Sampling, is it cheating or is it a cool thing?

For discussion of all general music topics, Favored Nations artists, Vai-related musicians and all other artists and bands.
User avatar
boswell
Member
Member
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:50 am

I know almost every artist has done it at sometime but sometimes to me it leaves a bad taste.

I really don't go with the Kid Rock "All Summer Long" rip off type sampling thats seems to me to be just an even lazier way to get yourself a number 1 single than doing a cover of an old favorite track.

We all know Steve uses samples whats your opinion on them and how he uses them.
User avatar
Seraphim
Member
Member
Posts: 1832
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:16 pm

In my opinion, using samples just for give a good environment in a song that any musician create himself, is not cheating. Because the "body" of his creation is there and don't see why not use a small sample to make some "decoration".
In the case of the Kid Rock song, honestly, I don't think that I've listened, so don't have any opinion about that, but, I guess lot's of musicians for having his work recognized, uses samples or try to copy other artists to get his songs on radio or in MTV, in that case, cud be a cheating, just because is using other works for having his own recognized.

About the samples that Steve put in some songs. I don't think is cheating, because, Steves uses is own work and the samples is just to gives the environment he wants. Also, we are talking about some little parts of it.

So, if the samples exists, why not using them? Of course, I'm not saying that an artist gonna pick up lots of samples and realize and album with them and put his name on it saying that is his work, course not...

But, I'm a very suspition person talking about that, because, I uses to see ALL the picture of anything and try to look the best and positives part of it.

:mrgreen: Seraphim :mrgreen:
User avatar
Big Bad Bill
Member
Member
Posts: 4069
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 12:40 am

I'm not keen on sampling unless its done 'creatively' rather than as a short cut. Just writing a new song around a long sampled section of music like Poofter PapaDaddymama's 'I'll Be Missing You' is just laziness and riding the coat tails of a excellent song. Apollo 440s 'Ain't Talkin' 'bout Dub' was a little more inventive, I suppose. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIJmoNjFhQ0
But I have to say I can't really think of any long samples that are used really creatively with the possible exception of Enigma's Sadness Pt1 where the whole song is crafted around the sample to mezmorizing effect.
Zebula77
Member
Member
Posts: 686
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 12:03 am

Well, a lot of electronica is based around using samples, like Portishead or Massive Attack and even Prodigy.
I think if you're creative and use a sample to spruce things up or to simply add another layer of sound.
I've played around with samples from various types of ethnic musics and whilst I'd never publish it because of copyright issues, it's a fun way to experiment and to add textures to your music that would otherwise require a bunch of paid musicians to accomplish.

But I hate, hate, HATE when someone takes a known song and then turns it into "their" song by just adding rapping in the verses or something. Pisses me off to no end. BBBs Puffy example is a very good one, and very recently there was a Kanye West ripoff of the very excellent Daft Punk song 'Better, Harder, Faster, More' (don't know if they agreed to that or not, but it sucked - big time!)
User avatar
lydian2000
Member
Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:43 am

Zebula77 wrote:Well, a lot of electronica is based around using samples, like Portishead or Massive Attack and even Prodigy.
I think if you're creative and use a sample to spruce things up or to simply add another layer of sound.
I've played around with samples from various types of ethnic musics and whilst I'd never publish it because of copyright issues, it's a fun way to experiment and to add textures to your music that would otherwise require a bunch of paid musicians to accomplish.

But I hate, hate, HATE when someone takes a known song and then turns it into "their" song by just adding rapping in the verses or something. Pisses me off to no end. BBBs Puffy example is a very good one, and very recently there was a Kanye West ripoff of the very excellent Daft Punk song 'Better, Harder, Faster, More' (don't know if they agreed to that or not, but it sucked - big time!)
I agree, I think Puff daddy is an expert at stealing other's talents...ask an american kid if he knows "every breath you take", "kashmir" or diana ross's "I'm coming out"...I'm pretty sure they won't know any of the originals, written by real talented musicians.

Then the R'n B /hip-hop front you have real musicians like the Fugees and Lauryn Hill which I enjoy and respect a lot, because if they do a cover I know it's going to be something tasty.


:peace
sonny sixshooter
Member
Member
Posts: 558
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 10:32 am

lydian2000 wrote:I agree, I think Puff daddy is an expert at stealing other's talents...ask an american kid if he knows "every breath you take", "kashmir" or diana ross's "I'm coming out"...I'm pretty sure they won't know any of the originals, written by real talented musicians.
Not to mention Madonna vs. Abba.
Desert_Runner
Member
Member
Posts: 428
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:28 am

In a song by Orbital there's a sample of Christopher Eccleston's voice from a TV show talking to people who are "becoming gods". The song's called "You Lot" if anyone's interested.

Sampling is fine so long as it's done creatively. I heard that Kanye West Daft Punk ripoff and I agree with Zebula about that. I think there's also a song somewhere that is essentially Wonderwall by Oasis fused with Boulevard of Broken Dreams by Green Day (since they're both the same song anyway.) I don't know who "wrote" that, but that's got nothing to do with individuality.
EddieVanHalenRocks
Member
Member
Posts: 124
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 5:46 am

I agree that sampling is a great way for artists who may not have nough funding, or mabye just want to add a little colour/texture to their songs, all that is fine if done in moderation of course. But the rap artists totally ripping off old songs thing that was highlighted earlier just makes me sick into my own scorn.

I recently heard a linkin park song, i dont know if i'm wrong but to me it sounded alot like the break down section from MJ's "Thriller" jst repeated over and over "we made it" i think it was called. If i'm wrong please correct me but my ears are telling me this.
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

If you think sampling is an 'excuse' for the less talented , you should listen to Aphex Twin's '26 mixes for cash' (plus everything else by him).

Sampling is very much a necessary part of the modern musical landscape, and is necessary as a means of creating music quickly for TV, movies, presentations etc (for example).

Sampling/sequencing is something that is easy to dismiss, but it is actually very tricky to use samples creatively, and make them not sound 'tacky'. Music doesn't always need to be technically virtuosic in order to be 'good' music - it all sounds extremely complex to the general public anyway.

If you want to be taken seriously as a musician, then you shouldn't dismiss any form of composition. This is very important. If you were talking to a professional musician, and said something such as 'oh, sampling is terrible', you wouldn't last in the business for long, as this statement would be a very ignorant statement for a musician to make.

If you were to walk into a studio, you would get laughed at if you said you couldn't use a sampler/sequencer. You would never survive in the modern (professional) musical world.


Regarding the Puff Daddy songs - what difference does it make if kids get exposed to Led Zeppelin through samples or otherwise? If they like that particular part of the song, they will research it anyway, and soon discover the original, then can take that on its' own terms. They may not get exposure to artists such as Led Zeppelin without such sampled music existing.

The artists who use samples always give respect to the artists whose samples they use - and most of the original artists are happy to have their music being used - it is more exposure for their own music.

Some of the producers who work in the R&B industry have an encyclopaedic knowledge of all styles of music - you shouldn't dismiss them because they do something that you don't personally understand.



You'll probably (hopefully!) learn a little more about sampling/sequencing, and then appreciate it for what it is.

I don't understand why good sampling isn't considered a 'talent' - if it was that easy, we would all be doing it for a living.



It seems to me that those posting here have a lack of exposure to good sampling. Check out some IDM - some good artists are Aphex Twin, Arovane, Ulrich Schnauss, Marumari, Aoki Takamasa etc etc

Some of these artists may be so different from anything you have heard (check out Aoki Takamasa's 'Mirabeau') that it may repel you. But at least it will let you hear what can actually be done, rather than thinking of sampling/secuencing as an easy way of 'stealing' ideas.

Let's stops deriding artists who use samples. Sampling artists certainly don't sit and deride guitarists who struggle through solos too difficult for them. They just get on with their job, rather than judging others who are trying to do their job.


[/i]
User avatar
lydian2000
Member
Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:43 am

So to you, Puff Daddy and Aphex Twin(no samples on the superb "april 14th" by the way) are both equally "sampling" artists? wow.

It makes me sick just lining up their names in the same sentence.

One is an incredibly creative experimental musician, the other....

What you said about exposure is true though, but my problem with that is that Sean Combs-a.k.a Puff mummy- terrible rapping(extremely poor lyrics and rhymes, no substance nor style) might precisely deter those kids from doing the research, especially when the sample/original riff or track is generally slowed down, detuned and "rearranged".

Oh and when the revolutionary "melodyne" plugin will come out, the very word "sampling" will have to be redefined anyway.


:peace
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

lydian2000 wrote:So to you, Puff Daddy and Aphex Twin(no samples on the superb "april 14th" by the way) are both equally "sampling" artists? wow.

It makes me sick just lining up their names in the same sentence.

One is an incredibly creative experimental musician, the other....


-The other has incredibly creative and clever musicians around him. You can't deny this. He has some of the best producers on the planet working on his music.

I understand full the difference between sampling/sequencing etc. I was trying to make a point - that they are both valid ways of creating music. Valid. And necessary. Creating music doesn't mean only sitting with an instrument in your hand, struggling to play 4 notes a beat at 178bpm.

Why does it annoy you so much that certain people are successful from this kind of thing (e.g. sampling)? You shouldn't compare artists - this is when the trouble begins. Take them on their own merit - if you don't like them, then leave them alone.

And if you want to talk about technical qualities in the music, then yes, Puff Daddy's music is technically perfect. I'd be happy to have a discussion on the production values of modern R&B music if you wish.

Aphex Twin's music may be far more advanced, but it isn't 'more' perfect because his music is more complex. And i'm in no way deriding the music of Aphex Twin - I enjoy it myself.





lydian2000 wrote:What you said about exposure is true though, but my problem with that is that Sean Combs-a.k.a Puff mummy- terrible rapping(extremely poor lyrics and rhymes, no substance nor style) might precisely deter those kids from doing the research, especially when the sample/original riff or track is generally slowed down, detuned and "rearranged".
All subjective. Yes - he may deter those kids - but they wouldn't have the opportunity to be deterred if they didn't have the exposure in the first place. If they are deterred, then the artist who used the samples can't be blamed.

PS - do you know how Daft Punk's sales have been since the Puff Daddy song? You should look into this.





lydian2000 wrote:Oh and when the revolutionary "melodyne" plugin will come out, the very word "sampling" will have to be redefined anyway.


:peace
I'm trying to help you by showing possible bias in your views. Don't get offended ;)


RE the melodyne comment - people said something similar with regards to the typewriter and the detrimental effect it would have on language. What's wrong with pitch correction software? It allows the creation of a higher level of precision and quality in music making. Once again, if you don't like it, don't go near it.

To some, it detracts from the art. To others, it adds.

I know some people who still say the same thing about digital recording as opposed to reel-to-reel. How do you feel about this? Indifferent? Because it hasn't directly affected you? Perhaps you are biased against sampling as you have grown up at a time when sampling has become a more effective method of creating music. But doesn't this say that perhaps you aren't willing to adapt to new systems of music making?

Cameramen argue on the camera equivalent of such things i.e. computer software has detracted from the art of good camerawork. Has it? Or has it added to the quality of camera work? Do you care? If not, then why get annoyed about what could be seen as the musical equivalent? Do you think the public really care if the camerawork has been touched up using a computer? Do you think they really care about if the music uses samples or not? Most people don't even know what a sample is. I'm not saying be ignorant towards the craft, but rather, place it in context, and understand what it is designed for, why it is used, and for what purpose.

Producing music is as much about craft as it is about art. Sampling is a highly skilled craft, that when given a hint of art, can be very very effective indeed.
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

-And here is a track by Aoki Takamasa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhn5Tm_MZU


Hopefully something like this should demonstrate that sampling (and yes, there are some samples in this track) etc is just as virtuosic (or can be) as any other form of musical composition.
User avatar
lydian2000
Member
Member
Posts: 1508
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:43 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1f2SJR0H ... re=related

This one is a better example of the man's skills live, in my opinion.

I agree with most of what you say on sampling, it's just that my musical tastes are very subjective of course, Puff Daddy is extremely well produced, but what I really hate about him is that, contrary to many rappers and R nB artists, he doesn't have a tenth of the musical talent of the people from whom he's sampling the music.

and I don't like the Politically Correct rethoric which says(this isn't especially for you guitarman, since you're obviously an educated listener if not musician?)that every "artist" deserves the same respect, especially in an era where you can have completely fake products built by the music industry whose sole purpose is to make quick cash.

And I obviously like sample-based music since I even compose some on occasion, and I'll be amongst the first people to buy the mdelodyn plugin when it'll come out.

:)

:peace
guitarmanK1982
Member
Member
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:04 pm

lydian2000 wrote:I agree with most of what you say on sampling, it's just that my musical tastes are very subjective of course, Puff Daddy is extremely well produced, but what I really hate about him is that, contrary to many rappers and R nB artists, he doesn't have a tenth of the musical talent of the people from whom he's sampling the music.
Having very subjective tastes would be a problem if you were to do music for a living.

Perhaps what you hate about Puff Daddy isn't that he doesn't have much talent, but that he has became very successful without having much talent? If so, what does this tell you? That your interest in music, at a base level, is to be successful?

Is this the purpose of music?


lydian2000 wrote:and I don't like the Politically Correct rethoric which says(this isn't especially for you guitarman, since you're obviously an educated listener if not musician?)that every "artist" deserves the same respect, especially in an era where you can have completely fake products built by the music industry whose sole purpose is to make quick cash.
-yes, i'm a professional musician.

-no, it isn't being politically correct. It is simply taking things on their own merit.

As a product, Puff Daddy's music is perfect as it is. As a product, Aphex Twin's music is perfect as it is.

Aphex Twin is no Puff Daddy, but he's a great Aphex Twin.
Puff Daddy is no Aphex Twin, but he's the greatest Puff daddy i've ever heard ;)

Do you see what i'm saying? It isn't 'being politically correct'. I'll be the first to comment on a piece of music if it is in some way lacking, and have done so on this forum with regards to Vai and his orchestral arrangements of his music (much to the annoyance of some Vai fans!). However, this is a different issue.




I think the music you are discussing isn't lacking. And I don't see how you can judge someone's 'musical talent' and whether their talent is worthy of them having commercial releases.

For example, Vai is a better guitarist than Leonard Cohen - but is he a better songwriter? Is Vai more talented because his technical skills are of a higher level? Is Leonard Cohen more talented because the combination of his lyrics and music are far more effective in delivering a message?

Can you see my point? Talent is a tricky word to use, as it can describe many things.




What is your solution? To ban the public distribution of music that doesn't demonstrate the highest technical level of skill, whether it be sampling, compositional skill, technical skill on the instrument, lyrical qualities akin to the poetry of Goethe etc etc?

Who decides what is valid music to release? You are creating a heirarchy if you think in these terms.

Two chords can be more effective than someone trying to do everything.


(when I was a kid, my first composition lesson was to write a full piece of music using only one note. My teacher said to me that if I could make that sound interesting, think of what I could do when it came to using chords etc. You should try this yourself. It is very difficult, but works in getting you to see that complexity doesn't always produce a more satisfying result. And don't think i'm saying this as I avoid complexity - far from it. I just understand its' use.)


Once again, i'm not trying to argue with you, but hopefully make you think of things in a new way ;)
User avatar
boswell
Member
Member
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:50 am

guitarmanK1982 wrote:-And here is a track by Aoki Takamasa:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEhn5Tm_MZU


Hopefully something like this should demonstrate that sampling (and yes, there are some samples in this track) etc is just as virtuosic (or can be) as any other form of musical composition.
Sorry but that is unmusical to my ears, used in small doses on a movie sound track fine but anything else is just irratating.

I enjoyed reading your posts on sampling guitarmanK1982 highly informative.

I'm not against sampling and I fully understand it's relavence in music, however I feel it is an area that is over used and abused in the same way Zakk Wylde over uses pinch harmonics.
Post Reply