Enjoy and feedback needed.

Artists should be paid for being sampled. I find it a bit non-creative to sample someone so heavily. In the first 2 minutes, some MFer said he took a meshing of many other sounds (ie: other artist's music) and made something totally new. How new is it, really? We've heard it before, maybe not in THAT way, but how is that new? It's like the "Reimagined" (aka defecated - regurgitated) 1999 bullshit recently discussed.

In some ways, despite the "talent" of spinning records and making sounds, DJing is a lazy way of making music. It's one thing to create a loop of YOUR OWN in a drum machine (Prince did it) or with ProTools, and work over that. But if someone is creating new lyrics over an old record, how original is that really? It's a draw.

Angie Stone did good with stuff like "Wish I Didn't Miss You", "No More Rain In This Cloud", yet how original is it? The loops of The O'Jays, and Gladys Knight (among others in her music) aren't new, despite new production on it and different lyrics. Maxwell did this, but he did it in a remix, not a straight ahead album cut.

I've often said if it weren't for 70's R&B, people like Will Smith or Diddy wouldn't have a fucking career. That being said, these DJs wouldn't have a thing to do either. But that doesn't excuse them blatantly using someone else's material. Guarantee you, if someone bogarted these DJ's spins and put it on their own albums, the DJs would go bonkers to get their $$$.

Sampling is lazy, sometimes. A sample is one thing, but when the song depends on the sample, I lose a bit of interest sometimes. Even being a Janet fan I can lose interest in a song like "All For You", which relies on the Chance sample more than something like "That's The Way Love Goes" or "If", which just borrows here and there.

I watched this documentary last night. It's very good.

I don't really have a problem with sampleing. It did bother me where some of these artists tried to downplay the sigificance of the sampled work. "It just a few bars" or " It's just James Brown's yells".

It also stuck me that one of the artist did't know who the person was that he use to sample. I don't know why I was stock that they sample people who they don't know.

Clyde stubblefield is such a great dummer.

I don't feel too strongly about sampling either, matter of fact I credit it for being my FIRST outlet to expand my music knowledge long before the internet since it introduced types of music to me that I probably wouldn't come across to otherwise.

However, the Shock G comment left You're comparing a sampler to a photographer as opposed to a painter who takes more time to capture a portrait? GTFOH!

ive watched it , and it was entertaining. but sampling ... is still riding other peoples tails . glorify other peoples hard work. this also reminds me of the fact that cds had its longest time , sigh

Harlepolis said:

Sampling can lead to exploring and discovering different types of music and singers.
Stock G :
[Edited 1/20/10 12:59pm]

ernestsewell said:

I agree with you, if sampling is done well- I can dig it. But a song like All For You pretty much is "Glow of Love" for me.

It's the same thing with Monica's new songs that Missy produced. Everything (To Me) is just Deniece William's "Silly" with new lyrics.

Harlepolis said:

True too! I did learn a lot about other artist from reading credits. It made me want to go back and hear the original song.
Unfortunately- in this era of stealing music- some people lack the patience to research.

i love sampling.

although i can see why some people dont like when artists just jack loops without altering them.

edit: i didnt realize prince used funky drummer for "my name is prince". dope
[Edited 1/20/10 17:09pm]

minneapolisFunq said:

sometimes it revives old songs , i mean the sample for nothing but a g thang got a new life

I wish they would OUTLAW sampling all together.

Its not a cut and dry topic. Its not simple. Years ago I made this comparison on here and I'll do it again:
You take something like one of PE's tracks versus something Diddy put out. There's a world of difference. Diddy's music rides off the sample of a song that everyone already knows. People like the Shocklee brothers and J Dilla made musical collages. Now I am and always will be on the side of musicians in these sort of debates but at the same time, to ignore technological advances is to most certainly doom yourself to being the "outnumbered and outgunned" lone soldier. The music industry is learning this right now as a result of turning a blind eye to mp3s instead of embracing them full on from the beginning. There is art in making collages just as there is art in painting a blank canvas. I personally believe they are on different levels but they are both art.
And Harlepolis, Shock G was right. You go to a photographer and tell him his picture can't be considered art and he/she would cut you down and the law would back them up on it. Photographs are protected forms of artwork, which is why some of the people on here who side with Prince in believing the subject should have some say-so as to what happens to the pictures they are in come off as ridiculous. The law is firm on its position of the protection of photographic works as art. The author of the picture is the owner; period. In a sense, a sampler is exactly that, only in audio form. The problem comes in when proper credit is not given. THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE. The hip-hop headz HAVE to understand the importance of giving proper credit. Like the one dude in the video was saying "...its like I have all of these famous musicians in my band." Well, if you are using a piece of all of these professional musicians' work, then you must at the very least give them all credit for their work and you also have to come to grips with the fact that you may also have to PAY THEM. That's where all of the trouble comes in. Getting clearance nowadays is pretty standard. I think "hitriders" like Puffy should be exposed at every turn but I also understand and respect the art of collage and I wouldn't discourage creativity in any form. The fact remains that you have to draw boundaries. There are twelve notes in the Western scale and they've all been played before. If we don't draw lines, you can call anyone a copycat. At the same time, when someone rides a sample; someone elses "hit", they have to understand that they can't expect to profit without giving up credit and money to the artist that made the song.
Its a complex issue that has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis.

BlaqueKnight said:

All that u stated it true.....but my stance is pretty simple.
Either u can create your own music or u can't.

I like the photographer/painter comparison actually.

That's why cameras aren't allowed in museums.

Graycap23 said:

I like that new Amerie song

Graycap23 said:
Either u can create your own music or u can't.[/quote]

And where's the line? Should you then apply that to mean that only multi-instrumentalists who write every single note, sing every word and write every lyric on their records count as people who "create their own music"? That would even shrink Prince's catalog down to little, since he uses musicians all of the time and always has.
My point is, they ARE creating music, just not in the way that was traditionally laid out for them. They are embracing the technology of the time period. There was much protest of the use of electric guitars but its almost inconceivable to imagine music without them now. Technology of the times.

Cinnie said:

Well, that and the fact that strong flashes of light deteriorate very fragile and old pieces of paper. cloth, scultures, etc. Light is a mutha-fu**er. Just ask "fill-in-the-blank-with-whatever-wrinkled-old-celeb-you-like"

Graycap23 said:

THAT would put a lot of people out of work, and perhaps rightly so. It would also perhaps push musical creativity more than it has been pushed in the past 20 years.

BlaqueKnight said:

And where's the line? Should you then apply that to mean that only multi-instrumentalists who write every single note, sing every word and write every lyric on their records count as people who "create their own music"? That would even shrink Prince's catalog down to little, since he uses musicians all of the time and always has.
My point is, they ARE creating music, just not in the way that was traditionally laid out for them. They are embracing the technology of the time period. There was much protest of the use of electric guitars but its almost inconceivable to imagine music without them now. Technology of the times.

Cinnie said:

Well, that and the fact that strong flashes of light deteriorate very fragile and old pieces of paper. cloth, scultures, etc. Light is a mutha-fu**er. Just ask "fill-in-the-blank-with-whatever-wrinkled-old-celeb-you-like" [/quote]
The line is simple. No using sample/snippets of somebody else's work. Seems pretty simple 2 me. (not the same as replaying/recreating the work like cover songs)

Graycap23 said:

But its hypocritical to "allow" interpolations because that is NOT creating.
The reality is that people use what they have to make what they want. Technology will always change and grow and adjustments will always have to be made accordingly. You can't stop progress, even if it sometimes seems like regression.

BlaqueKnight said:

I'm not mad at the no talents using samples. I just can't stand it. I wouldn't mind if they outlawed covers as well but I think that is going 2 far.

Sampling is fine as a concept.

Imagine a visual artist using found objects to create a new piece. They include bits of a newspaper or magazine in a painting, or a piece of fabric as part of a sculpture. They don't create those bits, but if the new work is creative, who cares?

The only problem with sampling is the lazy use of someone else's hook as your own hook.

Cinnie said:

I tried to see it from his view and all I ended up with was a chuckle

Either folks put themselves on a pedestal way too easily or they're some lazy mofos when they compare themselves to "photographers as opposed to painters", in fact he damn near insulted them with that remark. Its not easy to take a photograph and make it memorable, just like an instrument you have to craft it, set the lighting, study the angles and evaluate the result. I could sample a song right now and build a beat over it but I know its nothing but a rerun to the original source, not putting those who sample down but it is what it is.

Photographers are as crucial as painters,,,,,people like Carl Van Vechten & Gordon Parks didn't take photographers of Picasso's portraits they told stories as he did, perhaps even more vivid than he did,,,but this is neither here nor there. Fact of the matter is, sampling is not, cannot, will not by remotely like photographing.

Shock G needs to lay off the dog food and kick it cold turkey with his corny ass

"real" musicians sample, too. They use the same chords, chord sequences, & beats as other musicians.

Just because they don't use an actual recording doesn't mean it's any less of a sample. I learn chords from other guitar players and try to find a way to use them in my own music. Just like we all sample phrases that we hear other people speak.

It's all about how its used as to whether it's creative or not.

NDRU said:

I hear u.....but don't agree.

Graycap23 said:

yeah, the thing is so many of today's artists are blatantly relying on them for their "new" hook, it's hard to defend them

Like that tune by M.I.A., it was a cool sounding song, but it's The Clash. I don't know. If she gives credit, maybe it's okay as a sort of re-make?

And to use the comparison to people using found objects to create new art, I still think original art is generally more exciting.

Which of these is more amazing?

but here's an example of Picasso "sampling"




[Edited 1/21/10 13:36pm]

NDRU said:

Honestly, covers, remakes, and sampled music bores me 2 tears. Every now and then I'll hear something that inspires me but as a rule, musically I could live without it.

Graycap23 said:

I have to say I agree. Sometimes someone can give old music new life, but not often.

Well I do sample a snare that I like or a hi hat from songs if I was making an original tune myself..and when I actually DO sample a tune or background, it's mostly an instrumental; I am just doing for a hobby. If I was a REAL ARTIST I would definitley not use any of those tracks, I'd re-do them with a live band or re-do them originally to prevent getting sued.


I see nothing wrong with sampling as long as YOU are not getting paid for your "composition" and you are doing it free.

I've been checking on Rich Harrison and he has stopped sampling lately..I guess those royalites were getting too high for him.