Now I am not one of those guys who's like "sampling takes no talent" or w/e. But to what extent should they be appreciated in terms of the talent of the artist? My big two examples for this are Donuts by J Dilla and Discovery by Daft Punk. Both albums are very much loved, but listen to the tracks both artists have sampled for the albums. They didn't do much different from those artists. Like can we truly say Daft Punk makes some groovy ass cool music when really the groovy ass cool part of their tracks are really just parts that were already made like that by the artists they sampled instead of changing the parts enough to make them groovy ass cool? Or should we appreciate these albums because really especially in J Dilla's case the album is a collection of more or less just the cool parts from various other songs?
I think that Dilla being one of the first to truly tap into sampling properly is bound to have some rough patches. some songs on donuts get skipped immediately but it doesn't make me respect it any less. more people getting into soul/funk/jazz has gotta be a good thing. it's just a matter of incorporating samples fluently without just coasting on the original song
death grips sampling techniques are way ahead of their time (commence jerk), go onto the site whosampled and look up some of the origins of their samples. get got main melody is from some desert cell phone ring or some shit, damn nerds
No I think what Death Grips do is cool that way. Hell even the way Kanye has sampled stuff is really cool. Of course the king of these being DJ Shadow. But idk if the appreciation should go to Dilla or Daft Punk just because they are making big some lesser known soul/funk which actually the real good stuff that needs to be appreciated.
Unfortunately that may be true.
yeah I understand what you're saying. i'm pretty optimistic that in less commercial circles, a good sample leads to investigating and potentially a new musical interest. daft punks level of profit is completely different however and I'm not that into it. even that whole fiasco with kanye and the windowlicker sample was pretty fucking lame. people just have to respect other peoples work
also yeah, endtroducing is definitely one of the best beats albums ever made
i have been listening to hip hop (and also daft punk) since i was growing up and man, i never found a solid way of how to rate and to evaluate sampled music
it's a really hard question
I think manipulating the samples in a way that conveys emotion is a decent skill, obviously anyone can get a sad sonding loop and put drums over it but it's clear when the producer knows what they're doing and what they want to present.
obvious case being that imogen heap song that got remixed a tonne of different times and had a different feel in each one, sorta. clams casino - I'm God #1 tybg
The works individually don't really carry the meaning he's trying to convey so its really the selection and organization that deliver the intended message.
Obviously the Beastie Boys and advertisement jingles from the 1950s aren't conveying his message by themselves.
It's a case by case basis. Look at 36 Chambers and the way that jazz, soul, and funk were turned into something angry and aggressive. That's adding a new dynamicm despite how lazy the loops might be. Standing on the shoulder of giants is how you make progress in sampling. It's why people without live instrumentation and many resources can make things like 36 Chambers with some basic equipment. I'd rather art be repurposed than just curated. It won't sully the original.
I guess that makes sense. So in that way, maybe as individual tracks those on Donuts aren't all that great, but together because of the feel they have, it causes Donuts to actually be a good album if enjoyed start to finish.
Forgive me based god, but I love the I'm God beat when you aren't rapping over it.
I didn't imply that, I just don't understand why you're acting this way. why is it music for the retarded? I'm actually interested in discussing this if you want to. wouldn't really consider a lot of it party music where I'm from either
a lot of tracks I genuinely love on it: waves, mash, lightworks (thank u doom), but I agree it's much more cohesive as a full album.
and yeah hahaha, the beat is heavenly, B sorta fucked up with it but they both helped each other come up so i'm grateful
>mfw this is the quality of /mu/tants' arguments
Not the guy you were responding to, but that is generally the view I hold of most hip hop and dance music. Easy listening music for idiots who can't into musical appreciation.
However, I heard Donuts the other day, and I really don't think it falls into that category. It's a decent album, and it's deeper than just superficial dance music.
Whether or not you like Donuts, however, is irrelevant. Dismissing entire genres out of hand is something that only plebs do, anon. Open your mind, you will enjoy the results.
I can't say much regarding the album, having not listened to it myself (yet), but I am somewhat surprised at the lack of mention of post-modernism and how it relates to sampled music here, so I thought I'd spew a paragraph or two about that. Note that my understanding of postmodernism is sketchy at best (I am but an engineer after all...), so I write this in the hopes of provoking further discussion.
To my mind, sampled music can be an excellent example of a post-modern artform. Post-modernism in literature and art are easier to characterise and recognise, but some of the core principles definitely apply to music. Typically, post-modern literature/art reject "mimetic reproduction" and instead favour "self-referential playing with forms, conventions and icons of high art and literature." In other words, ideas are taken from a work, contorted, deconstructed and played with. Often the meaning of the resultant work is subversive, sometimes commentating on the nature of the work from which it derives.
Arguably my favourite quote regarding postmodernism goes thusly: "However, where modernism thought of itself as a last ditch attempt to shore up, like Eliot's Fisher King, the ruins of western culture, postmodernists often gleefully accept its demise and plunder its remains for their artistic materials." Thus there is a trend amongst post-modern artists towards bricolage, where other works are referenced and "cut up and glued back together" so to speak. Classic examples of this include Andy Warhol's pictures of Andy Warhol, or Kathy Acker's rewriting of Don Quixote. Note that bricolage as a term also often includes the use of on hand material.
Well I've gone several paragraphs with nary a mention of music, so let's tie all of this post-modern bullshit to sampled music. Firstly, if the comment of /u/BillFNotMe is true, then sampled music definitely fits both definitions above for bricolage. Bricolage as a concept as applied here could arguably be seen as a rejection of the necessity of musical instruments, in much the same way that punk was rejecting so many elements of the "self-indulgent" classic rock prevalent in the 70s. Going deeper, one could even argue that, as a concept, it calls into question society's need for novelty and originality in art. At a (semi-related) strectch, it could be argued that the distinctive lyrical and rhythmic phrasing of hip-hop and rap is a rejection of classical ideas around rhythm, song structure.
So to answer your second question, I'd propose a counter-question; does a piece need to be truly independent from the original work in order to have value? I'd tentatively answer that as a no, and would argue that by not striving to be wholly original, it is inherently posing some interesting questions about the attitudes of the listener, the work it derives from and the notion of artistic merit. Plus, it sounds good, and done well it brings a smile to my face and is captivating reardless of any "deeper" postmodern meaning.
As for my favourite stuff consisting of samples, much of Amon Tobin's work fits the bill, and I especially love his use of obscure Jazz samples in novel and interesting ways.
It's dumb because its popular dance music.
But they are, are you ignorant?
It's superficial at it gets, and its so damn gimmicky.
>Dismissing entire genres out of hand is something that only plebs do, anon
Wrong, only manchildren who listen to popular music believe this.
>Open your mind, you will enjoy the results.
You fucking maggot, I'm the only one in this thread who listens to anything with any depth.
You're close-minded shadow followers.
Post-modernism is a joke, stop looking for depth where there is none.
>does a piece need to be truly independent from the original work in order to have value?
I agree it doesn't. that's a good point about the listener's attitude too, I know a few people who dont listen to sampled music because they believe its stealing from the original artist and other friends who embrace manipulation in all its forms. when an artist can take a sample and create something so wildly different and often more enjoyable than what they started with, it's definitely not a gimmick or cheap trick.
10/10 good bread, would read again
DANK meme my friend, I too call anybody I disagree with a meme.
Why, I feel like doing so right now!
You, my friend, are an isolated neckbeard fedoraface who lives off of GBP!
Have le funny stock image.
>So dank, you must be a 420 kush master!
cmon anon you and I both know that he uses much more "XD" LE" and caps lock than that. this is ridicules, apply yourself. also he would never write something like this ";^))))))))))))))))))))))))))"
Listen to stuff like OPN (Replica), Ground Zero,Death Grips, or John Oswald. Replica is a masterpiece when it comes to taking mundane sounds and creating new material out of them. If you want something that's less abstract or abrasive then check out the Avalanches. The way they fit together so many different samples into a cohesive track is incredible.
I think sampling is just a logical, honest way of making music since everything owes a debt to everything before it. Better than just ripping off a sound without acknowledging the influence.
Yes it does. But again, as I mentioned earlier in the topic, he really modifies the samples.
I didn't make this topic because I hate sampling. As I said in the OP, where does one draw the line for what's good because something like Endtroducing... or Kanye songs have the samples very much modified, while something like Daft Punk or J Dilla have samples that we may think are well written songs, but that credit should go to the originators.
have said, to use the samples together to as a whole give it a different feel even if they aren't heavily modified is an interesting and peculiar skill in of itself. Now this can make me respect J Dilla, but not Daft Punk as it's the same exact feel as the songs they sampled from. In fact , DP sampled those very tracks because they have that feel.
the art of sampling begins with choosing the sample, and if one were to look at dilla's entire body of work it would be overwhelming to see the wealth of diverse artists he sampled from. not anyone can do it because it requires a good ear and a deep appreciation of music. additionally, it's the way he flipped the samples that makes his work singularly great--the record is consistently engaging and interesting due to the way he arranged the samples and constructed the beat, which again, can't be done by anyone, not even sampling heavyweights like Primo or Madlib. which is not to say that those two artists aren't good or as good--all of them have vastly different styles, but it's also generally agreed upon that dilla was the greatest to ever sample and/or make a beat. Pete Rock literally called him the new Pete Rock.
I'd suggest anyone who argues that he's only respected because of his death to read up on his life. He was born to make music and was revered from the very beginning--he even got robbed of a grammy but he never bothered to protest it.
wait dilla's dead
but i liked donuts
i think that sampled music as fine but the metric of how it should be viewed should be based on how well the sample is used and how it's changed and how the change enhances the music thats being made
if anyone has better suggestions, shoot
I honestly don't know how someone who was intrested in music would be motivated to sample the way some of these rap 'musicians' do
The funniest part of making music is writing the melody. It's like the most important thing. When you sample someone's shit word for word it's like taking a quote and putting as tricks around and writing -me underneath. Melodys are words and you don't got a voice cause you sampled your melody
The idea of postmodernism that the other anon talked about isn't at all relevant. Sampling, at least in this context, does not have the intention of thinking about the source material.
I don't think it is, right now, possible to establish a line on what is stealing and what is sampling, and it has been so for many centuries. Not much romantic art was truly original, just the repetition of models and images, nearly nothing changed. The question I'm raising is: isn't it better to use something you didn't create to make something truly original, or making something from scratch that is exactly the same as thousands of other top-40 pop songs?
(Obviously, I'm not talking about lazy sampling.)