SexyBeautifulOne said:

Great! All the Beyonce and X-tina tracks being covered and sampled! Hooray!!!

I would call this a state of EMERGENCY in music.
Lucky for me I have a few options.
1. I know here 2 find the real music even with 2days wack ass selection.
2. I can create my own REAL music so I don't worry about the no talents of the world.
3. The "old" classics are still around and I have a ridiculas collection.

PurpleCharm said:

Of course not. but record labels have set a precedence (sp?) that says all you have to do is sing kinda sorta on key and look cute to be considered an artist and get a deal. And that ur a good artist if you have a hit song. Nobody thinks they have to work anymore. Just do the same old shit wrap it in a different package and you're a star. Back in the day, people worked hard because they loved music for music and because you had to in order to be a star. It's not the same. There are plenty of ppl who do still work hard to learn music and create some good original stuff, but they don't get signed nor are they very popular, but that's another arguement for a different thread.

I'm only 20 (21 in a month and 4 days ) and when I listen to a lot of older music I feel cheated. I can enjoy some of today's stuff, but it usually gets old and fades away within months. I don't know if it will ever change. I think we're doomed.

DavidEye said:

I most certainly blame Reagan and the Republicans for cutting funding for musical programs out of schools, but I would also add that record companies themselves have spurred on the destruction of musical composition in the pursuit of the quick buck. Now there's nothing wrong with technology assisting in the creation of music in and of itself (e.g., synthesizers, drum machines, samplers, MIDI tracks), but even back in the 1980's when synthesizers and drum machines were running rampant, the A&R guys at the record companies were still assisting the more decent artists into becoming better musicians for albums further down the road. That's why some of the acts who were raw during the 80s and singing new wave or gritty college rock were able to become more seasoned musicians who performed on MTV Unplugged during the 1990s. These days, however, the record companies are huge conglomerates who are more worried about catering to Wall Street analysts instead of the artists on their label, so that's why Christina Milian can get dumped after the first single on her second album goes flat instead of developing her to become a great pop/R&B artist in the future. She does have the talent to become huge; it's too bad the record companies are too impatient to get the next big hit to see that.

SexyBeautifulOne said:

WHEN POOK THINK ABOUT HOW MANY RAP SONG STEAL LINE FROM GRANDMASTER FLASH

OR SUGARHILL GANG

AND TURN ONE STOLEN LINE INTO MILLION DOLLAR CHORUS

POOK EXPECT MANY MORE YEAR OF STEALING IN MUSIC

728huey said:

You make some good points, 728. However, I must add that we are to blame as much as Regan and the record execs are. We do not fight what is important. Part of the reason that Regan was able to do what he did, was due to the fact that some people believe that music education,was not an important element to a child's development. Add that to the fact that most of people do not vote. Also, Christina, is not that great of a singer....She is "Jennifer lite". In fact she has "ghost written", some of Jenny's songs. Back to the subject, sampling, itself is not a bad thing. I did it, as a DJ back in the day, but I hardly sampled an entire song and if I did, I chopped it up and put other instruments on top of it. My intention was to keep people guessing. I played music for the love....Maybe that's why I never made much money doing it. I have a feeling that these new artist are doing it for the love as well....but, they have to eat too....and love can't full your belly nor can it pay your rent.

I really don't care, all that matters is the quality of the song, samples or not.
There's great songs that includes large portions of samples and shitty songs performed by live bands.
You can be creative with samples.
Prince can make shitty songs with or without sampling for example

ChimChimBadass said:

and that's the problem....the fact that there are people out there that do not care.
If a song is using a sample and I mean a straight full blown sample, then how can the quality be good? You are better off listening to the orginal song. As for Prince's ability to make a good or bad song, with or without the use of a sample. I would respect him more as an artist if he were to make a bad song, based purely on his own musical talent and not on the fact that he used someone elses song. It used to be that music was music....now, I am not so sure.

Back in the 1980s when people were sampling, a lot of it was fun and much more creative. Look at a song like "Give It All You Got" by Afro Rican. That song has various snips of other songs. It's almost like a mix and I love a good mix. However, people really know how to overdo anything. The samples were getting longer and were no longer the little short multiple "snips". Soon, a sampled loop of one song over a beat became the actual basis of whole songs. That's not creative at all and considering the fact that computers make the loops, so-called "musicians" don't even have the talent or skills that DJs have.

Sampling, which is nothing more than "mixing", should be left to DJs. DJs can mix the records in clubs and on the radio in a very creative and entertaining way. However, when "musicians" become overpaid DJs instead of actual musicians, new original music ceases to exist. The only thing that exists is a remix of an old song (that has been slowed down by the way) with either some ignorant "talk" or over-dramatic "Amateur Night At The Apollo" type singing on top of it.
.
.
[Edited 7/18/06 10:37am]

Currently in the UK , Luther's latest song , "Shine", hits big over there in the Soulcharts .
His songline is recorded over Chic's sample "My Forbidden Lover"
Also Alexander O'Neal hits the Soulcharts over there with a gospelhouse-track , which carries the sample of Cheryl Lynn's "Got To Be Real"
Too bad they're not hitting with own material .

Although i totally dig Faith Evans her track "I Don't Need It" with a sample of "Nights Over Egypt" by the The Jones Girls ,
i also feel the sample-era has gone out of proportions .
As if one can't create a track anymore without a sample in order to be certain of scoring a potential hit.
Especially in the mainstraim consumer's market .
.
.
.
[Edited 7/18/06 12:56pm]

I cannot stand sampling. I wish they would make it IILEGAL.

vainandy said:

As of 2004, some superstar DJs don't even do a live mix at the clubs or the raves. Their laptop computers are doing most of the work!!!

Back when I used to have a computer, a friend of mine lent me some DJ software. When I was reading the instruction manual, I saw that it could not only match the tempo of two songs, but hold the tempos in synch for as long as you wanted it to. It also could make continuous loops, echo effects, vocal alterations, etc.

When I put it in the computer, I couldn't figure the damn thing out to save my life. The songs were a graph that looked like lines on a life support system and to alter them, you had to do non-musical computer things like highlighting sections, cutting, and pasting. The computers do some amazing things and do all the work for you but you have to be a computer geek to figure them out.
.
.
[Edited 7/18/06 12:31pm]

TonyVanDam said:

and that's one of the reasons I don't do it anymore. I love the feel of the records. Technology has good too far and has really made it too easy.
[Edited 7/18/06 14:27pm]

shorttrini said:

EXAMPLE: Ableton Live on a laptop connection to the turntables

I think sampling is basically a legit way to "cover" a song but not REALLY cover it. You have the elements of the original tune but there's some of your own stuff in there as well. I think it depends on the degree sampling used (bits of a tune vs. half the original song) But in this way the technology allows for folks with a lesser degree of creativity to get over.

Graycap23 said:

Imagine if they had made it illegal back in late 1979 when The Sugarhill Gang sampled Chic's "Good Times" for their hit "Rapper's Delight".Problem would have been solved

DavidEye said:

I wish.....

Graycap23 said:

they could have nipped it in the bud back then

sampling has always been around, Michael Jackson sampled RIck James bassline for Thriller, Keith Sweat sampled the drum pattern of Suga Free Juicy on make It Last forever, sampling nor hip hop never messed up rnb, it is technology,drum machine, synth, keyboards that have basslines which has killed the middleman or musicians in rnb,producers know if they master this technology they don't have to pay a musician a penny, and can make the money off the artist, ppoint blank

but sampling is a good thing, it created rap music, the most powerful music ever created,

DavidEye said:

The thing is, that is how rap started.....The DJ would play the instrumental of a song and the rapper would rap over it. There is nothing wrong with that, cause that's how it was done. Back in the day, you would fine the vocal version of a song on side "A" and the instrumental version on side "B". That's the beauty of rap music. The problem is when R&B artist take an old song and sing new words to it. They and their producers do not even bother to change it up a bit. They just lift it and use it. That's my problem with it.

BEENBANNED said:

please say you're being sarcastic

shorttrini said:

I disagree,there is something wrong with that! Thanks to sampling,non-musicians like P.Diddy was able to go out there and become one of the hottest "producers" of the 90s.It's lazy and uninspired.

I might could play with that one and figure parts of it out. At least I recognize the slide controls to bring the volume up on the different songs.

The one I saw had a screen that looked kinda like this.....



I'm thinking to myself, what the fuck does this hospital chart have to do with music. The ups and downs were the highs, lows, and beat level of the song. Hell, I have to hear a song to mix it, not look at it.

Graycap23 said:

Amend, to the 70's


SO tired of hearing about the next great thing and then I ask does he or she

a: compose original music

b: arrange vocals parts

c: play an instrument

Most of the times the answer is no.. Then you hear them sing live and they can barely keep it in key.

But hey people keep buying this Shit so can you fault the labels for pushing it?

aalloca said:

I am constantly amazed that people accept the LOW standards of today's so called artist. I really don't get it.

I could not eat if I were an A&R guy 2day. 95% of the artist on the top 200 I would have told 2 get LOST.

Graycap23 said:

At times, I'm amazed, too... then I remember how easily youths like myself (no doubt, most of the people who buy and listen to Top 40 garbage) can be deceived and how much a lot of Top 40 songs are like subliminal advertising as a result: Take watered-down, catchy beat/hook that lodges itself in your brain, a "hip image", some sex appeal... BOOM. Here the kids come flocking because they don't know any better.

I was listening 2 James Brown before I could walk or talk. Thank GOD I did NOT grow up with the mess that is music 2day.

Graycap23 said:

I wish I were you, but I'm also lucky (strictly in a way) that I'm growing up in a generation of booming technology so I can SEARCH for music of higher quality.