179,854Messages
9,130Senders
30Years
342mboxes

← archive index

Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis

5 messages · 3 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
◇ merged from 2 subjects: (idm) kid in basement stealing beats · (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
1999-06-09 20:14(idm) kid in basement stealing beats
1999-06-09 22:53Tom Millar Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
└─ 1999-06-09 23:04eric hill Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
1999-06-09 23:18Tom Millar Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
└─ 1999-06-09 23:46eric hill Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1999-06-09 20:14BigKumquat@aol.com<< some kid in his basement hears a nice break on a record...samples it, and uses it as th
From:
To:
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:14:08 EDT
Subject:
(idm) kid in basement stealing beats
permalink · <366c2672.24902510@aol.com>
<< some kid in his basement hears a nice break on a record...samples it, and uses it as the beat for his latest track...that is what i am talking about. >> And why is this behavior offensive? If the kid is clever enough to poach the beat and successfully give it new context, gaining enjoyment from the making of a track and experiencing the thrill of creating some kind of art, where is the harm? Especially if no +money+ is changing hands. And isn't DJ-ing a revered art form, consisting of nothing but using snippets of other people's music in a new context? OK, you guessed it, I'm pro-sampling...the only cases where sampling does rub me the wrong way involve Will Smith types who have the resources to create totally original sounds, yet take the easy route by biting Stevie Wonder. And sometimes it does seems like an overall laziness on the part of the mainstream music-listening public to embrace (virtually) the same song as a hit record a second time around, rather than supporting something new. But then again, countless millions are happy listening to the same songs, over and over again, every day, on classic rock radio. - Fred Church bigkumquat@aol.com
1999-06-09 22:53Tom MillarI can live with sampling when it's used as an instrumental substitution, no different real
From:
Tom Millar
To:
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 09 Jun 1999 18:53:00 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
permalink · <375EF048.42B7C22E@unix.cas.utk.edu>
I can live with sampling when it's used as an instrumental substitution, no different really than someone using a 303 instead of a trombone. I just can't stand it when it's used as a crutch by people with no musical interest or knowledge outside of the fact that changes usually occur in patterns of four (CHEMICAL BROTHERS). In this way I find sampling to be an evil demon sent by the devil to corrupt the musical art form, making talent or imagination obsolete. Thank goodness the fuckers who do this are easy to spot and ignore or I'd be completely disillusioned. A thought: If you gave one hundred monkeys MPC-3000s and let them loose for an infinite amount of time, they would eventually come up with nothing whatsoever at all, whereas you could give them Oberheim Matrix-12s and they would come up with all sorts of great shit. Tom
1999-06-09 23:04eric hill>In this way I find sampling to be an evil demon sent by the devil to >corrupt the musical
From:
eric hill
To:
Date:
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
Reply to:
Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
permalink · <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906091557160.9054-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
quoted 2 lines In this way I find sampling to be an evil demon sent by the devil to>In this way I find sampling to be an evil demon sent by the devil to >corrupt the musical art form, making talent or imagination obsolete.
oh yes, we'll have beautiful pure music once we can eliminate these sick contaminating influences. hopefully we can eradicate this cancer before it kills the spirit of every potential musician out there. we all now know that the original poster was only lamenting unimaginative sampling, not sampling as a whole. eric
1999-06-09 23:18Tom Millar> we all now know that the original poster was only lamenting unimaginative > sampling, no
From:
Tom Millar
To:
eric hill
Cc:
Date:
Wed, 09 Jun 1999 19:18:48 -0400
Subject:
Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
permalink · <375EF652.6FAEC109@unix.cas.utk.edu>
quoted 4 lines we all now know that the original poster was only lamenting unimaginative> we all now know that the original poster was only lamenting unimaginative > sampling, not sampling as a whole. > > eric
Oops- did I go adding my two cents again? Sorry. Tom
1999-06-09 23:46eric hill>> we all now know that the original poster was only lamenting unimaginative >> sampling,
From:
eric hill
To:
Date:
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 16:46:06 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:
Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
Reply to:
Re: (idm) sampling vs. synthesis
permalink · <Pine.BSF.4.10.9906091643510.9054-100000@shell3.ba.best.com>
quoted 6 lines we all now know that the original poster was only lamenting unimaginative>> we all now know that the original poster was only lamenting unimaginative >> sampling, not sampling as a whole. >> >> eric > >Oops- did I go adding my two cents again? Sorry.
two cents ain't worth shit anymore, try upping the ante if you care at all. eric