>>>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