Is sampling music?

no, it's called stealing. it requires no musical talent. period.

>>73158437
composing music with samples is more or less the same thing as playing a keyboard or playing a guitar. each note samples a different preset sound which you can slightly modify sometimes....

File: 8c3.jpg (43KB, 640x496px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 640x496px

>>73158392
>>73158437

>>73158468
this

>>73158392
all music is sampling. think about it

you didn't create those chords. somebody else did

>>73158510
>'did the man who invented college go to college?'

>>73158549
Did he?

It's a totally different art form. You can't put it in the same category as songwriting. Sampling is stealing, nobody is denying that.

But true mastery comes from how well this is done, how cleverly these sounds are put together. When there's a million people trying it, the bad stuff is blatant stealing, the best stuff is extremely clever

>>73158468
yeah, it's called stealing. it would be different if you made those sounds and then made an instrument out of them.

>>73158473
and get a load of you saying absolutely nothing

>>73158510
you didn't invent that instrument, somebody else did

>>73158468
>composing music with samples is more or less the same thing as playing a keyboard or playing a guitar. each note samples a different preset sound which you can slightly modify sometimes....
And none of the ideas for the material you "sampled" are yours. So, what now?

>>73158607
damn

File: MI0000045679.jpg (30KB, 500x496px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 500x496px

i like this band approach, they warp and manipulate samples so they sound like real instruments

>>73158578
>You can't put it in the same category as songwriting.
why not?
majority of songwriting these days is just stealing from other peoples melodies

>>73158578
This. A clever sample is great, but it isn't songwriting.

>Arranging those samples requires no musical knowledge
>The program does it all for me
Holy shit I want to be a musician now, thanks 9gag

>>73158621
did you ever hear dj shadow - endtroducing? listen to it and then tell me he was "stealing" other's people music.
that album could change your life.

File: avalanches-since-i-left-you1-640x640.jpg (145KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 640x640px

>>73158437
>>73158593
>>73158621
explain this

>>73158649
I agree, I mean that OP seems to be dismissing sampling due to a lack of instrument playing or traditional songwriting process - when it's a different artistic approach altogether

File: Cover.jpg (994KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

994KB, 1500x1500px

Say that to my face IRL see what happennr

People will always think what is happening now is somehow less musical, less skillful. They'll always think that the art of yore is more valuable. People thought this when they started adding instruments to vocal religious music 600 years ago.

By the way, the ever-elusive claim that a knowledge of (whatever we define as) "music theory" is historically hollow.

Show me the most groundbreaking, genius, relevant artists in the history of recorded music, and I'll show you people with little or no musical education.

Have fun trying to forever sell people on the merits of virtuoso musicians--but art is about expression.

sampling isn't real music
neither is covering a song
jazz ensembles and symphonic orchestras aren't real musicians cause they don't write their own music

File: tumblr_lso84obOo01qdjt2eo1_500.jpg (22KB, 500x356px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 500x356px

everyone in this thread who thinks sampling is stealing has obviously never made music with samples before. You csnt just take 3 songs and press a button and a new song is made, you have to arrange them, put them in a good spot etc, you have to find a good sample that perfectly fits your song, and then make all the rest of the song on top of that, not to mention usually on like 5 seconds of a song is sampled. Not exactly a rip off. Usually it's only a small piece of a bass line or the drum beat, and then on top of that they usually change the samples, for instance take a bassline with 8 notes and then only use 4 of them but on repeat and in a different key. Btw this is all coming from a guy who plays and teaches 4 "real instruments". Music is music. Not like one isn't just because you make it with a computer, which by the way- is fun, saves a ton of money, doesn't require a pro studio to sound good, and can save you the struggle of finding flaky band members

>>73158800
They're real musicians, just not songwriters

>>73158794
You don't need music theory to write good music, but you don't need to write anything besides lyrics if you sample the whole song.

>>73158832
>sample the whole song
That's not what this discussion is about.

>>73158392
Are there actually people who think sampling is stealing? That's an honest question. I can't tell what is and isn't meming anymore.

>>73158832
> sample the whole song
kys

>>73158872
Well, it objectively is, but like >>73158578 said...

>>73158832
OK, but that's almost never been done. Especially if we're talking about hip hop music (which takes many shapes). Show me a song that is sampled in its entirety without an edit.

Also, why minimize the contributions of the vocalist?

At some point we're just going to be offering our differing viewpoints on what art can be, and art can be anything.

If the context is new, if the feeling is there, then it's art. A couple of years ago Flying Lotus sped up Frank Ocean's "Thinkin Bout You", and that was it. But in speeding it up, he made a new thing. He also titled it "Binge Eating About You". He meaningfully edited the work, and presented it with a new context.

A skillful artist could entirely reproduce, or even merely represent a work, but still imbue it with artistic validity. That's art.

>>73158855
>>73158877
I meant a sample runs throughout the whole song, not literally sample the whole song.

>>73158893
I think>>73158578 is wrong. Using a bunch .5-2 second samples to make a 4 minutes song that is completely different than all the sampled songs isn't stealing at all. It becomes stealing when you recreate someone's work and call it your own idea.

Sampling isn't inherently bad, it just lowered the (already low) bar for entry. Great sampling can really make an album, and we have had electric pianos since the mid-1950s, so there isn't anything inherently wrong with sampling a sound. The thing with modern sampling is that with the advent of the personal computer most have taken to it to make music, and simply put, most are lazy bastards and make crappy to mediocre stuff due to not understanding how to use the samples.

Sampling is a method of making music rather than music itself, but while it allows for groundbreaking stuff it also opens up someone to mix a series of samples lazily and call it music.

>>73158955
If there's new context it's new. Even if somebody was just singing over a song--even if they're singing the words to a song over that song--that's still new art! That's still context.

>>73158392
Sampling doesnt seem incorrect, people hear songs by ear and make songs inspired by them. Often if two songs reach popularity and happen to be similar there will be lawsuits. In this case the one that became famous previously. Whether criminalizing someone for making a copy of your song is morally correct is another story. Sometimes the song will have only a few similar elements but turns out the recent song speaks better to people of that time. Another thing is almost impossible to not follow a certain pattern when it comes to making music.

Sampling as I am concerned is like quoting when it's restricted to only a few seconds so it isnt wrong. After those seconds it becomes an unauthorized copy. But what is a copy and what isn't is really all about perception and human perception is far from perfect.

Realistically if you dont want to perpetuate your vision on music then you logically shouldnt be making music. But I can understand the side of the copied artist as well. The effort spent into making the song and performing it is worth money and this is what matters to him or her probably. But odds are if the other artist became popular with this song then he must be also performing a lot this song thats just a fact.

When the previous artist perceives this act as "taking money from him" he is disregarding the fact the public may not find his song similar to the "copy" version, or even have heard of his "original" version of that song.

That's my interpretation of the situation

>>73158725
That's different. That's called plunderphonics. That's actually creative. Merely sampling is lazy. If you have to at least interpolate it.

>>73158959
I mean it's stealing in a literal sense. I'm not saying it's wrong when done skillfully, that was my point.

>>73158981
This argument could and has been made against numerous forms of music since long-before the dawn of recorded music.

>>73159007
What's the meaningful distinction?

>>73158955
Yeah, but again, there are artists who do this lazily, and others who use it extremely well (or in a way that is original, difficult to recreate, etc). Same with all kinds of music, but it is a different art form altogether.

>>73159021
Yup, I agree throughly with it. Developments in technology and society will inevitably lead to new things which while not inherently bad will allow people to do something they couldn't before, and ultimately the big majority will do it badly. But they're not inherently bad, that is.

>>73159007
>That's actually creative. Merely sampling is lazy. If you have to at least interpolate it.

So you haven't listened to any of the samples that the Avalanches took from, not any different from any hip hop, house, big beat record - all of which influenced that album

>>73159007
Plunderphonics is a meme outdated label, it's all sampling, same category friend.

>>73158392
> are collages art?
really though, you take a five second clip of some diana crawl song and loop it 20 times then no it's not music, you're actually just ripping it off. If you combine or use the samples in interesting ways then sure it's music. You're making something of your own.

>>73159122
I'm sure you can sample 5 seconds of a song and get away with it

>>73159060
OK, so at what point in the last 120 years did this argument become valid?

Coincidentally, does it coincide with any of your personal tastes?

Making the tools of creation of any kind will never ruin art. I'm sure that millions of writers cried out over the widespread availability of the word processor, or the typewriter, or the printing press.

People think we're heading towards this Idiocracy future, but the opposite is true. The people of today are smarter than ever, and the people of tomorrow will be smarter than that.

And in 25 years the tools for making art, whether they're writing, making music, or making visual art, will be more robust tools than they've ever been, and as a result, we'll get new and important artistic voices that would have never seen the light of day a half century prior.

All the same, garbage art has always existed, and some people will have garbage taste. But good artists won't get worse as the tools get better, and average artists only stand to gain.

>>73159163
>get away with it
You're missing the point of this thread

>>73158392
It is music.

It's just less-creative music

>>73158392
>rap
>music

>>73158392
it's a process through which music is created

>>73159164
>But good artists won't get worse as the tools get better
But these tools aren't better if the result is a decrease in musical skill.

>>73159007
>That's different. That's called plunderphonics. That's actually creative. Merely sampling is lazy. If you have to at least interpolate it.
Easily the worst post I've read all day, do you realize what you're saying?

>>73158468
Yeah but samples are always sequences of sounds that were built by someone else. Playing a single note on an instrument is not even close to the same thing. Sampling is lazy and it cuts corners.

>>73158392
>>73158437


i'd like you both to watch this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWrOiz97qDQ

if these niggas can make music so good then why didn't they make it like Kanye? Oh right only Kanye can, he'll sample your shit, make it useful, make it good and you'll be thankful for it.

>>73159164
I think it's going to create an interesting conversation about the intersection of craft and art. Craft and art are still pretty interconnected, most people who make incredible works of art also have honed their talents for years and years. Some people get lucky with bursts of inspiration and skip the honing part, usually fading away afterwards. Realistically I think new technology will mostly serve to empower people who get suddenly inspired. Most artists and musicians will keep slaving away at their craft, and I don't think much will change.

>>73159164
I'm not saying it will ruin art or anything, in fact I'd say it's about the opposite and I consider sampling not music but rather an instrument for making music, but the reason why it seems worse and thus labeled not music is that it allows for more people to make garbage art. The bigger amounts of garbage will cause it to be seen as not music, but people that can use it to create actual good music will raise artistic possibilities to new levels.

We agree, I think we're kind of misunderstanding one another, though.

>>73159207
No, but they're better if the result is more cool music

>>73159213
>comparing the two art forms in the same category
That's idiotic

>>73159249
>cool
Sorry, I don't think theft is cool.

>>73159207
kids today have better instruments and skills than ever

>>73159213
Playing an instrument is way easier and lazier than going through the trouble of recording something, cutting it, editing it, and re-arranging it, layered with other stuff.

All you have to do is hit the right notes at the right time and the instrument will play itself.

File: bush-of-ghosts.jpg (54KB, 559x488px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 559x488px

Sampling, when used right, can be very effective
>pic very related

>>73159277
>better instruments
Like what?
>skills
Not knowing how to perform correctly is a skill?

>>73159213
just how learning how to play an instrument from lessons is lazy also!

>>73159284
>Playing an instrument is way easier and lazier than going through the trouble of recording something, cutting it, editing it, and re-arranging it, layered with other stuff.
Except you can do both, and be superior to one who just does one thing.

>>73159271
You're lying. There's a very rich mystique surrounding the act of theft. It's very glamorous.

>>73159277
i agree but at the same time you have kids only learning how to play weezer songs using tabs, so they never have to play by ear or play along with a record or a cd. it helps with writing and improvisation

>>73158392
>lol it isn't sound if someone who isn't you made it XDDDDDDDDDDDDD

File: white_trash_rapper.jpg (101KB, 900x750px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 900x750px

Hi Guys. I totally did not sample Queen. its just a coincidence that my original song sounds like under pressure's bass line.

>>73159313
Do you think prison is glamorous?

>>73159328
he didn't. his producers did dumbass

>>73159337
good thief's don't get caught. look at hillary clinton she isn't in prison!

>>73159038
keyword "merely". there is a difference between sampling in music and making music almost entirely out of samples.

>>73159073
what are you saying? yes I have.

>>73159079
no it is not

>>73159209
Easily the worst response I've read all day, do you realize what you're saying?

>>73159343

you obviously didnt get the joke. fucktard

>>73159328
you think Queen didn´t got paid royalties for that? lel

>>73159364
> there is a difference between sampling in music and making music almost entirely out of samples.
no

>>73159337
It quite objectively is. It's the modern day shaolin monastery.
But with more anal sex.

>>73159312
>superior
Again, you're comparing two completely different musical processes, which doesn't make sense at all. Learning an instrument is one skill, cleverly creating sample-based music another skill. You can be fantastic or unoriginal in either field, but neither is 'superior' as both fields have a hell of a lot to learn from.

File: guy.png (47KB, 112x136px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 112x136px

>>73159284
>All you have to do is hit the right notes at the right time and the instrument will play itself.

itt: people who don't play instruments, don't write music, and never had any interest in doing so complaining about how they feel musicianship is going down the drain

>>73159364
I'm asking what makes something "mere sampling" vs something else
There's no hard line you can draw

>>73159364
You have no idea what you're on about, this thread is for people who either understand or are trying to understand these processes

>>73159392
There literally is, you fucking retard. That would be like saying putting salt on your your french fries is the same thing as eating a plate full of salt.

shut the fuck up, anon. you are embarrassing yourself.

>>73159429
You have no idea what you're on about, this thread is for people who either understand or are trying to understand these processes

This thread is a goldmine. say fuck you to r/4chan niqqas

>>73159364
Try and bring up 'plunderphonics' in a room full of today's greatest sample-based artists and you will be laughed out of the room, it's just very outdated

>>73159364
This is equivalent to saying that Serialism is the only true form of composition because it's using the instruments in a new way and not "merely" playing them. Or that Instrumental and Spoken Word music is inherently superior because they're not "merely" using voice or instruments.
Seriously, where do you even draw the line? Because tons of examples of "sampling" (like your op pic, Kanye West), do indeed "interpolate" their samples have certainly made songs that are 100% instrumentally comprised of such. He also produces music that is entirely original, if you count drum machines and synthesizers as original and not some other arbitrary distinction.
It seems to me that you just dislike it because it's more simple and less layered than The Avalanches, Negativland, or OPN. Is Trip hop plunderphonics or sampling? They are the same thing.

>>73159454
>That would be like saying putting salt on your your french fries is the same thing as eating a plate full of salt.
to your body its the same actually

>>73159487
fine, "sample-based music." That is what I am referring to.

>>73159454
The fuck are you on about, neither side of this argument agrees with you at all

>>73158660
0/10

>>73159489
>It seems to me that you just dislike it because it's more simple and less layered than The Avalanches
No, as I said it is not as creative.

>>73159494
nope

>>73159509
The fuck are you on about, neither side of this argument agrees with you at all

seriously though, you literally said nothing right here. gj anon.

>>73159530
Creativity is not an objective quality.
I like how you ignored the rest of the post too.
I can't even tell if you're baiting or just retarded at this point.
Fuck outta here.

>>73159530
>No, as I said it is not as creative.

alright this is bait. not going . to spend my saturday on a 14 yr old. have a nice life!

Abandon ship. Jesus christ

>>73158621
You can 100% completely make new ideas with sampled music. The avalanches made shit where the samples are so tiny they sound NOTHING like the finished product, those Aussies made new melodies all by themselves they made new music

You don't think sampling is hard? Do you know how meticulously J dilla stitched and wove together unrelated concepts and made them into a song?

>>73159394
> two completely different musical processes
Not relevant. Music is music. No one gets a handicap
>Learning an instrument is one skill, cleverly creating sample-based music another skill
Except you can do both. There are many instrumentalists who do record themselves; The opposite is not true

File: black_piece_of_shit_rapper.jpg (400KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

400KB, 1000x1000px

Rick James Cant Touch This.

File: 1390032315719.png (61KB, 661x716px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 661x716px

itt:

>>73159590
If the best you can come up with for the defense of sampling is ONE album, then it's probably not a worthwhile practice, is it?

Depends on the kind of sample, if it's literally a 40 second piece from a jazz song and slaping some drums on top of it then i do believe it's stealing but if it's just bits and pieces that ultimately build the song then i think it's a legit way of making music

That being said your picture is bullshit, most of the artists I know are because they were sampled by another musician I knew beforehand

>>73159792
It's called an example
How fucking dumb are you

sampling, to sample is a verb

think of it this way, people who sample will never be responsible for creating a sound or genre

>>73160164
not true btw

>>73158392
>decline since 2001
Sampling has been a thing since the 70s, and was widespread by the 80s. Popular music has been pretty shit for the past 20+ years, but certainly not because of sampling.

I'll also note that composers have long "sampled" their heroes, contemporaries, and regional folk tunes with melodic or rhythmic quotations.

Creativity is never in a vacuum, as I'm sure several people in this thread have already pointed out.

>>73160227
completely true, you cant give one example that proves otherwise

>>73158392
>>73158437
/prod/ here.

You guys are absolutely right, sampling is not music, it's stealing someone else's hard work. Irrefutable proof:

https://clyp.it/fouqjryo

>>73158392
saying sampling is lazy is completely pointless because acoustic guitars and almost every other instrument has the same sound. And you can edit the sound to the point where it sounds nothing like the original sound.

And like what >>73158468 said, you still play a sampler which requires talent

Its not stealing because its illegal if you don't have the original artist's permission (that is if theyre still alive or able to reach), if not getting their permission was common practice than it would be stealing yes

>>73158392
"Creative sampling", where the artist takes a sound/noise and turns it into a meaningful musical element is music.
Sampling as in finding a small loop from a song, tweaking and distorting it, fitting it with other elements that are external to it is also music.

Taking a track, adding maybe just some drums and a filter isn't making music. It's just remixing. Which is fine as long as you don't pretend it's your track.

>>73160358
Doesn't music concrete date from older than that ?

The only valid way to use samples is to arrange/cut them into a weird shape and make breakcore with them.

>>73159194
Not this meme again

File: 1490740495797.jpg (156KB, 960x1200px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 960x1200px

>>73160912
this actually

Anyone who says sampling isn't music hasn't heard brettdog59

>>73160667
Pitching up and down and adding verb is not creativity you schmuck

when some people(and me) I don't consider it stealing, when I sample I fuck up that shit so hard it doesn't even sound like the original

>>73160614
>28 plays
>zero replies
fucking kek. rockists BTFO

heavily sample based music is crappy yeah but it's stupid to scapegoat the practice of sampling as a whole. it can be and is used tastefully all the time

>>73163946
case in point >>73160614

>>73158392

Yes ask the house/rave scene

>>73162421
but you can do more

File: More-Music-for-The-Jilted-Generation.jpg (73KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 300x300px

yes

>>73164029
Yea more to pretend you are creative and musically apt sure

>>73158468
imagine being so stupid that you thought this was an acceptable analogy

>>73158684
>that album could change your life.
A hip hop album changing my life? I don't think so.