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

← archive index

RE: (idm) sample my monkey

2 messages · 2 participants · spans 1 day · search this subject
1999-06-10 01:24ben (idm) sample my monkey
1999-06-10 15:15Ayling, Mike RE: (idm) sample my monkey
expand allcollapse allclick any summary to toggle that message
1999-06-10 01:24benI feel the need to weigh in on the pro-sampling side of this debate. There is little doubt
From:
ben
To:
Date:
Wed, 9 Jun 1999 18:24:51 -0700
Subject:
(idm) sample my monkey
permalink · <v04020a00b384beea1764@[207.171.23.213]>
I feel the need to weigh in on the pro-sampling side of this debate. There is little doubt that there are talentless morons making millions biting other people's stuff, but jeez, that's the fault of an industry that fears innovation and rewards familiar accessibility rather than the fault of a technology. Without samplers, these talentless morons would still be making crappy music, so don't blame the tool. And when it comes down to it, what sound is truly original? Don't tell me you can make any original sounds with a grand piano or a cello.... all those sounds have been made before. A good musician working with samples, like the collage artist mentioned by the big kumquat, is not simply regurgitating the already-said but reincorporating the familiar (or even the unfamiliar) into a new piece. Music is like language in one sense -- how could we understand each other if we had to use brand new words every time we spoke? Isn't sampling simply a more technological form of the kind of repetition that has been going on for centuries in music? Why is sampling a beat to use as the backbone of a new song any different from basing a new blues song on an old blues riff in the end? Personally I like samples that are recognizable, especially when they are put together in a clever and ironic manner (think EBN or Steinski). I think it is generally obvious whether someone is doing something new and different with the sample vs. when they are using it to thinly veil their own lack of ideas (think puff daddy). But why is it any different if the artist uses a computer rather than a set of strings? Or in this case (ironically enough) the discussion seems to center around whether it is different if the artist uses one kind of computer program (sampler) vs. another (synthesizer)? Those making the args should remember that electronic dance music was dissed hard for a long time (and still is in some circles) making virtually the same argument - the synthesizer makes it too easy for someone to be unoriginal yet sound good; these weenies should become Real Musicians and learn to fiddle with strings or reeds before they are allowed to make people dance!! my 2 cents... Ben
1999-06-10 15:15Ayling, MikeFigured I better speak up before this great thread disappears... > Personally I like sampl
From:
Ayling, Mike
To:
Date:
Thu, 10 Jun 1999 11:15:35 -0400
Subject:
RE: (idm) sample my monkey
permalink · <5D5C5C8C3A41D211893900A024D4B97C649882@md.facstaff.oglethorpe.edu>
Figured I better speak up before this great thread disappears...
quoted 8 lines Personally I like samples that are recognizable, especially> Personally I like samples that are recognizable, especially > when they are > put together in a clever and ironic manner (think EBN or Steinski). I > think it is generally obvious whether someone is doing > something new and > different with the sample vs. when they are using it to > thinly veil their > own lack of ideas (think puff daddy).
I'm somewhat surprised that nobody has mentioned hiphop DJ's/turntablists. They were the originators in many ways of sampling recognizable beats and other "memorable" snippets of songs (through the use of technology - turntables, a re-presentational instrument). I'd hate to see people conclude that the sampling/repetition of beats in hiphop only exists because of a lack of original ideas. Granted... a lot of hophop production today sucks (think puff daddy). -Mike