biggest double standard in industry: rockers recycle same riffs (copied from blues artist)>>> great artist rapper recycle old songs whatever genre>>> uncreative? BIGGEST BULLSHIT EVER
Kids, there's a huge difference between playing an instrument similar to another artist and copy/pasting parts of a completed, recorded, and copywritten piece of music.
leteflondondu92 It's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about but please keep thinking you do. It's funny. ...and a little sad honestly.
It struck me at 01:26 - that's basically his bedroom. Back then producers had to spend every penny they earned on mixers and compressors and hardware samplers, which all cost a fortune. Nowadays you can do the same with a bunch of free VST/AU plugins on a cheap laptop. We've come a long way.
as a beatmaker and 80s baby, I thoroughly enjoyed this throwback. much respect to everyone that makes tracks and those that truly enjoy listening to music be it sampled or not; at the end of the day dope is dope.
Sampling is not just about looping. There is a video somewhere on RU-vid of a dude re-making Smack My Bitch up by Prodigy. How Liam Howlett heard all those different elements in his head and was able to take all those separate samples, re-program them with all sorts of different adjustments, and make them one whole is just astounding. It takes just as much time, practice, and patience to be fluent on a sampler as it is a guitar or any other instrument, for that matter.
Honestly, I can see why sampling caused controversy when it first took off due to the legality of it all, but I do not get the dispute on its creative viability. Yes, you are taking pre-written and recorded material, but you are placing it in a completely different context and if done well it can be turned into something that totally has its own creative merit. Have any of you naysayers ever taken the time to listen to good hip hop or electronic production? Native Tongue or DTTC? Dust Brothers? MF Doom? I've been playing music for my whole life, I write and release my own songs, with instruments and lyrics and everything. As a teenager I was against sampling but soon realised that it was just a completely different way of approaching composition. In a way I agree with Tom Petty's argument in its similarity to collaging, but there is a very true art to it. In short, as a songwriter I would be really happy if someone sampled my song and used it well. Also, if you guys think sampling's so easy and non-creative, why don't you go make another Paul's Boutique. Good fucking luck.
I love all these rock stars complaining about their music being stolen, yet they're all rehashing the same 5 note pentatonic scales and riffs popularized by other artists before them.
I won't lie. Much of my favorite music, even in genres outside of hip hop, either contains samples or is used in samples. That's what makes these songs so much fun.
Damn those samples were easy to catch back in the day, over the years people are real creative now as the hardware and software improved, cutting and chopping up samples is amazing, now its difficult to sometimes even figure out what a producer sampled. I love it!
I sure would love to meet the actual producer or engineer, who can actually make an unsampled track in the studio. It must be enough for me to count on one hand.
Everything is not stolen, if everything was stolen there wouldn't be anything knew. With that said, Newton was referring to learning how things work, the finding of facts, that's a far cry from art. You can't steal a fact, but you can steal art.
A bad sample, ie, a sample that makes a song is incredibly easy. A good sample, ie, that acts as an instrument is not easy. There's tons of modulation, balancing and EQing that goes into a sample before it can be used without sounding cheap.
I think Rick James said it best, that the government has taken away music programs out of schools and all the kids have to rely on is the OGs or old timers to guide them and why they sample so much.
The thing is I rather choose my own melodies/chord progressions and actually create the music instead of just copying another track and adding some drums and maybe a melody on top of it. Imagine if no one ever created the tracks you sample. Yes, some real musicians actually have to compose them. Sampling is okay if you really can't recognize the original song from the sampled one. If it is recognizable, then there should be "remix" or "cover" in the title.
@FanAlltEUpptaget An artist knows what he's doing. In the beginning, when you're still learning, it's still a lot of trial and error, but after a while you will start hearing samples and immediately know what to do with it. Just like when a beginning composer starts making compositions on the piano tries out one chord on a scale after another, to see which ones work the best together, but after a while he will immediately know which chords to pick.
How is sampling stealing, your pitch, time shifting, making drum loops, writing your own lyrics, so how is that stealing. As long as you credit them for the sample. But the laws say otherwise.
Getting sued for sampling is like getting sued for using a guitar made by a company saying "Yes you've made your own sound, but you used our guitar's sound to make it". And for those of you who think. "Well you payed good money for that guitar" I paid good money the that album I'm sampling from to.
sampling ain't either art or theft.it's just a way to keep the good quality music still alive.nowdays sampling is starting to become a forgotten way of making music,and almost everything is sh*t.
You comment does not makes sense. Anyhow, as somebody said, sampling is like a digital camera compared to painters(instrument artist). Why should I not be able to take a picture of a painting or same place that the painter has painted. If somebody makes a hip-hop song with some samples of rock, that totally changes the mood and expression, witch makes it another song.
If you modify the sample in a way that no one recognizes it (what I think is awesome for finding new rich sounds with a character and history) then there is no question about stealing something.
Sampling are like a puzzle, but the pieces of the puzzle are someone else's creativety , rearrangeing some pieces or put a filter on them doesn't make it your creativety or property
My Composer just told me to tell everybody here that's watching this Video to sample CLEVERLY if you're too lazy to play the Piano, Drums, Flute, Saxophone, Harmonica or a Guitar.
@boombap28 it takes me hell of a lot longer to make a song out of samples (in key) like DJ Shadow (entroducing); than it does to play the riffs in myself with synths.... A LOT longer... So I couldnt agree more
I could put it another way, Euclid was an observation, not a creation, art is a act of creation. If you call yourself a musician and you are using music created by someone else, your stealing, however using techniques is not stealing. So you might use the same musical instruments or editing techniques, but if your going to create a composition you shouldn't be lifting from other peoples compositions, but unfortunately at times it's hard to tell when someone has done this, except with sampling.
many people who sample now don't use the whole melody, instead they will take certain keys and parts of a melody and turn into something new, not just take it as a loop with drums, there is more of a creative side to it.
Sampling isn't cheating or stealing. It's taking something you love and packaging it in a way that it can be introduced to people who would not have even heard it or paid attention to it otherwise. No one samples because it's easy; a good sample is not easy. You sample because you love the original so much you've realized you will never create that particular sound or feel but you know how to use it in an entirely new context.
Denials, denial…….. creating music is hard work as it is, it’s about 2 to 3 times harder than sampling it for the purpose of you making money for it. If you like it, that much, simply pay the artist for it then do whatever you want with it.
even that moby dick analogy could be argued. many people read a book and then use a chapter to inspire a poem. its not taking the chapter word for word and pasting it. just like sampling. the producer isnt trying to steal their shit. the producer buys their record, gets inspired and then recreates it into something totally different. if these guys were actual artists then they would be honored to inspire a fan to create. but like most of the mainstream, they're just money fiends.
inspire is a verb. I don't believe that you can ever steal an idea or a feeling. Because the original owner of that idea will still have it. You can only share and idea and a feeling. And you can never share exactly the same feeling. That why I don't believe that you are stealing a song by copying 2 seconds of you. You might as well play it live and record it. That is what many people do. But with sampling you have no need to learn an instrument. But that does not make it easier to make good
I don't understand the connection between smart(logic) and music(creative). You dont have to be smart to play an instrument. You have to be creative thought. With sampling you have to be creative and smart. You know that sampling arrived from people with mathematical and engineering degree. The rest depends on who takes credit for it. People who sing or people who generates music for people who sings.
right, Jerry joked about how they would steal music from people and change it, people stole from each other back in the day. Big difference was they weren't making a direct copy from a published album. There should be some wiggle room for new artists, so much material has been covered that we cant sit around wondering if this sounds too similar to a song prior to us. blah blah blah anyway artists dont typically make much off an album anymore its mostly promotion. live music is where the $ is at
I like sampling as much as anyone. But I think there’s a lot more you can do with the board. Early hip-hop didn’t necessarily rely on sampling to make a hit record, especially the producers and the engineers from Europe. hip-hop seems like the only genre that relies on sampling for its overall survival. 90% of Public Enemy’s first album was music from James Brown, every track on X clans debut album was from Parliament. every track on Rob Base first album, as well as every track from black sheep‘s first album was totally sampled, nothing original whatsoever. again, I don’t really have a problem with sampling, just make sure you pay the original artist, after that, knock yourself out.
@boombap28 If that were true, then YES it would be astounding. More likely however, he had nothing in his head to begin with. After a lot of trial and error he struck gold.
Instruments and the fine art of playing it has been there for many years, but sampling has just been born if you compare them. So sampling is more original./ And you can never play the instrument the same way you can re-sample. But you can sample an instrument./ Don't be angry now now start typing in caps. = )
Best part of this video was seeing Prince Paul in the studio. Regardless of what you think about the practice of sampling, who really gives a flying fuck about Debbie Gibson's view on sampling... or anything for that matter?
I'm sorry but you didn't understand what I was telling you. I know what Original means, and I am telling you that nothing can be 100% original. There are influences, other people do mirror other people. I guess you know how inspiration works. If you get inspired by an artist you copy the artist, or mimic or take something from the inspiration source and combine it with something else that you learned. The only difference between sampling is that you can mimic someone perfect.
@ATENakaATON While I applaud a well stated argument, rather than the usual "sampling is for fags you suck" RU-vid fare, I disagree. Just as there are good artists, who use their tools in new and creative ways, every art form has its share of Greg Lands. While there are those who sample a full bar of a song, loop it, and call it a day, there are those who take little bits from many places, manipulate them, and create something entirely new and different. Good sampling takes skill.
im pretty sure if you release it for free then you're in the clear. i could be wrong but if you're not collecting money for "someone elses work" then their compensation would be x% of 0 which would be no money at all. ive never heard of someone getting sued over a mixtape unless they were making money off that track.
some people keep it correct, but for the most-part, lazily made "trap style" beats are aggravating as sin, especially if some more effort was put in it could be fantastic... because an original beat that is well made is like magic
@boombap28 i have a mpc and it took me a couple of hours to get use to it and about a week and i didn't need the manuap anymore, no way would i be able to learn any instrument other then a cowbell in a week lol. as much as i love sampled beats you can't compare the two by saying it takes as long to learn each other
I think it's stupid to call it lazy or talk any other shiet about sampling. Playing instruments is one, playing samples is something totally different. And it does take work and creativity to play either of them. IT DOES take work for BOTH! :p Is it stealing? If you absolutely need to use the sample in a way, that people can recognize it, arrange it with the original artist!
Wow, I can't believe these arguments...Sampling is indeed an art form, and as long as a producer CLEARS the sample by the owning label and publisher, they are fine. There is a particular sound that comes from sampling that is appealing. There is also a particular sound from NOT sampling that is appealing. Music is music. To discredit a producer who used sampling is pretty naive, and you just have to be utterly ignorant to discredit a producer who composed an entire track without sampling :T
jay z took a part of a doors song called five to one. JIM MORRISON DIDNT STEAL his lyrics. he thought of them in his head and then sang them to an original sound. then jay z said "i like that song. i an going to take that part of that song i like and just put it into my song." jay z didnt write it. he is just placing it. that means sampling is taking shit already made and just using it. people who do that arent creative. they are just showing what they like which is fine. but not creative at ALL
