What makes Daft Punk any different from these vaporwave/future funk fuccbois like Saint Pepsi?

They both pretty much do the same thing (take an old song, sample it, chop it, add a house beat) yet people praise Daft Punk as geniuses and disregard future funk as meme music. I don't get it.

>>61064680
Don't worry they're both terrible

>>61064680
did you even listen to the track embeded in the link? they brilliantly chop up that vocal sample so it's near unrecognizable.

>>61064738
Not talking specifically about that song, just in general. Not saying they're a bad band either, just wondering why one's considered serious and the other not when they're pretty much the exact same thing.

>>61064769
I think it's part of the nostalgia factor, really. A lot of us grew up with Daft Punk, everybody knows them, they're a sort of household name. Plus, I think artists like Saint Pepsi have a more consistent history of letting samples run on forever, while Daft Punk tend to be a bit more creative overall.

Daft Punk have some of the deepest samples ever, part of it is that Bangalter's dad was actually a disco producer so as a kid he had access to not just tons of records but like source material and individual tracks. If you don't get it, that's fine, but to some of us it's pretty nuts.

Oh holy fuck I hear it. The only thing is the song is more elongated.

My jaw dropped when I heard it.
That's incredible.

>>61064643
holyshit
i knew this guys did a really great job with sampling on discovery, but fucking pooh? lmao
i'll always love daft punk, even tho ram was shit

i can't hear it
what's being sampled, the vocals?

>>61065998
yes, the vocals. check the specific timestamps on that page.

>>61064643
I always wanted to know what the fuck this sample was and I'm pretty surprised.

>>61064680

Why is it called future funk when Daft Punk did it 20 years ago?

>>61066200
different aesthetic