right to party"
is every bit the party record as "louie louie" or
any other pop metal recoord released in the 80s.


quality is quality.


and even if rap can't hang w/ soul as a genre,
i'd say that rap probablly has just as many great songs
as punk.


so it is what it is. it's all subjective anyway.

> ain't nobody hearing any of the Hip Hop Writers and
>producers going to mistaking them for Smokey Robinson,
>Holland,Dozier and Holland, Stevie Wonder,etc.
>
>
>cats ride off a groove and then write on top of that,which is
>one of the reasons why most cats in the genre don't last
>long.
>
>create and do your own thing period.
>
>if you want to cover that is cool, however sampling and
>looping has watered things down and always did.
>
>the truth is because these labels were racist and spiteful
>they allowed the bext generation of acts to ride off of
>sampling and looping and then turned around wanted coin,but
>not because of said originator act.
>
>it was cute when one didn't know any better, however if James
>Brown,George clinton,rick James and Sly Stone got paid every
>time they were sampled then they could have there own Mount
>rushmore.
>
>however somehow it didn't balance out. all it did was bread
>familiarity and hurt the creative process of you doing you.
>
>put it like this where are those acts now if they were so
>great with it back then?
>
>just as i thought Crickets.
>
>acts who do words and music and or make songs that timeless
>ain't gotta be making movies or Boutique this or that to keep
>a steady check unless they want to.
>
>

IMO...I love sample based music. The best hiphop songs contain samples. I don't think live musicans could have created the sound or feel that came out of sampling. The chop feel, the pitch change sound of a sample, different samples layered on top of eachother, etc... In today's world, we can look back at this "style" and analyize it as musicans and try to recreate. But I believe that musicans couldn't have created that "style" or sound.

and cross eyed as are the Breaks.

King of ROck is looking at you crazy as well. Run DMC with Eddie Martinez Guitar is laughing crazy at this.

i can point to some tracks that were played live and it left a impact.

and in the long run i'll take a cat creating there own as to hopping on a made meal and just pushing start.

because they were "playing" a sample of "Good Times" by Chic.


So it's not like they were coming up with their own groove.

and don't be coming at me dude. you still madd because i know more about the Real CHI TOWN than you. i see what your agenda is.

the point.

'rapper's delight' contains a jack as obvious as anything puff daddy did in the 90s.

>'rapper's delight' contains a jack as obvious as anything puff
>daddy did in the 90s.


yep.

and for the record, Nile Rodgers has said he thought it was HIS shit the first time he heard it...


check the record, I think there was some legal shit behind that.



But MY point is this. Since the musicians are the end all to be all in this "why bother sampling" debate, why did they have to jack Chic? The band in question ( Wood, Brass, and Steel ) was dope enough to get nasty on some original shit ( see also: "Funkanova"), so why did they replay "Good Times"?


Simple answer:

It was a hot ass groove that everybody knew. AKA 'a sample'.


Your move, Maxxx...


( and you're buggin', dude. I'm more *Chicago* than ANYBODY you know, lol. You're mad because your boy is just about done.)

bottom line it falls into a known track and it was played live which sold it two times and it worked.

back in the day rappers used more live instrumentation before it became chic no pun intended to be lazy and shiftless and press buttons to sell the same ole song over and over.

back then Sampling was allowed by the industry and original artists either weren't getting paid or there records were out of print.

now man I got respect for you in general and also as a DJ who crate digs especially raritys, however the industry didn't do no crate digging, just straight song digging and used that formula for a way to make actual producers and Musicians lazy.

and FYI Kellz is far from Over, if you ever get cool in the CHI he will perhaps invite you out to the Chocolate Factory for his vault and hear those smoking jams he got.

http://bit.ly/ypEphm



> bottom line it falls into a known track and it was played
>live which sold it two times and it worked.
>
>back in the day rappers used more live instrumentation before
>it became chic no pun intended to be lazy and shiftless and
>press buttons to sell the same ole song over and over.
>
>back then Sampling was allowed by the industry and original
>artists either weren't getting paid or there records were out
>of print.
>
>now man I got respect for you in general and also as a DJ who
>crate digs especially raritys, however the industry didn't do
>no crate digging, just straight song digging and used that
>formula for a way to make actual producers and Musicians
>lazy.
>
>and FYI Kellz is far from Over, if you ever get cool in the
>CHI he will perhaps invite you out to the Chocolate Factory
>for his vault and hear those smoking jams he got.
>
>

look it up if you can see. Kellz got natural born talent R&B TUrkey the real deal.

I'm not talking about every beat ever made....and I'm not talking about the first popular hiphop songs. Yes, there are some hiphop beats that are played by live musicians. Rappers Delight and The Message do have a more natural/live feel. You are correct with that. But that's not exactly what I meant...

I'm talking about that "chop" feel that samples give. Not every beat is like that, I know that. There's a certain feel that a beat has when it's all chopped up. A feel that's not "natural" to musicians. But, looking back on beats like this, musicians today analyze it and try to recreate that feel.

Trust me....I'm I live musician and arranger. Live music is my heart, and it's my bread and butter. But I grew up on hiphop, and I appreciate it's contribution music and musical styles. I don't believe that live musicians could have created that "chop" feel, that feel came from using samplers, turntables, and drum machines.

who gets paid if DJ so-n-so samples a cover song?
what if someone sampled a random person on youtube singing/playing a famous song?

>who gets paid if DJ so-n-so samples a cover song?

Both parties. The writer of the original version, and the perfomer of the version he sampled.

**EDIT**
The explanation is, because once somebody covers ( and releases ) it, it then becomes a NEW "original" recording. So DJ So-and-so is in fact sampling another artist. Think of how many versions of "My Favorite Things" or "Imagine" there are. If somebody samples say, Tracie Spencer's version of Imagine, She gets paid, AND Lennon gets paid.

>what if someone sampled a random person on youtube
>singing/playing a famous song?

You can't really copyright that ( assuming you're talking about just some cat singing into his laptop camera ).

But the original artist might come at him if he releases it. It might fall under interpolation, but I'm not sure. But the person who performed it on YouTube ain't got shit to say about it.

interesting stuff

aren't you allowed to freely cover and do parodys of songs? the parody thing i know if true because there was this church group that covered pop songs and made them about god,and i was like do you guys pay out the ass for samples? and they kinda laughed and said they didnt have to.

i feel like there needs to be a consistent rule.

i like music with instrument players and singers
but i'm not talkin' about that kind of music
i'm talkin' about a music where, where the music comes from
or how it's made isn't important
but the performance over that musical bed is the key factor
i.e. rap music or new jack rnb

so yeah, go argue somewhere else
cuz this ain't that kind of post
thanks

turkeys made a living off of James Brown alone to feed the nation ok?

tired posts trying to applaud lazy shiftless turkeys from creating something with there own brains and two hands.

imagine Jimi Hendrix doing push button music? now imagine turkeys smapling and Looping Hendrix's stuff and being called Musical Genius?

that don't even make sense at all.

any lazy turkey can sing or rap over a already known song, however it takes somebody with there own brain to create and make something original and new.

use that for their own sample libraries. I don't mean hire pro session musicians to play on their songs, just get some cats that play (they don't even have to be great players, as long as their tone and sound is good) and then record them and use that audio to chop up their own samples that they would own all the rights to.

When I was doing beats I would always sample and chop up myself playing bass or keys, and I would use recordings from jam sessions/rehearsals with other musicians as well as a source to chop my own samples. If you want clean samples then record an individual musician playing around on his instrument for around 10-15 minutes, and find small chops that you can flip and use out of that. If you want dirty/grimy samples, record a group of musicians jamming for 10-15 minutes and you can filter/chop it up however you want. If you do it that way you can make it sound like it came from some old rare album that noone is up on. If you want to get creative, record some musicians playing instruments outside of the normal "band" setting - like someone playing a harp, or cello, or sax, or whatever. Chop and flip it up, and you've got something unique.

Since you aren't having them play actual parts, the musicianship/professionalism of the musicians doesn't matter - just the sounds that you are recording. And you would have a library of samples that could be used on multiple tracks. It wouldn't be expensive at all - I don't know why there aren't more producers doing this.

I'm a Jazz guitarist/bassist/percussionist/composer
in tandem with being an emcee/beatsmith and this approach
is and has been an exremely streamlined one for me.

Granted I still sample records or course, I sample my own original Jazz compositions all the time and its extremely convenient because thats an infinite repository for me right there. The possibilities are endless and iouunnt gotta worry about politics in that regard.

And tried alot of different ways of executing that. But it doesn't completely replace the option of sampling for me.

A friend and I used to bring a portable dat recorder with a boom mic to the music store and quickly capture some instruments like vibraphones and acoustic bass. We got kicked out a couple times. I rent a drum set every other year for a week and record a bunch of material for future use.

But still....I can't afford the mics they used on those old records...nor do I have access to the recording environments. Nor do I own the myriad of instruments available to a sampler. It's extremely rare that I sample a record because of the 'performance' or the playing of a phrase/passage. It's almost always because of the tonal quality or the inability to rent/play a certain instrument.

I don't have access to an orchestra or a string section....I don't own a celtic harp....I can't afford expensive mics and amps.....I can't play a horn....All reasons for incorporating sampling into music production.

to get all the various qualities, styles, and beautiful quirks of sampling recordings from all various times and places, you'd have to have thousands of musicians and singers at your disposal, an expensive shitload of old recording equipment, a masterful engineer who can premeditate and perfectly recreate any sonic flaw you may want, etc.

before you even start sampling them.

and then that would be it. no new discoveries.

the art of sampling would lose so much of its beauty and appeal

sampling are actually at the same level and skill set as those who made the original....

sampling is fine, but people acting like kanye west is a musician, producer, or composer of the same ilk as those who did it with real musicians is just foolish..

it's dragged Black music down to being super cheap

you chose the wrong fallguy. Kanye is on that level.

maybe if you are 20 and younger and don't know any better than you can be hoodwinked into that okey doke, however cats who have heard and seen the real deal, you can't push no Kayne West over as a legit Producer,arranger or writer.

personally He is one of the reasons about what is wrong with the Music indutry today IMO.

He ain't much of a rapper.

production is hit and miss.

i don't feel he has much substance whatsoever.

and he's a decent songwriter when he wants to be.

i don't see how morphing a collection of samples
is any different from directing a horn player to execute a particular note at a particular time...

at least as far as the arrangement goes.
EDIT: especially when the song you flipped
sounds nothing like the finished composition.


i mean, if you had picked any other producer
i would pretty much agree with you.


but kanye is not in the same category
as whatever the fuck kids are listening to nowadays.



>sampling are actually at the same level and skill set as
>those who made the original....
>
>sampling is fine, but people acting like kanye west is a
>musician, producer, or composer of the same ilk as those who
>did it with real musicians is just foolish..
>
>it's dragged Black music down to being super cheap

I mean a few of his songs have sounded like he just put on the instrumental record of a curtis mayfield or gil scott heron song and put lyrics over it..

>I mean a few of his songs have sounded like he just put on
>the instrumental record of a curtis mayfield or gil scott
>heron song and put lyrics over it..
>
>

the nerve of somebody makign Kayne out to be great,good or even average is a insult on so many levels, ain't no depth in that turkeys music.

i bet Kayne West sees the word Original and he pulls a Fred G.Sanford.

he is one big gimmick with not much depth whatsoever. just another field hand who is corny and overrated. any turkey could do what he does if you put the right amount of money on him.

it's okay.

stuff that is already a proven hit.

that is the problem and the sad part some of these wack turkeys like Clownye take credit for stuff they didn't do and never could do musically because the vocabulary of a cat playing a Horn and a cat sampling is like that of a Doctor and someone who plays one on tv. its a wide gap.

ain't no way in the world could some Jive hustler fake like Kayne West come up with sampling what Lois Armstrong could do with a Horn and knowing what the tempo and changes to go in.

please don't insult no horn players like that Homie.

> stuff that is already a proven hit.
>
>that is the problem and the sad part some of these wack
>turkeys like Clownye take credit for stuff they didn't do and
>never could do musically because the vocabulary of a cat
>playing a Horn and a cat sampling is like that of a Doctor
>and someone who plays one on tv. its a wide gap.
>
>ain't no way in the world could some Jive hustler fake like
>Kayne West come up with sampling what Lois Armstrong could do
>with a Horn and knowing what the tempo and changes to go in.
>
>please don't insult no horn players like that Homie.

i'm thinkin radically
ure stuck in another argument
i got no dog in ur race
push on

the original material being sampled should be minimized thus making the "beat makers" composition more original??


lol..

yeah ..that's real radical..

it's simply telling people to ignore the musicianship, creativity and talent that was required to make the original......just simply ignore it ...and act like the "beat maker" is doing something original..

sorry man...lower the bar...change the rules all you want.... if you can't play it better than the original ...than it ain't better than the original...

originality ain't my objective or incentive for makin' this post
i'm talkin' about the performance
the rappin' over the music
i'm not carin' about choppin', disguisin', whatever
i'm talkin' about the tradition of blacks to
take a popular song, also in reggae culture
and do their own thing over it

that's all
i care not about the musicians who made the music
or wrote the melody
sure, they're appreciated
and they're talented

not my argument
maybe to you i'm minimalizin' their creation
by wantin' to treat them like session musicians
ok, cool

>originality ain't my objective or incentive for makin' this
>post
>i'm talkin' about the performance
>the rappin' over the music
>i'm not carin' about choppin', disguisin', whatever
>i'm talkin' about the tradition of blacks to
>take a popular song, also in reggae culture
>and do their own thing over it
>
>that's all
>i care not about the musicians who made the music
>or wrote the melody
>sure, they're appreciated
>and they're talented
>
>not my argument
>maybe to you i'm minimalizin' their creation
>by wantin' to treat them like session musicians
>ok, cool
>


the fact of the matter is that these original recordings have copyrights, and using them requires the owner of the copyright to be compensated..

so the answer your question.....No, they can't be treated like session musician because doing so would be against the law.

and I honestly don't view doing so as any sort of higher level outside the box thinking ..because it's basiclly saying "Why shouldn't I be allowed to violate the law to make it seem like what I'm doing is more original than it really is, and I can get compensated as if it's more original than it is"

the copyright law is where the radicalnesscomes in.
it could be expanded to cover hip hops unique situation

>the copyright law is where the radicalnesscomes in.
>it could be expanded to cover hip hops unique situation


people would start creating, composing and plaing original music..... That would solve the problem.

truly a generational Gap. pushing buttons and riding over a song for your career and lets be real most Hip Hop acts are known through a song that was a 100 times better than anything they could ever create.

i mean how did riding over something done 30-40 years back be allowed to be seen as Genius again?

sure, like w/ anything most practitioners are followers... most musicians are mid level talents who just go thru the motions of their training, originality in any art is normally limited to a select skilled talented and hard working few

but u refuse to understand that sampling is an original and unique artform in and of itself

u just have a bias against it and thus u are obsessed with cramming its essence into some narrow box that firs your idea of what is "good" or "fair"

its 2012 bro...move on and let ppl do their art w/o your emotion based judgements

the thing that makes Sampling lazy especially when these labels went for a particular part or etc.. is that it had 99 other copy cats and once you knew that one part that is all that got shoved down folks throat.

and Beatmakers are only as good as that, ain't no logenvity in being only a beat maker. yeah some fast cash and then what?

it doesn't have much substance.

you ever seen it when folks that don't like rap
try to say "anybody can rap"
so then they bust out some lame "beat box"
and then drop a "freestyle" like...


"my name is joe/
and i've got money/
all the girls/
wanna give me some honey!

rapping is easy/
anybody can do it/
i just take somebody elses song and then/
loop it."



at which point they
strike an exagerated run dmc pose
that nobody has done for at least a decade.






>and Beatmakers are only as good as that, ain't no logenvity in
>being only a beat maker. yeah some fast cash and then what?
>
>it doesn't have much substance.





"it takes a nation of millions to hold us back"
will stand the test of time (it kind of already has).


and it sounds nothing like
the records they sampled.

it's a new creation.

that proves my point when he started Bad Boy.

i got it on good authority that another young Songwriter and producer who was happening at the time got passed over by Clive in favor of the budget going to Puffy. a R&B producer who could play and write.

Now Clive already had LAFace set in place and he had a opening and instead he went to the Push Button era of Puffy.

tell me with a straight face that Puffy didn't take himself serious as a Producer? and as a Artist while riding off of his 80's songs?

please explain away how Clive Davis opened the wallet to a un talented turkey like Puffy?

or Jimmy Iovine clearing all those samples for Dr Dre and others?

Tommy Mottola doing the same thing at Sony. please explain it away?

I hate puffy.
how much do I hate puffy?

there's an Aretha Franklin song on her "rose is still a rose album"
that's really good. It's called "I'll never leave you again"
I love this song. well last week I checked the liner notes...
turns out it was cowritten and produced by puffy.

I was devastated.
I'm going to assume he paid for that credit.
I have to.



don't get me started on dre.
who went solo and turned george Clinton's rebel music
Into sociopathic easy listening. The hip hop equivalent of Kenny g.

Fuck dr. dre.








but hip hop is more than those 2 artist.
bomb squad doesn't fall into that category.
dilla doesn't either.

and I know you don't like him,
but kanye is pretty brilliant.

and on MBDTF, those songs he sampled sounded nothing like the originals.
and what he created was great.




it's bullshit to compare him to puffy and dre,
who (arguably) destroyed hip hop by themselves.
okay, not really. but seriously... they really did some bad things...


kanye's differeent.





> that proves my point when he started Bad Boy.
>
>i got it on good authority that another young Songwriter and
>producer who was happening at the time got passed over by
>Clive in favor of the budget going to Puffy. a R&B producer
>who could play and write.
>
>Now Clive already had LAFace set in place and he had a
>opening and instead he went to the Push Button era of Puffy.
>
>tell me with a straight face that Puffy didn't take himself
>serious as a Producer? and as a Artist while riding off of
>his 80's songs?
>
>please explain away how Clive Davis opened the wallet to a un
>talented turkey like Puffy?
>
>or Jimmy Iovine clearing all those samples for Dr Dre and
>others?
>
>Tommy Mottola doing the same thing at Sony. please explain it
>away?
>
>

Dr.Dre is Hip Hop's Greatest Producer ask Kayne about that and others and Watch turkeys bow dow to Dr.Dre in unison I kid you not.

you ain't saying nothing, because the best so called Hip Hop Producer all at one point and time had to ride on a sample to get a hit. its nothing like what Holland,Dozier and Holland did or Norman Whitfield


Stevie Wonder could do Hip hop with his pinky fingers and keep a beat no biggie.

you don't like kanye.
i do.

and we've already established that
but you still refer to him as corny while you're talking to me.
i'll bet if i said that shit about r. kelly
you'd call me a turkey.



think about it.



i won't bother posting up tracks by kanye that i think are dope,
b/c you won't like it anyway and i really don't feel like getting into a back and forth with you about it.






you mentioned dre as being the best hip hop producer.
i still don't buy that. mostly b/c i can't stand "the chronic"
but like i said above, it's already established that i dont like it...
so i don't know what you want me to say about that.

who cares that other producers like him.

i don't.

he's not the best of what hip hop has to offer to me.
so again, i don't know what you want me to say.





and as for kanye not being as good as holland dozier and holland,
that goes without saying. i love soul but i swear
there are other kinds of music and there is no need
to bring up our favorite artists in discussions that have 0 to do with the
topic at hand.


shit, kanye ain't as great as MJ, either.
but you don't see me shitting on kanye just because
he's not as good as my favorite artist.


again, think about it.


because to be honest, kanye IS one of my favorite artists,
and i know that if i were to shit on one of YOUR favorite artists,
you'd flip.


just think about it.

what needs to be said is that you can't compare a cat who is more known as a pushing the buttons beat maker artist as to an artist who can sit down and write and play something.

Kayne's thing don't require the same level of talent as to a real Artist that is the bottom line.

artists i like can write, play,sing and can actual Produce.

I don't even like hip-hop like that, either.

whenever i see someone concerned about "credit" or what "level" beatmakers are on compared to "musicians" i just assume they are frustrated with envy at beatmakers who do well, on top of having a lack of understanding as to a basic element of what makes hip hop a truly unique artform

original competition is so difficult to justify that you just throw out the idea that someone "just doesn't understand hip hop"....

what is so complicated and over people's head about hearing something funky and sampling the actual recording?? It doesn't take a genius to hear a song that everyone is familiar with and sample it. I mean if we're talking producers like Primo or Pete Rock who used more abstract samples or flipped them in ways that turned them into something else...then yeah...that's super creative and really what caused it to move towards an art form. But if we are just talking about the concept of sampling and acting like the act of samping something requires the same skillset or creativity that was required to make the original..... that's just foolish.

you can sample Bernie Worrell ..but that doesn't mean you have the same ability as a musician and composer that Bernie Worrell has.

it just doesn't...now fans of hip hop who don't know any better or beat makers themselves can lower the bar and change the standards to put those things on the same level....but even most hip hop fans realize they aren't, and miss the times when there was a higher respect for the music that was being sampled and thus more creativity by hip hop producers and beat makers.

of either 1) beatmakers who claim or have claimed they are the same as musicians (lets not get caught up on "levels" or who is "better" since sampling is its own unique art form); or 2) subpar beatmakers who are flooding thd market and forcing their horribly simple beats down ppls throats

ill wait

the thing is, you are creating a boogeyman that doesnt exist...sampling is not endangering music, it is simply another form of expression, and it doesnt claim equality or superiority to musicianship, its its own thing

so why are u mad at some average or semi wack bedroom dude w/ an mpc amd a soundcloud just tryna do his thing if hes not stopping anyone else from doing their thing and hes not running around making wild claims about his skill of talent, but just doin somn that brings him joy and that he loves?

why does that make you so upset and indignant?

I'm "mad" about anything....It's actually a cheap childish response to a different opinion, and you might want to try a different approach when discussing things with adults if you want to be taken seriously...

as far as examples of producers who rely on sampling viewing themselves as being on par with producers of the past who used real musicians.... I mean both Kanye west and puff daddy have made numerous comments saying that exact thing.... but beyond that YOU and others in this post and on this board believe that those 2 forms of production are equal and the same...or even that sampling requires the same or an even higher skill set than producing music with real instrumentation..... So its hardly that anyone is making these things up.... YOU believe it.

The fact of the matter is that I disagree with that point of view. Making music with real musicians requires a greater skill level..usually by multiple people than sampling. To me I think it's pretty obvious....but if others disagree, I have no problem defending my point of view..

I think the idea that sample based music is on par with the original from a technique point of view...from the point of view of general acceptable standards in Black music....that thought process is why the music in general is of a lesser quality and impact today...

and uploading it to the internet?

how would you compare that to sampling, bc i really appreciate u stealing these 7 discs of james brown songs for me so i didnt have to...

wonder how his estate feels about those things as compared to sampling?

hmmmmmm....


>I'm "mad" about anything....It's actually a cheap childish
>response to a different opinion, and you might want to try a
>different approach when discussing things with adults if you
>want to be taken seriously...

so above it all, but a mere thief like the rest of us

>as far as examples of producers who rely on sampling viewing
>themselves as being on par with producers of the past who used
>real musicians.... I mean both Kanye west and puff daddy have
>made numerous comments saying that exact thing....

source?

>but beyond
>that YOU and others in this post and on this board believe
>that those 2 forms of production are equal and the same.

can you cite where anyone said this or are you making it up?

can you link a post where any1 claimed they are "equal" or "the same"?


..or
>even that sampling requires the same or an even higher skill
>set than producing music with real instrumentation.....

again, who has said this?

evidence please

So its
>hardly that anyone is making these things up.... YOU believe
>it.

can you find a quote where i said it tho? since u kno i believe it i must have said it, right?

>The fact of the matter is that I disagree with that point of
>view. Making music with real musicians requires a greater
>skill level..

SO WHAT

you are hung up on this but why does it matter?

>usually by multiple people than sampling. To me I
>think it's pretty obvious....but if others disagree, I have no
>problem defending my point of view..
>
>I think the idea that sample based music is on par with the
>original from a technique point of view...

have you done both?

either?

what does "on par" even mean when comparing apples and oranges?

>from the point of
>view of general acceptable standards in Black music.

who defines this?

you?

"black musicians"?

young black ppl created sampling and all its major developments, from herc to dilla

>...that
>thought process is why the music in general is of a lesser
>quality and impact today...

IN YOUR OPINION

>and uploading it to the internet?
>
>how would you compare that to sampling, bc i really appreciate
>u stealing these 7 discs of james brown songs for me so i
>didnt have to...
>
>wonder how his estate feels about those things as compared to
>sampling?
>
>hmmmmmm....

is "My Name" on anyone else's work.

Apples and oranges.



>
>>I'm "mad" about anything....It's actually a cheap childish
>>response to a different opinion, and you might want to try a
>>different approach when discussing things with adults if you
>>want to be taken seriously...
>
>so above it all, but a mere thief like the rest of us

see above.

>
>>as far as examples of producers who rely on sampling viewing
>>themselves as being on par with producers of the past who
>used
>>real musicians.... I mean both Kanye west and puff daddy
>have
>>made numerous comments saying that exact thing....
>
>source?


pick I side....either what I'm saying is wrong, or no producers have made the claim. You can't have it both ways.



>
>>but beyond
>>that YOU and others in this post and on this board believe
>>that those 2 forms of production are equal and the same.
>
>can you cite where anyone said this or are you making it up?

Do you believe that sample based music is the same as original music....requiring the same skillset??? If you don't why are you debating the issue.


>
>can you link a post where any1 claimed they are "equal" or
>"the same"?
>..or
>>even that sampling requires the same or an even higher skill
>>set than producing music with real instrumentation.....
>
>again, who has said this?
>
>evidence please
>
>So its
>>hardly that anyone is making these things up.... YOU believe
>>it.
>
>can you find a quote where i said it tho? since u kno i
>believe it i must have said it, right?

If you don't believe it, your only response to my original post should have been "co-sign" or something to that effect.

>
>>The fact of the matter is that I disagree with that point of
>>view. Making music with real musicians requires a greater
>>skill level..
>
>SO WHAT
>
>you are hung up on this but why does it matter?

it matters to you because you are going out of your way to respond, then calling into question whether your believe what you are saying or not. Make up your mind.

>
>>usually by multiple people than sampling. To me I
>>think it's pretty obvious....but if others disagree, I have
>no
>>problem defending my point of view..
>>
>>I think the idea that sample based music is on par with the
>>original from a technique point of view...
>
>have you done both?
>
>either?
>
>what does "on par" even mean when comparing apples and
>oranges?
>
>>from the point of
>>view of general acceptable standards in Black music.
>
>who defines this?
>
>you?
>
>"black musicians"?
>
>young black ppl created sampling and all its major
>developments, from herc to dilla

...that
>>thought process is why the music in general is of a lesser
>>quality and impact today...
>
>IN YOUR OPINION

dude you honestly sound like the one whose mad. I'ma go ahead and end the debate with you because your resonses are getting pretty childish to be honest. We can just agree to disagree I guess...lol.

>>and uploading it to the internet?
>>
>>how would you compare that to sampling, bc i really
>appreciate
>>u stealing these 7 discs of james brown songs for me so i
>>didnt have to...
>>
>>wonder how his estate feels about those things as compared
>to
>>sampling?
>>
>>hmmmmmm....
>
>is "My Name" on anyone else's work.
>
>Apples and oranges.
>

hmmmmm....


>
>>
>>>I'm "mad" about anything....It's actually a cheap childish
>>>response to a different opinion, and you might want to try
>a
>>>different approach when discussing things with adults if
>you
>>>want to be taken seriously...
>>
>>so above it all, but a mere thief like the rest of us
>
>see above.
>
>>
>>>as far as examples of producers who rely on sampling
>viewing
>>>themselves as being on par with producers of the past who
>>used
>>>real musicians.... I mean both Kanye west and puff daddy
>>have
>>>made numerous comments saying that exact thing....
>>
>>source?
>
>
>pick I side....either what I'm saying is wrong, or no
>producers have made the claim. You can't have it both ways.
>
>

no, im askin u to cite 1 quote from a sample based producer where they have compared themself to a musician

>
>>
>>>but beyond
>>>that YOU and others in this post and on this board believe
>>>that those 2 forms of production are equal and the same.
>>
>>can you cite where anyone said this or are you making it up?
>
>Do you believe that sample based music is the same as original
>music....requiring the same skillset??? If you don't why are
>you debating the issue.
>

both are music, and each requires a unique and distinct skillset, and unique and different skillsets within each "discipline" as well

particularly to be GOOD

so my whole point is that only ppl w/ an anti sampling agenda compare the two, when they are distinct forms of art/making music, and do not need to be compared unless one has an axe to grind

i dont get ppl like u being SO OBSESSED with putting samplers in their place, WHY is it so important to you how some1 manifests their creativity?

sampling is an art that i and millions LOVE bc it speaks to us, who do u think u are to tear the art down bc of how it compares to traditional means of making music?

>>
>>can you link a post where any1 claimed they are "equal" or
>>"the same"?
>>..or
>>>even that sampling requires the same or an even higher
>skill
>>>set than producing music with real instrumentation.....
>>
>>again, who has said this?
>>
>>evidence please
>>
>>So its
>>>hardly that anyone is making these things up.... YOU
>believe
>>>it.
>>
>>can you find a quote where i said it tho? since u kno i
>>believe it i must have said it, right?
>
>If you don't believe it, your only response to my original
>post should have been "co-sign" or something to that effect.

no bc i vehemently disagree w/ any attempt to tear down and belittle an art form that I LOVE AND IS IMPORTANT TO ME

>>
>>>The fact of the matter is that I disagree with that point
>of
>>>view. Making music with real musicians requires a greater
>>>skill level..
>>
>>SO WHAT
>>
>>you are hung up on this but why does it matter?
>
>it matters to you because you are going out of your way to
>respond, then calling into question whether your believe what
>you are saying or not. Make up your mind.

clarity

your just talking me in circles for fun huh?

>>
>>>usually by multiple people than sampling. To me I
>>>think it's pretty obvious....but if others disagree, I have
>>no
>>>problem defending my point of view..
>>>
>>>I think the idea that sample based music is on par with the
>>>original from a technique point of view...
>>
>>have you done both?
>>
>>either?
>>
>>what does "on par" even mean when comparing apples and
>>oranges?
>>
>>>from the point of
>>>view of general acceptable standards in Black music.
>>
>>who defines this?
>>
>>you?
>>
>>"black musicians"?
>>
>>young black ppl created sampling and all its major
>>developments, from herc to dilla
>
>...that
>>>thought process is why the music in general is of a lesser
>>>quality and impact today...
>>
>>IN YOUR OPINION
>
>dude you honestly sound like the one whose mad. I'ma go ahead
>and end the debate with you because your resonses are getting
>pretty childish to be honest. We can just agree to disagree I
>guess...lol.

so basically youve never done either, you have nothin else to say so you just say "youre childish" to cover your L

OK

peace

my name isn't on anyone elses original work.... I'm not benefiting in any way from anything anyone else has done...

Enjoy!

http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2005-08-21-kanye-main_x.htm

West hopes to register with musical daring
By Steve Jones, USA TODAY
LANHAM, Md. — Kanye West is certain his Late Registration will ace the sales test Friday. What he wants to know is whether it will stand the test of time.


The never-shy producer/rapper says his newest album is sonically superior to last year's Grammy-winning debut, The College Dropout, and stacks up well against other classic albums.

"Music hasn't been taken this far in years — since Stevie (Wonder) did it. Since Prince did it," says West, 27, who enlisted Fiona Apple producer Jon Brion to help him go in a different direction.

"I'm not trying to compete with what's out there now. I'm really trying to compete with Innervisions and Songs in the Key of Life. It sounds musically blasphemous to say something like that, but why not set that as your bar?" (Related story: West, hip-hop's writer in residence)

West has had a good year. He won three Grammys and delivered a show-stopping Jesus Walks on the awards program, and he produced two of 2005's most acclaimed albums — John Legend's Get Lifted and Common's Be. But the real question was what would he do for an encore to Dropout.

On Registration, he talks about everything from politics to partying, and guest artists include Maroon 5's Adam Levine, Jamie Foxx, Common, The Game, Brandy, Nas, Cam'Ron and Jay-Z.

His most daring move was bringing in multi-instrumentalist Brion, who had scored such movies as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Punch-Drunk Love. West, who came into prominence four years ago with Jay-Z's groundbreaking The Blueprint, was seeking a new plateau in production.

"Picture me, someone who likes cinematic-sounding stuff, having someone who actually scores movies to help produce the album," West says.

Brion says that although some might find their pairing odd, he and West shared a seriousness about making records and "a total obsession with lyrics." Brion's skill with orchestras and with such instruments as vibraphones and marimbas gave West a much broader spectrum of sounds to work with.

West showed a lot of courage, Brion says, by stepping out on an artistic ledge.

"If ever there was a time not to (mess) with the formula, this would be it," Brion says. "But he's fearless. A lot of people have a governor on themselves, usually peer pressure or fear of not being liked. This is a guy that is truly living by his tastes and his beliefs."

The result is "only the future of music itself," West says, laughing. "Only a Dr. Dre or a Pharrell (Williams) could even fathom accomplishing something like this, and they do it in their own way."

West, who likens himself to the Philadelphia Eagles' brash Terrell Owens, makes no apologies for talking smack.

"Are you supposed to be humble?" he says. "Honestly. If you've got a whole crowd of people singing your song and you've got one critic saying this song is OK, well, you know you're right."


http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

and then that turkey had the nerve to compare Lay Z to Rick James?? him and his fans are delusional.

Kanye's dope at what he does but shit ain't on the same level.


http://twitter.com/collazo
http://www.reverbnation.com/livesociety

>you can sample Bernie Worrell ..but that doesn't mean you have
>the same ability as a musician and composer that Bernie
>Worrell has.

yeah...but they also have a skill set worrell doesn't... maybe its a "groove recognition" skill

go search what bob james said about hip hop producers...

they would take a little 2 bar transition and flip it into a party stopper...

therein lies the rub...

those guys could play it... but they were over the heads of the audience for 6 mins... hip hop cats knew what 6 secs to take

lol

Greyhound pulls in. beatmakers are a dime a dozen and unless you learn some music, you gonna be just a trick.

ain't nothing special at all.

i got beats matter of fact I'm working on a cut called "the Gumby" bringing that Bobby Brown New Jack swing vibe back.

any turkey can make a beat now can you take it beyond a beat? Yeah turkey i can

Beat Makers are no where near the real musicans. Shit, I love hiphop...listen to it more then anything. But to say Kanye is on the same level as the arrangers and composers is a joke. He makes dope beats (with the help from other producers) but he is no where near Quincy...he's no where near any of the real cats. That's a joke to even speak that way. Smh!

Black face music sold to make the Masters happy that real talent is burried and forgotten.

it has truly hurt Black Music.

>sampling are actually at the same level and skill set as
>those who made the original....
>
>sampling is fine, but people acting like kanye west is a
>musician, producer, or composer of the same ilk as those who
>did it with real musicians is just foolish..
>

i've never really heard a strong argument for why beatmaking is an inferior form of musicianship. its easy to simply assert that someone who builds a track off of samples is "less talented" or whatever you want to say than someone who plays traditional instruments. they both make original music by manipulating various inputs vis a vis their respective instruments and create a certain unique output. what do you want to point to that makes one on a different "level" than the other?

yall sample-haters really need to just move on and deal with the reality

your crying will not change or take away the vibrant culture surrounding sample based music

but keep moralizing, crying and comparing apples to oranges to satisfy your deep seated envy and resentment ...have fun

Me personally....I like samples. A lot of hiphop songs sound the way they do because of the sample. Live instruments can't do exactly what an drum machine can do...most of the time.

My beef is with people trying to say beat makers are on the same level as cats like Quincy. That's a horrible comparison.

has watered it down so much, then you get the delusional talk of a Kayne West being called a Producer and the fact that R&B ain't respected by the business and the sad part its all tagged as one.

if Rick James had have just went with beats ain't nobody in Hip Hop seeing his beats, however he had chords, and changes and full arrangements.

however i can take RJ, P Funk, James Brown, Sly Stone, go on and on and show you if those cats just went for a beat why these Hip Hop Producers would be outta luck.

i blame the industry for Pimping it and pushing it.

old Hustler like CLive Davis giving Puffy 75 Million worth of credit to sample,snatch,loop and water it all down and give that turkey a title of Producer and its been downhill ever since.

http://5493-planetmc.voxcdn.com/files/resource_media/screenshot/1201/beoriginal_1146398.jpg

embracing sampling,looping turkeys who make a living at it as if they are creating something memorable?

turkeys need to create something original and stop riding off of what was done in the past.

the Master paid these lazy turkeys alot of money to ride over what has been done and they grin and are all too happy.

one thing to do something here and there, however when it represents the bulk of the creativity i gotta wonder what is being used for a brain cell?

and so everything you're saying is irrelevant.

in any case, you've both made your points, such as they were.

why you both continue to clutter up this thread with redundancies is beyond me.

(and i'm paraphrasing here) but he once said that alot of hip-hop artists make hip-hop with the mindset that they're acting one step from being back in the projects and i think the mindset you are suggesting is that of someone who either is investing in their craft or has the luxury of being an artist because they have something to say.

plus there's seemingly no artistic integrity self-policing hip-hop to make a sustaining market for more 'left-of-center' acts. it was present in the golden age and even for like 3 or 4 years in the 90's but in the post-Chronic days, everyone's looking to make something that sells rather than make something that lasts.

i know alot of the hip-hop we adore and worship (Tribe, The Roots, Illmatic, Pete Rock) was made with a sense of artistry and integrity, but alot of producers are in hip-hop to make a buck over doing something noteworthy, at least the commercial ones seem that way.

with the costs of sampling steadily increasing and the variety of music being commercially viable decreasing, it seems like there is less and less of a chance of a collective of producers or even a single producer choosing to actually experiment and try something like you're talking about even though there might be a market for it.

,....

i realize that the cliche isn't quite true...
and is a bit overstated,
but let's face it:

a good number of punk rockers could barely play their instruments.



i mean, obviously... hitting a sound that you
programmed into a sampler
is not as difficult as executing a note on a horn.

i don't think anybody is disputing that.



but let's face it,
a lot of punk rock might be laughed at
by folks that dig jazz and classical... on the same grounds that you
are marginaizing sampling. (they ain't even playing,
anybody can do that, etc.)




anyway... my point is,
we can debate which genre is harder to play all day.

i know for a fact that speed metal
is exceptionaly difficult to play,
but i'd never want to listen to any of it. ever.


i would, however, listen to kanye west's "space ship."
(which sounds nothing like "distant lover," by the way).




yeah, i know the speed metal is harder to play.





but at the end of the day,
isn't it always about songs?

some of the the punk rockers had songs. (or, at least the grove. or whatever it was they were doing. they had "it.")

and clearly, some of the rap producers have "it," too.





i mean, we can do the
"my favorite genre is harder to play" game all day.
but what the fuck for?

they're all doing their own thing.
"every music has a soul" (c) qunicy jones.


this post is abusing my eclectic sensabilities.

>i mean, we can do the
>"my favorite genre is harder to play" game all day.
>but what the fuck for?
>
>they're all doing their own thing.
>"every music has a soul" (c) quincy jones.

People lose their minds, can't think straight, or stay on topic.

Note how what Warren and mistermaxxx are talking about has NOTHING to do with the original point of this post lol. They saw the word "sampling" and instantly went to their well-worn, often-repeated default "sampling is cheap/play instruments!" talking points with no regard to what buildingblock wanted to discuss.

And then when folks pointed this out, they dug in harder.



__
I don't like the beat anymore because its just a loop. ALC didn't FLIP IT ENOUGH!

Flip it enough? Flip these. Flip off. Go flip some f*cking burgers.(c)Kno

Allied State of the National Electric Beat Treaty Organization (NEBTO)

Once again.

Preach on, my good sir.

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

If sophistication or difficulty is the main criteria for one's music appreciation than you might as well cross off rnb, disco, pop, rocknroll, funk, hip hop....the list goes on.

and you gotta have a groove or something with your own two hands and your brain.

not the same. let Clive Davis, Jimmy Ivovine and Tommy Mottola or Jerry Heller give me 75 Million dollars to sample and when i get through call me a Genius because it is so easy it ain't evne funny.

now tell me to create music that equals 75 million dollars and then i gotta work.

the ramones or black flag actually played there music regardless of there overall prowness on said instruments. a sampling turkey you can do that in your bed room and throw a beat behind it and have somebody sing a hook and a catchy video and it will blow up.

not alot of work.

I'm sure there are keys being played on their records but a lot of that is program/pad/loop based.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PRfCtc21NM

and yet the 2nd top comment is a guy saying this is their second favorite group after Rush, one of prog's more acclaimed group of technicians.

do you just have no appreciation for people who press buttons for a living?

autechre: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coAxNXMK0ZA

all pads. very complex tunes.

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." © Jay Bilas

http://www.last.fm/user/NodimaChee
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Nodima/run_that_shit__nodimas_hip_hop_handbook

Everyone else is turkeys and responsible for the downfall of music.

__
I don't like the beat anymore because its just a loop. ALC didn't FLIP IT ENOUGH!

Flip it enough? Flip these. Flip off. Go flip some f*cking burgers.(c)Kno

Allied State of the National Electric Beat Treaty Organization (NEBTO)

punk rockers not playing well and other genre's players looking down on them is not the same as sampling....using the actual recording of other people's work..

just don't see the connection.

a lot of hip hop artists
take the samples and create something new.

brand new.

this isn't a perfect example, but it's
the easiest one to explain...



kanye west took THIS classic bill withers song...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ROGOHNSEBs


THIS classic diana ross song...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQtrMHuejY



and created THIS brand new record, that is pretty damn good.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyhHV8G0vpU




that is an entirely new drum patter that he created.
it sounds nothing like "use me."

the vocal sample doesn't sound like "the interm"




no, kanye can't play any instruments.
if you gave him a snare drum, he couldn't play that rim shot.

but he DID create a new song.
it's original.


everybody doesn't do what puffy did
to "i'm coming out."


kanye wrote a new song.




now you may say he loses points b/c
he couldn't play all that stuff if you gave him some instruments.

i call bullshit...
punk rockers could barely play.

and songwriters like michael jackson
can't play any instruments at all... they tell other people what to play, and they make it happen.




i don't know why you are being so stubborn about this.
hip hop producers can create a new thing.

they morph existing sounds
into something different.


again... do you REALLY think that the songs
on "it takes a nations of millinos to hold us back"
sound anything like the songs they samppled from?

dilla made shit unrecognizable.




it's not a pefect metaphore,
but punk rock and hip hop (used to) have so much in common.
i don't know why the analogy isn't made more often.




obviously... i obviously don't value the ability
to play instruments as much as you do.

all i care about is a good song.



i don't care that MJ couldn't play piano.
he was able to tell the piano player what to play,
and the end result was dope.




i don't care who's a better "technical" player.
jeff beck can play his ass off, but he has like maybe
one song that i kinda like.




so while i respect musicians, of course...
i don't care how hard it was
to get the effect that you got.


i want a song.


punk rockers took rudimentary musical ability
and turned it into something new.

hip hop producers (sometimes/ often times)
take even less musical ability to create something new.




i don't know how much clearer i can say it.





>punk rockers not playing well and other genre's players
>looking down on them is not the same as sampling....using the
>actual recording of other people's work..
>
>just don't see the connection.

>a lot of hip hop artists
>take the samples and create something new.
>
>brand new.
>
>this isn't a perfect example, but it's
>the easiest one to explain...
>
>
>
>kanye west took THIS classic bill withers song...
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ROGOHNSEBs
>
>
>THIS classic diana ross song...
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VQtrMHuejY
>
>
>
>and created THIS brand new record, that is pretty damn good.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyhHV8G0vpU
>
>
>
>
>that is an entirely new drum patter that he created.
>it sounds nothing like "use me."
>
>the vocal sample doesn't sound like "the interm"
>
>
>
>
>no, kanye can't play any instruments.
>if you gave him a snare drum, he couldn't play that rim shot.
>
>but he DID create a new song.
>it's original.
>
>
>everybody doesn't do what puffy did
>to "i'm coming out."
>
>
>kanye wrote a new song.
>
>
>
>
>now you may say he loses points b/c
>he couldn't play all that stuff if you gave him some
>instruments.
>
>i call bullshit...
>punk rockers could barely play.

right here.... nobody is saying that ye himself has to be able to play everything...he could have composed some music and had musicians play the original compostion....ok, but he didn't do that. You're narrowing this down to me believing that the issue is whether Kanye can play something or not. Not the point. He got to the end result by sampling...ok...the song is cool, that's fine. But what he did to get there doesn't require the skills that it took the make the records he sampled. That's all I'm really saying..

whether Punk rockers can play well or not....whatever they were playing was them using instruments to make original compositions.




>
>and songwriters like michael jackson
>can't play any instruments at all... they tell other people
>what to play, and they make it happen.

absolutely.... Same with James Brown.....

doing that is distinctly different from sampling. Because it took Quincy Jones, Rod Temperton and the musicians to make what Mike wanted a reality..... and all those people together...all those skills of all thos people together is greater than a person sampling the end result.....


>
>
>
>i don't know why you are being so stubborn about this.
>hip hop producers can create a new thing.

Not every new thing is the same thing.


>they morph existing sounds
>into something different.

right..but see..I think it's super over generalizing to put what a sample based producers does on the same level as what the producer of the original and the associated musicians did.


>
>again... do you REALLY think that the songs
>on "it takes a nations of millinos to hold us back"
>sound anything like the songs they samppled from?

No....but just because it doesn't sound the same means that we should dismiss the efforts and talents that went into making the original records that made the sounds and music that was sampled.

>
>dilla made shit unrecognizable.

whether it's recogniable or not...which again I do make a distinction between that type of sampling and some of the other stuff I'm talking about.....

>
>
>
>it's not a pefect metaphore,
>but punk rock and hip hop (used to) have so much in common.
>i don't know why the analogy isn't made more often.
>

punk rockers didn't utilize other people's records to make their music though. Yes the comparison between punk and hip hop is strong and can recall times even here on west coast in the 80's when the coexisted together.


>
>
>obviously... i obviously don't value the ability
>to play instruments as much as you do.
>
>all i care about is a good song.
>
>
>
>i don't care that MJ couldn't play piano.
>he was able to tell the piano player what to play,
>and the end result was dope.
>
>

that's fine....but again with no offense to anyone, I feel like that attitude is the outcome of a lowering of standards related to music. Poeple had to have certain skills just to get a chance back in the day. and it kept the quality at a very high level. Not so much now in my opinion.



>
>
>i don't care who's a better "technical" player.
>jeff beck can play his ass off, but he has like maybe
>one song that i kinda like.
>
>
>
>
>so while i respect musicians, of course...
>i don't care how hard it was
>to get the effect that you got.
>
>
>i want a song.


you'd have better songs to listen to if you have more people striving towards the traditional standards and skillsets..even more no because of all the innovations...it would be great thing.

>
>
>punk rockers took rudimentary musical ability
>and turned it into something new.
>
something that they created with their own hands.


>hip hop producers (sometimes/ often times)
>take even less musical ability to create something new.
>

not always.....


>
>
>i don't know how much clearer i can say it.
>
>
>
>
>
>>punk rockers not playing well and other genre's players
>>looking down on them is not the same as sampling....using
>the
>>actual recording of other people's work..
>>
>>just don't see the connection.
>
H

>something that they created with their own hands.

or something...

it's in this same punk rock comment string, I forget the number. It feels to me like you're claiming anyone who presses buttons is a fraud.

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." © Jay Bilas

http://www.last.fm/user/NodimaChee
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Nodima/run_that_shit__nodimas_hip_hop_handbook

It feels to me like you're claiming anyone who presses
>buttons is a fraud.

and honestly I haven't called anyone a fraud.... I'm just making comparisons between one style of production and another. I'm comparing the skill sets required for both.... never once used the term fraud..

we are missing each other right here...


. He got to the end result by sampling...ok...the song
>is cool, that's fine. But what he did to get there doesn't
>require the skills that it took the make the records he
>sampled. That's all I'm really saying..
>

and I AGREE!

hallelujah. we can dead this.

I would never want kanye or even dilla to get credit as a musician.
never said he should.

I said he was very much and an arranger,
and he can be a good song writer when he wants to be.

I don't even think Ye would try to take credit as a musician.
nobody is disputing anything you are saying about that.

it's a different skill set that he's using.
a skill set that is completely unrelated to somebody like quincy jones
getting the band to sound a certain way, and making sure the band is in the right key,
and making sure they dynamics are correct to create the record that a hip hop
producer samples.


it's not the same at all.

what Ye does IS comparable (although he's not as skilled at it)
to JB or MJ writing a song I'm their head and having musicians flesh it out.


please, don't find something in there to disagree with.
we aren't disagreeing anymore.

I'm not trying to create a back and forth over nothing. You understand my point.
I understand yours. And they aren't different.




>


>right..but see..I think it's super over generalizing to put
>what a sample based producers does on the same level as what
>the producer of the original and the associated musicians
>did.


hip hop producers are not musicians. but some of the great ones
are in fact song writers.



>>




>
>that's fine....but again with no offense to anyone, I feel
>like that attitude is the outcome of a lowering of standards
>related to music. Poeple had to have certain skills just to
>get a chance back in the day. and it kept the quality at a
>very high level. Not so much now in my opinion.
>


eh. yes and no.
Diana Ross is pretty awesome,
but I've never know her to write, play, produce, or arrange anything.

I see what your saying, but it's a bit of a rockist perspective.
Not that I fault you.... I'm a bit of a rockist myself.

the fact that Stevie did it all adds to the appeal.
The fact that p-funk was a self contained band adds to the appeal.

but at the end of the day, it's not the musicianship that moves me.
it's the songs. neo-soul had playing "real instruments" and all of that.
but ultimately, the reason it didn't sustain itself was lack of songs.





>>

>
>you'd have better songs to listen to if you have more people
>striving towards the traditional standards and skillsets..even
>more no because of all the innovations...it would be great
>thing.
>
>>


again, I see what your saying,
and maybe I even want to agree.
but songwriting has always been rare.

george clinton could do it,
Eddie hazel couldn't.

I don't think the quality of the musicians and the quality of the songs are UNrelated,
but I don't know of having more musicians necessarily create better songs.



the great songs at motown wouldnt exist without the funk bros.,
but then again, prince created great songs without a band.
but his sucess inspired less talented artists to try to ditch the bands, which
caused,the music to suffer, which leads us back to your point that having more great musicians leads to more great songs--an argument that lead to the neo-soul movement, which had plenty of great musicians... but for some reason, there were no songs... which leads us back from your point and back to mine lol



anyway... that's an argument for another time.
maybe you're right.

I don't know.





but for the main points, we agree.
and as for the musicians part... I just don't know.

I don't know why black music is the way it is now.
lack of musicians is part of it for sure. I don't know how much of a part.

if live music and etc is your thing
then this post ain't for you
this post is for people that enjoy sampled music

in no way am i tryin' to say that samplin' is original
or the most creative, yaddayaddayadda

i'm just lookin' at copyright laws a bit differently
like, what if we treated samplin' like we treated
studio musicians
regardless of the composition used

now, unless we're talkin' about the legal ramifications
etc
then the assholes cryin' about how sample is unoriginal and not creative, could you please kick rocks?

thanks

...cuz once a melody/rhythm has been identified as a copyrighted work, then it's protected and any violation is enforceable by the courts.

but what u're saying is akin to something i recall from Showbiz who said that when he samples a certain artist he's envisioning himself playing with those artist. it's how he shopped for records. so that if "so and so" was on drums, bass or keys or whatever...he'd look for those players as a way to put together his own band (i'm paraphrasing).

but again, it's difficult to single out those performances/parts from the original work. cuz it's the original work that's protected by copyright law.

>...cuz once a melody/rhythm has been identified as a
>copyrighted work, then it's protected and any violation is
>enforceable by the courts.
>

that's why the very premise of this post is silly.

not at all..

Love hip-hop and have since there was a Hip hop to love....


my only issue with sampling is the efforts to put that type of production on par with the production utilized in the original music that's being sampled....considering it equal...the same...requiring the same skill sets...or considering the producers of each to be on the same level in general....all that stuff is what I completely disagree with...

it's not the act of sampling..it's more it's place in the big historical picture so to speak.

b/c that's not what this post is about.

"why pay the artist or owner more than what they paid to make the song?
lol
fuckin' capitalism, you got to love it
of course, when you get into copyrights and all that
it becomes murky
but a wonderful world of hip hop this would be if you could just pay for the sample like it was just a bunch of session musicians"

every response I made was a direct response to the above sentiment expressed in the original post..

if people have a problem with folks responding to what they say..they shouldn't say it on a message board....Or grow a pair and defend their points of view when confronted with a contrary point of view.

their you go with that original shit again
lol

if they can move out of their lane through ability...that's great...but trying to lower the bar, or change laws to get in that other lane is fugazi...

>if they can move out of their lane through ability...that's
>great...but trying to lower the bar, or change laws to get in
>that other lane is fugazi...



please reply to #72.
i'm not typing it again.

as compared to something else

its like if the og post had something to do w/ photography and came in sayin "photography is cool but HOW CAN YOU COMPARE IT TO PAINTING, IT DOESNT TAKE AS MUCH SKILL"

clearly you have something against sampling if ur compelled to point out how it is "less than" something else

>as compared to something else

it's a message board...someone posted about how grand it would be if you could cample other people's music without regard to copyrights.... I disagreed with that point of view....

if dude didn't want responses...or wanted responses that only agreed with his then he should have said that from the get...


>
>its like if the og post had something to do w/ photography and
>came in sayin "photography is cool but HOW CAN YOU COMPARE IT
>TO PAINTING, IT DOESNT TAKE AS MUCH SKILL"

bad example.... If someone took a photograph of a paiting and tried to pass it off and get compensated as if the image on the photo was theirs, and not the artist who made the painting....that's more in line with what the original poster proposed.

it's not about comparing 2 different mediums...it's about having one medium depending on the original work and figuring out a way to pass that off as original and not compensating the originator...


>
>clearly you have something against sampling if ur compelled to
>point out how it is "less than" something else

lol...

I mean if you can't see that it requires a different skill set to sample something, as it does to play, compose and arrange what was sampled..I really don't know what to say. Hip hop is worthy enough not to make such reaches like that...it's worthy enough to be judged on it's own merit....we dont' have to pretend it's doing something it's not.

one of the main reasons for the drop off in quality and impact in music is that you have young producers and music makers coming up thinking that they are pushing something forward by sampling...when you've lost the people with the ability to compose and play what's happening on the original...now you're stuck with basiclly a clone of something that doesn't have the ability to push things forward..

it stagnates....

or hendrix?
or the temptations?
or any other of the millions of records they sampbled?



i don't get why you would say this.


>bad example.... If someone took a photograph of a paiting and
>tried to pass it off and get compensated as if the image on
>the photo was theirs, and not the artist who made the
>painting....that's more in line with what the original poster
>proposed.
>
>it's not about comparing 2 different mediums...it's about
>having one medium depending on the original work and figuring
>out a way to pass that off as original

All the detours against sampling could SO easily have been avoided without the second paragraph in the original post which not only is nonsense IMO if we are talking pre-Hip-Hop, even more it *is* begging for Warren or maxxx to go in...

Also, equating legendary recordings of the past with session-musicians who are generally quite anonymous to the general public *is* offensive wording.

If you REALLY wanted to discuss the main issue, why post shock-post style? It's so silly...

musicians so we can act like the end product is original....

lolol..

I have nothing against sampling at all... I've been a producer and used it....listen to and love music that does it... but this justifying that goes on to make the music and what's being sampled out to be something it's not is just demonstrative of why we are in the position we are in today.

hell james brown drummer bernard purdie
is a session musician
alot of now famous musicians and songwriters
were session musicians and background singers

you're caught up in the celebrity of the performers
i'm not
i'm thinkin' about the final product
how it can be remixed and adapted
for another audience or performers needs
who cares about originality?
it's about entertaining

Ray Parker Jr, TOTO, Billy preston are known musicians who played on some big acts and songs.

that required brain power and concept, not some turkey ordering up some dunkin doughnuts and Kool Aid pushing buttons and being called a Producer.

you old enough to know better. if you were 25 and younger I'd give you a pass, however you know better Block.

trying to hype up the Plantation mentality that allows turkeys to be called Producers when these turkeys can't even spell it let alone work with and challenge a top tier talent.

>hell james brown drummer bernard purdie
>is a session musician
>alot of now famous musicians and songwriters
>were session musicians and background singers

you moving the goalposts...

nobody is dissing session musicians....the problem is using someone's actual recording or record as if it's a session muscians..


>
>you're caught up in the celebrity of the performers
>i'm not

I'm caught up in the talent of artists..the talent of musicians.... You obviously aren't.


>i'm thinkin' about the final product
>how it can be remixed and adapted

>for another audience or performers needs

do what you like with it...but either break bread to the originator or put something original together yourself without using someone else's work.


>who cares about originality?
>it's about entertaining
>
you can entertain people by playing other people's records as a dj..... using other people's actual music doesn't make you an original artist...

Sampling and taken credit over something that anybody could lay claim to, but it wasn't created by said person.

trips me out how a cat is looking for Co Signs on being un original and that type of mind set is why we don't have more cats with there own musical idenity.

the industry sucked the juice out and all these cats mainly know is beat makers and Sample turkeys.

a Sample is like a small portion of food I get at a grocery store, however it ain't a full meal and i think that needs to be addressed.

or Gamble and Huff...

Puff daddy ain't Prince or Junie Morrison...

The thing is...when hip hop and R&B really started to mix together....after the inital so-called electro funk era you started seeing more and more sampling coming into that..

but say when Teddy Riley and the New Jack swing was the in thing...Ted had a muscicianship to it...lacing in some james brown drums or flashing some vocals in...it was used to inhance what was really just some synthbased funky R&B...

when the "one man band" mantle was held by Prince....Prince programed his own lin drums...or played the drums himself..he didn't sample someone elses..

Junie Morrison and Stevie Wonder before him played their drum lines...they didn't sample..and when they needed some horns...the hired horn players..or used orchestras and shit..

new jack swing was cool...Teddy ..certainly compared to now was really innovative.

it was different..it was new...but it still was playing by the same rules as the funk/R&B that had just proceeded it...

but when the rules and the template changed...you ended up with something that honestly wasn't as strong musically....

then looping a hot sample started getting the same cred that having original funky and creative arrangements.... that's just some backwards shit..

you got cats sitting in their rooms with fruity loops thinking they are doing something on par with the musicians and producers who are on the songs they are sampling......

the shit is just backwards man...

my argument is making samplin' more cost effective
for the samplers
by treating the sample as a "session musician"
if possible
i'm not saying the record is produced, or the maker is a producer
or any of the old splittin' hair arguments
i'm proposin' a new way to look at the copyright law
so that samplin' can thrive
and not fall under the heavy costs
attributed it do the antiquated copyright laws
and whatnot

yall added all that other shit

>my argument is making samplin' more cost effective
>for the samplers
>by treating the sample as a "session musician"
>if possible

originality because your attempt to treat a finished work with a copyright as a session musicians playing something won't work because the record you're sampling is an original finished work witha copyright...not an individual playing someting specificlly for the work related to the "session.


>i'm not saying the record is produced, or the maker is a
>producer
>or any of the old splittin' hair arguments
>i'm proposin' a new way to look at the copyright law
>so that samplin' can thrive

we are all very clear what you're saying. The response to what you are saying is that the fact that you want sampling to thrive in this manner is a sign of something very detrimental to music. People lack the originality, and ability to make those original records so they want to simply utilize the work of people who did have the ability and cretitivity and compensate them in a way that classifies the sample based product as being more original than it is.

That mentality manifests a regression in music as an art form, and displays a lack of creativity and ability. You or anyone else who feels that to be unfair are entitled to their opinion...and I understand why they would want to avoid this subject or having to defend their point of view...I totally get that. But if your views cant stand up to contrary points of view...you may need to rethink them.


>and not fall under the heavy costs
>attributed it do the antiquated copyright laws
>and whatnot

The records are dope...they are often classic, groundbreaking records made by artists of great ability..

do something original to stand up to that and stop trying to leach off of what other made...

study how they did it...and do it your way....

we want to do what we want to do over the original
and make it ours
that's it
who cares about the creativity and originality before?
oh, you do
that's fine
i don't
regression resmession
miss me with all that
as long as i'm entertained
that's what matters to me

>we want to do what we want to do over the original
>and make it ours
>that's it
>who cares about the creativity and originality before?
>oh, you do
>that's fine
>i don't
>regression resmession
>miss me with all that
>as long as i'm entertained
>that's what matters to me
>


you got to break bread.... you may not like that...but you have plenty of options.

>>my argument is making samplin' more cost effective
>>for the samplers
>>by treating the sample as a "session musician"
>>if possible
>
>originality because your attempt to treat a finished work with
>a copyright as a session musicians playing something won't
>work because the record you're sampling is an original
>finished work witha copyright...not an individual playing
>someting specificlly for the work related to the "session.
>
>
>>i'm not saying the record is produced, or the maker is a
>>producer
>>or any of the old splittin' hair arguments
>>i'm proposin' a new way to look at the copyright law
>>so that samplin' can thrive
>
>we are all very clear what you're saying. The response to what
>you are saying is that the fact that you want sampling to
>thrive in this manner is a sign of something very detrimental
>to music. People lack the originality, and ability to make
>those original records so they want to simply utilize the work
>of people who did have the ability and cretitivity and
>compensate them in a way that classifies the sample based
>product as being more original than it is.
>
>That mentality manifests a regression in music as an art form,
>and displays a lack of creativity and ability. You or anyone
>else who feels that to be unfair are entitled to their
>opinion...and I understand why they would want to avoid this
>subject or having to defend their point of view...I totally
>get that. But if your views cant stand up to contrary points
>of view...you may need to rethink them.
>
>
>>and not fall under the heavy costs
>>attributed it do the antiquated copyright laws
>>and whatnot
>
>The records are dope...they are often classic, groundbreaking
>records made by artists of great ability..
>
>do something original to stand up to that and stop trying to
>leach off of what other made...
>
>study how they did it...and do it your way....

All of this is simply your idea of what counts as creative, your own thinking as to what counts as creative or original.

Nobody is avoiding the subject, you're just choosing to ignore counter-arguments and examples (Joe all up and down this thread) and going through the standard "sampling is theft" talking points. I'm not sure why "regression in music as an art form" or "detrimental to music" gets to be a fact, but everyone else who feels differently is only entitled to their opinion (i.e. - ya'll are free to be wrong, peace).

Using words like "leach", referring constantly to Puffy and looping previously popular hits as THE example of what sampling is.....it's dishonest and stubborn, imo. There are countless examples of samples being layered, edited, chopped, of being molded into something else during the mixing process, to where it's something entirely different from the source material in feel, tone, and in the emotion it may provoke.

But you and others go the cheap route and right it off as "simply utilizing" someone's else's work for........I don't know, actually. Since sampling nowadays is largely relegated to the underground and is wildly cost prohibitive, it seems to me (my bias here) that the majority of those who create music this way do it because they enjoy the challenge and reward of reshaping previously existing material into something else. THAT'S part of the fun for them, that triggers the reward center in their brains.

You say they should play an instrument to make music but what if what gets them going creatively doesn't come from that?

To you, someone who "Wants To Make Music" should then play an instrument for maximum legitimacy. And that any efforts to change current copyright law to make sampling less litigious leads to the downfall of music. I don't buy that at all. Some people DO derive great joy from playing a trumpet or piano. That gets THEM going and is fun. And that's awesome! I don't see why someone who makes music that doesn't follow that dogmatic approach is a leach, unoriginal, and lazy?
__
I don't like the beat anymore because its just a loop. ALC didn't FLIP IT ENOUGH!

Flip it enough? Flip these. Flip off. Go flip some f*cking burgers.(c)Kno

Allied State of the National Electric Beat Treaty Organization (NEBTO)

>>>my argument is making samplin' more cost effective
>>>for the samplers
>>>by treating the sample as a "session musician"
>>>if possible
>>
>>originality because your attempt to treat a finished work
>with
>>a copyright as a session musicians playing something won't
>>work because the record you're sampling is an original
>>finished work witha copyright...not an individual playing
>>someting specificlly for the work related to the "session.
>>
>>
>>>i'm not saying the record is produced, or the maker is a
>>>producer
>>>or any of the old splittin' hair arguments
>>>i'm proposin' a new way to look at the copyright law
>>>so that samplin' can thrive
>>
>>we are all very clear what you're saying. The response to
>what
>>you are saying is that the fact that you want sampling to
>>thrive in this manner is a sign of something very
>detrimental
>>to music. People lack the originality, and ability to make
>>those original records so they want to simply utilize the
>work
>>of people who did have the ability and cretitivity and
>>compensate them in a way that classifies the sample based
>>product as being more original than it is.
>>
>>That mentality manifests a regression in music as an art
>form,
>>and displays a lack of creativity and ability. You or
>anyone
>>else who feels that to be unfair are entitled to their
>>opinion...and I understand why they would want to avoid this
>>subject or having to defend their point of view...I totally
>>get that. But if your views cant stand up to contrary points
>>of view...you may need to rethink them.
>>
>>
>>>and not fall under the heavy costs
>>>attributed it do the antiquated copyright laws
>>>and whatnot
>>
>>The records are dope...they are often classic,
>groundbreaking
>>records made by artists of great ability..
>>
>>do something original to stand up to that and stop trying to
>>leach off of what other made...
>>
>>study how they did it...and do it your way....
>
>All of this is simply your idea of what counts as creative,
>your own thinking as to what counts as creative or original.

But I am very comfortable with the position that it requires more skill and creativity to play what's being sampled on the original record than it takes to sample the original record. I'll stand by that. You can loop Bernie Worrell..but doing so doesn't require the skill set Bernie had to play what's being sampled... and if we're talking about a band with multiple players playing different instruments...even moreso it required more skill, creativity and honestly talent to for those combined people to play that than it did for someone to sample it.

I have no problem sticking with that point of view.



>
>Nobody is avoiding the subject, you're just choosing to ignore
>counter-arguments and examples (Joe all up and down this
>thread) and going through the standard "sampling is theft"
>talking points. I'm not sure why "regression in music as an
>art form" or "detrimental to music" gets to be a fact, but
>everyone else who feels differently is only entitled to their
>opinion (i.e. - ya'll are free to be wrong, peace).

again sure this is my opinion..but I can back up what I'm saying....I mean obviously if you have more people sampling...and less people doing what was being done when the sampled record was made...I'd call that a regression in terms of the skill sets required.... That music back then was of such an impact and quality that decades later people sampled it and made hit records....

what's today's music doing? if it ain't doing that..then to me it's another example of a regression or a falling of in quality and impact.


>
>Using words like "leach", referring constantly to Puffy and
>looping previously popular hits as THE example of what
>sampling is.....it's dishonest and stubborn, imo.

people continue to ignore the numerous times I have repeated that I have nothing against sampling. I just point out the different in skillsets required that I just mentioned, and make a comparison between sampled based producers and producers of the original.




There are
>countless examples of samples being layered, edited, chopped,
>of being molded into something else during the mixing process,
>to where it's something entirely different from the source
>material in feel, tone, and in the emotion it may provoke.

exactly...and I mentioned that.... I made a distinction between guys who basiclly just play the entire instrumental of an old record and have people sing or rap over it versus someone like Dilla or Preemo who flip obscure samples or layer things and use them in ways that they become something all together different...I mentioned the distinction between those 2 styles.

>
>But you and others go the cheap route and right it off as
>"simply utilizing" someone's else's work for........I don't
>know, actually.

I can see how it seemed that way when I'm going back and forth with block because honestly he's really not looking for a response to what he said, he just wants what he said affirmed. But my sentiments about sampling are pretty clear and not as simplified as you are seeing them.


Since sampling nowadays is largely relegated
>to the underground and is wildly cost prohibitive, it seems to
>me (my bias here) that the majority of those who create music
>this way do it because they enjoy the challenge and reward of
>reshaping previously existing material into something else.
>THAT'S part of the fun for them, that triggers the reward
>center in their brains.

um...I don't have the time right this second but if we sent down the current or recent top 20 singles on the Black music charts, I'm pretty sure a lot of them are either heavily sampling, or replaying melodies and lines from old songs. And even beyond that ..the one's that arent are displaying a very limited and narrowed down production style which to me is the consequence of relying on sampling too much in recent years and a move towards composing with real musicians and instruments....or even those self contained productions lacking the musicianship mixed with the technology you saw in a Stevie, Prince or a Junie Morrison type of artist.


>You say they should play an instrument to make music but what
>if what gets them going creatively doesn't come from that?

that's the problem from my perspective. you don't have young people coming up with the skillset and creativity and the standards that you had when guys in the 70's for example were having to be at a certain level just to get put on.

>
>To you, someone who "Wants To Make Music" should then play an
>instrument for maximum legitimacy.

no....I'm pointing out that the fact that you have less people being able to do that has been detrimental to the music overall. And I'm saying that a guy who could do that should not be compared to a guy who can't and must utilize sampling to achieve the same goal.

And that any efforts to
>change current copyright law to make sampling less litigious
>leads to the downfall of music. I don't buy that at all.

the music has already fell off. I look at changing the copyright laws in the manners suggested is a cheap way to try and legitimize sample based music by minimizing the music that's being sampled. I think that is wrong and demonstrative of a larger overall problem with the music. And I'm sorry..but to me that does promote a leaching mentality.


Some
>people DO derive great joy from playing a trumpet or piano.
>That gets THEM going and is fun. And that's awesome! I don't
>see why someone who makes music that doesn't follow that
>dogmatic approach is a leach, unoriginal, and lazy?

it's more than that

I'd want you to understand that the fact that people not only took joy in it..but the fact that THERE WERE STANDARDS AND EXPECTATIONS REQUIRED FOR A PERSON TO BECOME A PROFESSIONAL ARTIST OR PRODUCER....the fact that those things were the NORM....made it possible for there to even be a hip hop... You calling that a "dogmantic approach" really shows a lack of understanding about what really happened in all of this...

it's not an approach...it was the REALITY...it was the STANDARD....it was the REQUIRMENT.... and the fact that it was those things made hip hop possible in the first place. You wouldn't have had breakbeats...you wouldn't have had things worth sampling..... you would not have had drum machines and synthisizers .... ALL of this came from the REALITY of the standards required in the past... It's not a style...it's not a school of thought...it's not a position someone was taking... It was the reality of music at that time, and the fact that it's been cheapened and minimized by current generations is why we are in the position we are in today.

but you are correct..this is all my opinion

are pushing off with there limited sampling and looping skills. its embarassing and cheap.

why not just hire a rhthm section? that can pretty easily be done. serious question.

everybody in this post lost.
myself included.

"I'm ready to post up in this bitch."
now, I'm like..."Which way did he go, George, which way did he go?"

...right after I realized I was about to reply to a mistermaxxx post. From yesterday.

lol

,....

Apparently, noone wants to go there though...

I don't understand your characterizations here:

"like, to me, isn't that the essence of black folk music?
we hear some shit we like
and think we can rock it better, the way we like
so we take some song, and treat them like they're our session musicians
and we go in over it"

Firstly, 'black folk music'? What do you mean by that?

Secondly, you seem to be describing the artistic method of recontextualizing and fusing different, pre-existing works. I don't see how this is specific to black people. Cultural exchange and reinterpretation happens everywhere.

However, I agree with what I THINK your saying and I've made that same argument before. In my version...I liken a certain type of hip hop producer to an arranger and the source material as session players.

There is a distinction that has to be made though....some hip hop songs are more aptly described as 'cover songs'. Like the use of Chic's 'Good times' or Puff Daddy using Kool and the Gang's 'Hollywood Swingers'. In those cases....the source material cannot be adequately compared to session players because they're basically just remixing a pre-existing song/groove....and they're intention is not to create something 'new'. The intention is to, unashamedly, reference something from the past.

But there's another type of hip hop that goes beyond that. Guys like Jay Dee or DJ Shadow or Pete Rock....they are not 'covering' the songs they sample. They're attempting to make something 'new'. Take a drumbeat from here, take a string stab from there, take a bassline from here, take a horn sample from there. And the end product is not recognizable as something pre-existing. In those cases, I think your comparison to a producer hiring session musicians is perfectly legitimate.

And BTW, I think there's a place for both of those approaches in hip hop music. But the distinction should be made and in a perfect world....it should also have repercussions in the costs of using the material. Put simply....Puff Daddy should pay a fortune to K and the Gang for his use of Hollywood Swingers. But Jay Dee shouldn't have to pay much, if any at all, for sampling a quick stab from a song that isn't recognizable in his final product.

>I don't understand your characterizations here:
>
>"like, to me, isn't that the essence of black folk music?
>we hear some shit we like
>and think we can rock it better, the way we like
>so we take some song, and treat them like they're our session
>musicians
>and we go in over it"
>
>Firstly, 'black folk music'? What do you mean by that?
>
>Secondly, you seem to be describing the artistic method of
>recontextualizing and fusing different, pre-existing works. I
>don't see how this is specific to black people. Cultural
>exchange and reinterpretation happens everywhere.
>
>However, I agree with what I THINK your saying and I've made
>that same argument before. In my version...I liken a certain
>type of hip hop producer to an arranger and the source
>material as session players.
>
>There is a distinction that has to be made though....some hip
>hop songs are more aptly described as 'cover songs'. Like the
>use of Chic's 'Good times' or Puff Daddy using Kool and the
>Gang's 'Hollywood Swingers'. In those cases....the source
>material cannot be adequately compared to session players
>because they're basically just remixing a pre-existing
>song/groove....and they're intention is not to create
>something 'new'. The intention is to, unashamedly, reference
>something from the past.
>
>But there's another type of hip hop that goes beyond that.
>Guys like Jay Dee or DJ Shadow or Pete Rock....they are not
>'covering' the songs they sample. They're attempting to make
>something 'new'. Take a drumbeat from here, take a string
>stab from there, take a bassline from here, take a horn sample
>from there. And the end product is not recognizable as
>something pre-existing. In those cases, I think your
>comparison to a producer hiring session musicians is perfectly
>legitimate.
>
>And BTW, I think there's a place for both of those approaches
>in hip hop music. But the distinction should be made and in a
>perfect world....it should also have repercussions in the
>costs of using the material. Put simply....Puff Daddy should
>pay a fortune to K and the Gang for his use of Hollywood
>Swingers. But Jay Dee shouldn't have to pay much, if any at
>all, for sampling a quick stab from a song that isn't
>recognizable in his final product.

i'm black
the black folks i grew up around
sang or rapped they lil songs over other people's existin' songs
seemed like a black thing to me, since that's all i have to go by is
my experience.
forgive me if i'm wrong
from niggas doo woppin' on the corner
or in talent shows
and takin' pop songs and hits
and puttin' they own words or style to it
seems like a "black thing" to me

pardon if i offended you

>I don't understand your characterizations here:
>
>"like, to me, isn't that the essence of black folk music?
>we hear some shit we like
>and think we can rock it better, the way we like
>so we take some song, and treat them like they're our session
>musicians
>and we go in over it"
>
>Firstly, 'black folk music'? What do you mean by that?
>

Apologies if I sounded like that.

We're a little off-topic here but I suppose I can see what you mean too. Like black Americans reinterpreting Christian hymns in their gospel music?

I guess I see that as a product of circumstance instead of something innate in black people around the world. And I'm guessing when you say 'black folk music' you're specifically referring to black American music. In which case....you make a good point. Amalgamation, re-interpretation, fusion, deconstruction.

Obviously gets complicated...but do you agree that black American music has a heavy emphasis on creating new things with pre-existing material because they were robbed of their culture/language in the past with the slave trade?

So perhaps there is an innate ability amongst black Americans to do what you're talking about? To build from scratch by amalgamating bits and pieces of one's surroundings into something new.

>but a wonderful world of hip hop this would be if you could
>just pay for the sample like it was just a bunch of session
>musicians

of course the rip is I wonder if this system was in place from day 1, how would the "stealth" samplers be dealt with... or would you even need to be "stealth" (i.e. Bomb Squad, Premier after '96...)

can they chop a record and make that shit sound gospel? country? can they do it live?

if yes they're hired...

with irrelevant bullshit. you both clearly didn't understand the topic. at all.

but what's new there?

doesn't understand the topic simply because they have a different opinion than you..

pretty weak.

I believe that people have rights to things they have created, and they should be compensated for others using it....

you believe they should either not be compensated, or compensated minimally in order to give more "ownership" to the person who used someone else's material...


I also expressed some opinions about the level of creativity it took to make certain records compared to the amount of creatitity it takes to sample those records. You may disagree with those opinions, but to claim I do not understand the topic is a cheap way of avoiding some pretty strong facts that contradict your point of view..

either way...I stand on what I've said.

Also, melodyne allows you to do some crazy shit with samples, these days

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=XOHvOhADAic#!

first comment..

never realized that was an interpolation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQe9eK_4U0U

^^^Listen to that whole thing and you'll never once hear the exact sample.

~Austin

Please donate.
For Anthony: http://bit.ly/xIIjaE
For Cris: http://bit.ly/whuzky

http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com

http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus

http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

& incompatible with a free market.

is "monopolizing" the product they created??

wow