>it (sampling) shouldn't be seen any differently than someone playing guitar or something
can we discuss this notion? When you think about it it's actually a really futuristic way to think
>>64637414
that is an actual quote from Dean's interview on NPR btw
I'm fucking tired of these talentless hacks looking at songs as interactive playthings. They're only creative property and that's that. Just because you don't respect copyright material or intellectual property doesn't give you the right to use them.
/rant
>>64637527
you aren't seeing the big picture.
What's the difference between using some recording or using some instrument? the instrument isn't original either
>>64637593
No
This is one of the reasons I hate modern music. Any dip can get good at production and called themselves musicians. It's fucking disgusting.
>>64637593
Uh the difference is someone actually played a fucking part on a real instrument.
What I don't understand is that these "producers" can't be bothered to just learn the necessary skills required to make their own sounds. Why do they have to take the laziest way out and use something other people already made?
>>64637724
music is an arbitrary axiom and not even art
>>64637414
only if done creatively
its still a skill how u arrange it
when I sample to make backing beats I try to use small sections and rearrange them, repitch them, reverse them, add effects etc etc
so that they bear very little resemblance to the original recording/track
>>64637787
why does it matter if somebody played an instrument if it still sounds the same?
you're acting like technical ability makes the music sound better
>>64637803
What? Speak English, poindexter. I'm not some art school city slicker starbucks drinker.
>>64637846
feels like summer in this thread
>>64637846
it shows
>>64637724
just like anyone can get a camera now and take pictures with higher quality than the best photographers in the world could a short time ago. That's just the way technology works.
>>64637787
that doesn't make it sound different though.
we are amassing junk data at a rate that is incomprehensible. There is already more than recorded audio than anyone could ever listen to in a trillion years and that's growing exponentially everyday. In the future people aren't going to think anything of it if someone is expressing themselves by selecting and altering bits of that archive.
>>64637845
Firstly, it's a matter of principle. Stop supporting lazy artists.
Secondly, no it does not sound the same. It sounds like something that has already been recorded and then chopped up and copied and pasted. The point is that the same sounds, and really, better sounds, can be made by just playing the real instruments.
>>64637917
>Stop supporting lazy artists
why? what's wrong with being layzy
>>64637814
I know people like that, this is honestly the weirdest attitude.
You steal something and change it, somehow not stealing, you steal something change it very little, suddenly it's stealing. it's really nonsensical when you look objectively
>>64637593
>the instrument isn't original either
Well, it's a tool to create original music. In contrast, music (to be sampled) alreday exists as music.
It's like a hammer that is used to build something from scratch, as opposed to just taking the already-finished something and turning it upside down and calling it something else.
>>64637527
[jerk-off motion]
>>64637414
this picture is the best picture is the best work that this (what his name?) UK dj/rapper made
he literally farts on his records
>>64637814
>>64637959
Why not just create the beat yourself in the firstplace?
early dean blunt is one of the laziest displays of sampling out there. he literally loops samples and do his karaoke thing on top of them, not even bothering to chop em or add some effects half of time. this shit is more lazy than vaporwave. his work from redeemer and forward feels more authoral
I like sampling but it can be done good and bad. You shouldn't samples large sections of a work and barely change it. You should use it as another way to create sections of music, not as a tape recorder to just record and play back.
>>64638020
dean is a self taught musician.
his earlier work was him sd owing down jam sessions from his days with graffiti island
>>64638023
pretty much this, but looping can be really good when done right (see: rebel without a pause) because it makes something no one even knew could exist
dean is basically bang on here tho i've been saying this for ages, like what is the creative difference between using a piano or a synth or a sample, they are all just external things you find and exploit
>>64637917
>better sounds,
there's nothing that makes those sounds better.
There's no inherent value to playing an instrument.
>>64637960
>it's a tool
tools get more sophisticated all the time though.
This archive we have access to is a tool. you can sit down at a computer and find sounds just like you sit at a piano and find melodies.
>>64638006
how do you do that? 99% of the time people are still using samples.
>>64638087
>you can sit down at a computer and find sounds just like you sit at a piano and find melodies.
Which is more difficult (read: takes more talent)?
>how do you do that?
You don't play any percussion instruments?
>>64638079
I'm talking about his work with inga
>>64638124
Creating something new and interesting from something already in existence does take talent. I don't know how you can deny the talent it takes to make heavily layered sample heavy music like Endtroducing or Since I Left You.
Huh how interesting that the people who listen to the shittiest music happen to know nothing about the technical aspects of it
>>64638174
circular logic
This argument is the same argument that people have against synthesizers and electronic drums.
Just because it fucking uses electricity doesn't mean it doesn't take talent and creativity to use correctly. If using samples or synths somehow was so easy that any monkey could do it, then they WOULD be doing it. Making music doesn't become simple just because you use a different method than physically strumming a guitar.
>>64638165
>Creating something new and interesting from something already in existence does take talent
I didn't say it didn't.
What takes more talent: to create something from something, or create something from nothing?
>>64637414
not sure where some of you are getting the idea that music should take skill. or that thats even a way to think about music.
>>64638199
Stop acting like playing synths and drums is the same as literally copying and pasting other people's music
>>64638165
>oh cool a drum beat lets repeat it endlessly
>then layer on some fUnKy SoUnDs
dope trax man
>>64638199
>implying synths aren't sentient and make music by themselves at the push of a button
Gary Numan is a hack.
>>64638221
Probably creating something from something if you make it sound completely different. Any idiot can strum a guitar or press keys on a piano. It's not "from nothing" anyway, the sounds are all available on the instrument with the right combination of keys or fret positions. You're just deciding how to combine them, which is exactly what people using samples have to do as well.
>>64638199
there's good, creative, authoral sampling and there's retarded, plagiarism-tier sampling
the avalanches, negativland and db's recent releases do creative sampling
vaporwave kiddies and some of db's early stuff: bad, lazy sampling
>>64638145
me too
>>64638165
this is correct
>>64638221
that's an absurd question since it fully depends on what you're doing
you can just as easily sample shittily as play the geetar shittily, and it's just as hard to sample well as it is to play geetar well
>>64638221
The question is why does that matter? Art isn't about difficulty. Non-creative types always try to assert that art isn't art if it didn't take 500 hours and 40 different people to create. This is the same kind of argument that music that isn't technically difficult to play isn't good.
>>64638235
Except it isn't "copy pasting". The implication you present by using that terminology is that you're just taking a CD by Queen, saying "hey I made this" and making millions. You know that isn't how it works.
>>64638235
>oh cool a guitar, let's play a major G chord endlessly
>then croon some high pitched lyrics over it, so artsy!
You can make shitty music using anything you twat.
>>64638317
I'm >>64638303 and I'm wishing I typed this post
110% correct
>>64638283
Then how is sampling different than real instruments? You can make shitty, unoriginal, uninspired music using any method you like, including guitar and piano. Please explain to me how sampling is different besides the fact that it's newer.
>>64638354
I never said it was.
But we shouldn't be lenient with bad sampling.
>>64638124
>percussion instruments?
lamo duh. But anyway 90 percent of the time there's still sampling going on even when people are drumming in music nowadays.
>>64638124
>Which is more difficult (read: takes more talent)?
that's not really true. It's way easier to sit down at an instrument. There are established patterns you can use to evoke certain reactions, these are all thoroughly documented, and you are limited to the range of your instrument.
Sampling you are faced with an infinitely more complex material, literally any sound, which you then have to decide which out of billions is going to elicit the most emotional effect and you have to discover that sample by rout listening, you aren't given the biofeedback that a instrumentalist has while he plays a rhythm or melody and his body leads him to meaningful patterns.
>>64638221
>create something from nothing?
this isn't what instrumentalists do.
>>64638391
It's too bad you typed out all that bullshit
>>64638379
I'm not, and I didn't say that we should be. There's no need to be overly harsh like half this thread is either though.
I don't really see why sampling deserves more scrutiny than dime a dozen indie artists playing the same 4 chords and singing about the same 4 things. Why should they get a pass just because they're using one of the most generic instruments on the planet?
>>64638391
You're not just "playing notes" on an instrument, dynamics and harmony come into play.
>>64638418
Depends on your notion of instrumentalist. If you mean a classical player who just follows scores, sure, he is not creating, but if you are writing your own music, then you are creating, and I can assure you almost everyone with an instrument does that.
>>64638418
Stop being a dense fucking dick.
>take an otherwise silent instrument
>use your mind, body and soul to create sounds
>take a recording of what was mentioned above, made by other people
>chop it up and paste it together another way
See how it's different, retard?
So if sampling is "cheating", then what else is cheating when it comes to music? Using established chords?
Did Xenakis cheat by basing his music off of mathematical formulas?
>>64638480
>Using established chords?
You can create your own chords.
>>64638477
Or take an existing piece of music and use your mind, body and soul to create sounds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbFIGFv4GLQ
>>64638458
>but if you are writing your own music, then you are creating
No more so than someone sampling. You're not "creating" notes. The instrument is capable of a certain amount of notes and you're just deciding how to combine them. It's no different than having a bank of samples and deciding how to combine them.
>dynamics and harmony
You can do this with sampling too.
>>64638477
>soul
>mind
these are not real things anon
>>64637959
There's a difference between choosing a sample because there's something that will fit into the song, and choosing a sample because you know you can alter it and get the sound you want. The former is more akin to DJing, where the interest is putting sounds in new contexts.
"Sampling is not a valid art form", said the guy who plays no instrument and has no actual knowledge of music theory or even art whatsoever: The Thread
>>64638516
That will take less work because mind body and soul was already used to create it in the first place.
>>64637414
test
>>64638505
You really aren't. If you think that in the history of mankind, there is some combination of notes that have never been played together that YOU are somehow inventing, then you're lying to yourself.
Like, how stupid do we want to be with this argument? Is using an instrument cheating? Really it is, when you think about it. All you're doing is manipulating a tool someone else made to make notes that someone else has also already made. Ordering them in a different way is something, but it'll be pretty similar to something that someone else already made.
This is how retarded the argument gets when you try to argue that originality is the most necessary thing of all time.
>>64638572
And he used mind body and soul to create a completely new, unique, original piece of art.
>>64638587
>You really aren't. If you think that in the history of mankind, there is some combination of notes that have never been played together that YOU are somehow inventing, then you're lying to yourself.
Same logic applies to timbre being manipulated digitally
>>64638604
*less mind body and soul.
>>64638480
Doing I-V-vi-V or any kind of shitty overused pop progression is cheating.
Really, cheating is just using the bare minimum effort to produce a result, if you're basing off some formula, you're working, if you're creating, if you're using a drum machine as a backing track, you're still creating.
>>64638528
>The instrument is capable of a certain amount of notes and you're just deciding how to combine them.
Every stringed instrument technically has an infinite number of microtonal notes
Mixing different samples at various volume is not dynamics by the way, and you can't improvise it either.
le sampling is cheating
fuck off nobody wants to slave hours anymore to create original material just to have some blogger brat pan my album and die broke
sampling saves me time
>>64637414
>like dean blunt needs security
who would be after him?
>>64638587
not him but you can do the reverse though and say that everything is original because the listener is constantly changing
or everything is original because you can never duplicate a file with no errors
>>64638637
fat white boys like yourself
>>64638317
>>oh cool a guitar, let's play a major G chord endlessly
Give examples of this.
>>64638613
Not less, the same. Different piece of music, same mind body and soul.
I'm not going to bother anymore because you are going to completely ignore facts.
>"A phonograph in the hands of a 'hiphop/scratch' artist who plays a record like an electronic washboard with a phonographic needle as a plectrum, produces sounds which are unique and not reproduced - the record player becomes a musical instrument."
>>64637787
someone actually build/designed/invented an instrument
you just followed a set of rules to make a desired sound using it
>>64638637
systems of oppression towards blacks and black males especially
>>64638681
>Different piece of music, same mind body and soul.
Not really, because the genesis already exists. Otherwise, you'd have to create the genesis yourself.
>>64638631
Buckethead released 247 albums in 2015 just by himself. Sounds like you're just shit m8.
>>64638681
Pierre Schaeffer, John Cage, Christian Marclay, and Otomo Yoshihide would all agree too.
>>64638674
Neutral Milk Hotel
>>64638624
>Every stringed instrument technically has an infinite number of microtonal notes
Okay, but nobody outside of people experimenting with microtonality every use this. I don't know how this matters when the same is true for samples too.
>you can't improvise it either
How can you not improvise samples? You have a keyboard with a sample bank and you do the same thing as if you would improvise with a piano, keyboard, or synthesizer by itself.
>>64638692
>what is treated guitar/piano
>>64638725
Which song, specifically.
>>64638624
Why is I-V-vi-V more cheating then following a formula? For instance, I know nothing about music theory, but I've copied the formula of Bach's fugues before. That didn't really take any great musical talent.
Here's some more fun questions. Is this cheating? Using a theme that another composer wrote?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcJHGC8kq5I
You don't even have to come up with the theme, you can just change a few of the notes then suddenly boom, you're amazing..
>>64637414
the notion you present is simply not true. the total free creativity of a musician is based upon their relationship to their body: age health stamina practice and discipline finding ways to improve and create. not every drummer can compose a phrase within a series of 32nd or 64th notes and play at that pace indefinitely. with a drum machines, anyone can. free jazz i think will always be the acme of creativity. Which is not to say sampling isnt music and isnt creative: of course it is. you have to have excellent ability to invent and to hear and a great sense of phrasing and structure and inventiveness. but the time/physicality of the music will always be the slow, copy, pasting, nudging, warping, munging, autotuning of samples. you need two fingers and some good ideas. there is a fundamental freedom of expression and humanity discipline and genius that only performance will have. not denegrating other things, but they are in fact different.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz7XROLowMo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz7XROLowMo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz7XROLowMo
>>64638446
lazy sampling ==> literal plagiarism
lazy guitar playing ==> potential plagiarism
>>64638858
why did you post this?
>>64638825
What kind of retardation is this? In the modern age, somehow art has to be tied to completely analog means, otherwise it "doesn't count"? You're the kind of person I mentioned earlier, who thinks that technical difficulty determines quality. This is the results of a non-creative person attempting to understand creativity.
>>64638858
wow u sure showed me breh , one shitty musician has brought down all of civilized society, finally we can begin anew thanks to your help.
>>64638825
They are different but one is not worth less than the other. Composition will always trump physical ability to play and you do no less composing with samples than you do with a guitar or any other instrument. Some genres do require physical playing ability, like you mentioned jazz, but then I don't think anyone has made jazz using samples.
>>64638858
faggot deleted my comment when i called him a fake roadman
>>64638728
Blues player use microtonality, simply by doing slow bends and vibrato.
Fretless basses are common as well, and they're microtonal.
I won't even mention the plethora of traditional eastern music that doesn't follow tones as we do.
I shouldn't have said you can't improvise using samples, but you are really limited in what you can do with it, I doubt it's possible to reach the level of harmonic creativity you can find in improvisation on an instrument.
>>64638858
S H I T
>>64638437
you did>>64638437
>all that bullshit
>>64638458
>You're not just
youre not just sampling either, you have more dynamic options in the way you use a sample than how you articulate a not on and instrument. playing an instrument is still way simpler. >>64638458
>dynamics and harmony come into play.
dynanics and harmony aka playing notes lamo
>>64638477
>>use your mind, body and soul to create sounds
people use the instrument to make sounds. a sampler is just as silent and just as operated by a body
>>64638458
>Depends on your notion of instrumentalist
no it doesn't instrumentalists are almost always playing with shit that other people made.
>>64638556
you are still changig the context of sounds at the end of the day be it a note on a guitar or a sample
>>64638557
this lamo
I'm serious when I say it's harder. I play guitar and make electronic music and the former is way easier. I know people that play instruments and it's almost always just the same up and down shit. It astounds me. I think most people playing instruments traditionally or who only listen to that shit don't really even listen. people just hear shit harmonically and groove with riffs and shit. The whole rest of music, timbre, spacial relations, etc are all just invisible to these people. That's why normies think it's just noise when they hear idm or whatever.
Anyone else notice and or get frustrated by that?
In 1939 it was called experimental music to take 2 variable-speed phonograph turntables and make music with them.
>>64638907
>damage control
>>64638866
This is a good argument, thanks
>>64638866
Oh, so now art and musicianship are being tied to legal matters, sweet! That really helps your argument. Is this how it is for you, you sit there and take notes on how perhaps a melody or chord infringes on some copyright, then you make a list of "good artists" based on who scored the best?
>>64638804
>you can just change a few of the notes
that's how most guitarists and people do shit anyway
>>64638941
>I play guitar and make electronic music and the former is way easier.
Maybe because you are a poor guitarist
>wow barre chords are so easy!!!
>>64638915
he deletes all negative comments
dean is a very sensitive dude
why does /mu/ hate dean blunt
>>64638941
>dynanics and harmony aka playing notes lamo
Because playing a G and then an A is the same as using glissando between a G and an A, and also the same as doing both with staccato.
>no it doesn't instrumentalists are almost always playing with shit that other people made.
what is improvisation ?
>>64638986
So we've reached the logical conclusion to this argument, which is that all music is bad because there is some aspect of it which isn't original.
>>64638858
This makes me proud to be British
>>64639027
playing with != copying
playing with != reproducing
playing with != the same music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIFH4XHU228
Shorty fell in love with a hustler
More questions that no one will be able to satisfactorily answer.
Is the Aeneid bad because it's basically a stolen character from Homer's Iliad and Odyssey, which are characters which are basically stolen from other, older writings?
>>64639012
idk why his punk ass is pretending to be a g
>>64639014
because marcel likes dean blunt
>>64638985
i'm not talking about legal matters
the laziest mode imaginable of sampling equals inherent stealing since you're dealing with someone else's music.
the laziest mode of guitar playing is some retard repeating the same three basic chords ad nauseam, which is also uncreative, but isn't as morally dubious as claiming someone else's music as yours.
>>64639080
Did he use the exact same dialog the characters said, or just simply the idea of the characters?
>>64639066
your post makes no sense anon
>>64638825
>. there is a fundamental freedom of expression and humanity discipline and genius that only performance will have.
why is that different?
your post reads like someone going great lengths to explain why even though horses are limited and shitty, they are always going to have certain inherent qualities that make them superior transportation to our futuristic teleportation machines.
Seriously, I don't think people are understanding this issue in terms of technology and culture. If people could look more objectively with sociological imagination they would realize sampling isn't any different.
>>64639080
>sampling in literature
Deplorable. Fuck Rome I hope the mongols destroy it again.
>>64639102
Except sampling isn't claiming someone elses music is yours, and you know that.
>yfw talking is unoriginal because you're just sampling a dictionary
>>64639102
You can make your own samples.
>>64639091
hes not pretending to be a g. its obvious its insincire in that aspect but sincere in others.
>>64638557
You dumb motherfucker I've been playing bass, guitar and drums for the last 12 years and I've been producing music just as long. I'm not saying that sampling is not a valid art form, but I am saying that it's lazy bullshit and that it takes much more actual work and talent to properly play the musical instruments AND properly produce the recordings you jackasses want to copy and paste into boom bap slackjaw beats.
>>64639153
He's not saying all sampling is stealing
But if you take a sample, add a basic 4/4 drum pattern on it and call it a song, it's stealing
>>64639118
Playing with others peoples music doesn't remove or lessen personal creativity and ''soul and mind'' with the final piece of art.
>>64639173
so hes playing a insecure immature g?
>>64639014
He is a hack
>>64638907
>In the modern age, somehow art has to be tied to completely analog means, otherwise it "doesn't count"?
i pretty explicitly didnt say this. you should calm down, eat your tendies and consider what i wrote for some time.
>>64638911
i clearly said i was not denigrating electro/sampling music, and acknowledged its creativity and power as music.
>I don't think anyone has made jazz using samples
thats interesting to think about.
Rashid ali vs all the mixing and scratching of a turntablist
john cage giving a performer an empty page
a composer who never touches an instrument dominating a performers body/paying for the duration of a piece
just thinking aloud
milford graves composing in a group for the free expression of all players
>>64639178
Those are called remixes.
>>64639177
How does it feel to be playing the same instruments with the same notes as people did centuries ago? You have never done anything original.
>>64639110
He took the character, major events that are depicted in an incredibly similar manner and all characters associated with those events, and told parts of the same story from this stolen characters perspective.
Like, literally the entire Roman Pantheon is Greek gods renamed with more Latin sounding names. The Aeneid is great but if the main argument of this thread is that originality is more important than anything else when it comes to art, then it's a god damned piece of shit that should be burned.
>>64639142
>>64639153
this whole thing is an answer to the question here>>64638446
>I don't really see why sampling deserves more scrutiny than dime a dozen indie artists playing the same 4 chords
I gave a pretty sensible reason why I think lazy sampling (and I mean sampling someone else's music) is more deleterious than lazy instrument play. I'm not interested in all the tangents to this subject
>>64639177
The geetah is the easiest instrument to play.
>>64639122
>they are always going to have certain inherent qualities that make them superior transportation to our futuristic teleportation machines
thats exactly the opposite of what i said m8, ie YOU added the fucking value judgement tag line and i think YOU are the one denigrating one side of the argument over the other.
I am not.
>>64639223
Since it was not me who made it, they are inherently different.
>>64639233
So was it the exact same dialog or not?
>>64639244
>kazoo, harmonica, slide whistle, etc
>>64639223
>electric guitar through tube amplifiers and pedals
>electric bass with active system through solid state amplifiers
>modern drum set recorded with best microphones you can buy
>all of this recorded through the best preamps and software you can buy
Oh ya rly the same
>>64637917
>matter of principle
it is clear you don't care about actual music, but instead care about things like who did it first or if the lyrics "mean something"
please delete your /mu/ account
>>64639244
Alright go ahead and bust this one out for me real quick
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VAbrnjdtYw
>>64638124
>Which is more difficult (read: takes more talent)?
implying this matters at all in any way
>>64639296
Just after Wonderwall, bitches love Wonderwall.
>>64639285
>or if the lyrics "mean something"
Why wouldn't this be important in a song?
>>64639321
Why wouldn't it?
>>64639251
not that guy, but are you saying that real time work is more valuable than composed work?
i mean it's a bit of an extrapolation to say that but do you get where i am going?
because that seems to be the distinction you are making there
>>64639296
why wouldn't you link to a classical guitar player? wouldn't that prove your point much better?
>>64638911
>I don't think anyone has made jazz using samples.
Frank Zappa literally did that with a synthclavier>>64639027
>Because playing a G and then an A is the same as using glissando between a G and an A, and also the same as doing both with staccato.
That's still just playing notes you colossal retard.
>>64639027
>what is improvisation ?
completely irrelevant?
Unless you are Harry Partch you are still using shit other people made.
>>64638995
It's completely simple. You play guitar you only have to worry about one thing, playing guitar. It never gets more complicated than that. When working with samples in a computer I'm faced with hundreds of channels that all have to fit together and tons of new sounds I have to decide how to alter and create a full orchestral size arrangement. guitar just doesn't compare. I'm not the best guitarist, but I actually have been starting to play more because I'm finding myself too lazy to make electronic music and guitar is easier.
Plus playing an instrument is more fucking fun. I don't know how you can say electronic stuff is easier when a lot of the fucking time electronic stuff is just doing office work type shit at a machine, and playing guitar you get instantaneous biofeedback and fun.
>>64639296
Then you can make a vid of doing this exactly the same, k?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L9204LZDUc
>>64639321
If you don't know how to play instruments you have no real fucking idea how music fits together. Maybe that's why all sample boom bap music sounds like basic-tier composition.
>>64637917
Deans laziness is crucial to the formula dumbass
>>64637959
>pluck a string
>it sounds like every other musician who plucks the string
>>64639344
because the message of lyrics don't contribute to a piece musically in any way
>>64639362
Turntables aren't instruments, kid
PERIOD
>>64639382
>all sampling based art is ''boom bap music''
All rock is Nickelback amirite xD
>>64639361
>It's completely simple. You play guitar you only have to worry about one thing, playing guitar. It never gets more complicated than that
Well, what about recording and mixing guitar? What about the tone and timbre of the guitar? What about song composition? There are hundreds of variables. The fact that you are simplifying it shows you are just a barre chord wonder.
>>64639359
>anyone can play fast twiddly scales on a geetar hurrr!
That's why. The style of guitar Doc Watson plays is really difficult and a true talent - nothing like copying and pasting other people's music
>>64639405
>because the message of lyrics don't contribute to a piece musically in any way
Why not?
1) The lyrics could reflect the music.
2) the lyrics are being sung in a melody, that fits with the music.
>>64639251
ok then, if you didn't say it's 'better' then just substitue where I said better in my post with having a fundamental freedom of expression and humanity discipline and genius that only performance will have.
you fucking retard. Literally you are 'judging not judging'
>>64639361
>That's still just playing notes you colossal retard.
And yet it's not the same thing, despite being the same fucking notes. Which is where the magic happen, you are not fucking forced to play the note like some sort of boring fucking robot.
>You play guitar you only have to worry about one thing, playing guitar. It never gets more complicated than that
That's called being a bad guitarist anon. There's a metric shitton of things to think about, and you've got seconds to think about it. Not like in a studio where you can just take a break and come back to it later.
>>64639382
this is simply not true
please just go enjoy your summer break, kid
>>64639177
>he doesn't play a classical instrument
>thinks his opinion is valid
Here's your (You) :^)
These threads are so retarded, neither side will concede, whats the point?
>>64639504
>>he doesn't play a classical instrument
>what is classical guitar
>implying percussions were never used in orchestras
>>64639451
singing is a sound and effects music
lyrical themes and messages have no sound as they are thoughts
singing does not equal lyrics
>>64639504
How's upright bass for you, asshat?
In orchestras with pieces like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w38Io51YesQ
>>64639268
this is what kills me about fucking people. so many fucking musicians look down on electronic music and then they fucking gush about their pedals and amps and shit.
A guitarist wants a new tone, he literally just goes to the shop and buys a little box. Electronic music people on the other hand are actually taking ownership over their sound and doing extensive sound design and shit.
>>64639447
>it's an instrument because Mr. Genius Smart Hat Academic Snob said so
Ok kiddo
>>64639508
I've been lurking and see some sampling is easily equal to any pop/rock guitar based music, just as there is lots of really lazy sampling which is straight plagiarism, just as there is with copying in guitar music. You can't lump all sampling together, nor all guitar music.
Bottom line is both are shit compared to classical.
>>64639508
are you new or something?
>>64639549
>singing is a sound and effects music
The human voice is an instrument. Hence it is just a piece of the music.
>lyrical themes and messages have no sound as they are thoughts
If they are sung, they become part of the song.
>singing does not equal lyrics
lyrics does not solely equate spoken word.
>>64639599
>what is musical quotation?
>>64639574
I would have mentioned I also work with synthesizers but that wasn't the point. Calling manipulating samples "sound design" is pretty retarded.
>>64639346
I acknowledge thats where my statement leans, but its truly not the point im making. my point isnt real time, its about creativity. maybe my distinction cant hold up....can we point out differences without creating a value hierarchy?
because im not the one calling digital/electro/sample based stuff 'not-music'. and im the one asking the question of a 'traditional' composer in front a group of musicians giving them a set of instructions which he or she could never physically execute.
>>64639586
>its not an instrument because a spotty fat white kid on 4chan who posts irrelevant old people says so
loooooool
>>64639611
holy shit you are an actual retard
singing does effect music. it is a sound therefore it is musical.
the idea of a word does not effect sound, because you can't hear ideas
please go back to high school
>>64639483
im just pointing some shit out.
youre busy being the judgemental cocksucking faggot
>>64639629
Irrelevant unless you are comparing remixes and the laziest sampling to the pinnacle of guitar music. You wouldn't be this bias now would you?
>>64639493
>That's called being a bad guitarist anon
bullshit. all the 'metric ton of shit' there is to think about is called playing guitar you fucking retard.
it doesn't even compare to creating electronic shit.
>>64639426
>What about the tone and timbre of the guitar?
that mostly determined by equipment, the parts that aren't are still just playing guitar >>64639426
>what about recording and mixing guitar?
then you are sampling the guitar
>>64639669
>because you can't hear ideas
You can when they are sung.
Are you retarded?
>>64639703
why wouldn't you be comparing the pinnacle of sampling to the pinnacle of guitar music instead?
>>64639710
>then you are sampling the guitar
...some which was played by you. Hence, you are a part of the initial creation of the sound, unlike sampling someone else.
Now do you understand?
>>64639633
>Calling manipulating samples "sound design" is pretty retarded.
that statement is retarded and only shows you know absolutely dick about sound design lamo
>>64639728
ok, im done with 4chan until the underages leave
have a good summer, kid
>>64639779
"sound design" is literally creating sounds - like using some sort of synthesizer. Taking a drum beat you like from one song and looping it underneath some horn samples from another and some strings from another and some guitars from another is not sound design.
>>64639710
>bullshit. all the 'metric ton of shit' there is to think about is called playing guitar you fucking retard.
>the bassist following a progression and the drummer using a certain time measure is part of playing guitar
>that mostly determined by equipment
it's not, you get a bassier response by playing closer to the neck and a brighter response around the bridge, the angle of your pick is going to change the attack of the note, and the place where you play the note on the fretboard will change how it sounds.
>>64639758
Because the pinnacle of sampling and the pinnacle of guitar music both imply there's nothing wrong with them
>>64639758
That was my point.
People are comparing remixes and ''boom bap music'' to their most favored guitar music while the thread has many examples of sampling used whereas there is no possible detection of what the original piece was and the artist obviously created new music just utilising different instrumentation.
Comparing equals as you say makes this thread obsolete except to the most stubborn closed-minded guitar players.
>>64639792
>he proved me wrong?
>must be underage!!
>>64639823
Bleepfags are comparing their pinnacle to just 3-chord pop/rock. How is that OK?
>>64639792
Look dude you're fucking wrong. Song lyrics are just as important as melody or harmony if there are to be lyrics. Singing about buttered toast in the same melody as singing about your dead mother is not going to have the same effect. Think of Weird Al.
>>64639856
No one has compared complex sampling art to Foo Fighters or Bloodhound Gang ITT.
Not all sampling is bleep either, John Cage and Schaeffer never made /bleep/ music.
>>64639871
WHY
WOULD I EVER
EVER
ever
think of weird al?
please go be 15 somewhere else
>>64639772
that's in anyway to the discussion. it's literally not playing guitar. You can't include shit that's not playing guitar as part of playing guitar to make it seem more complicated than it is compared to sampling, especially when you are talking about sampling the guitar.
>>64639812
>Taking a drum beat you like from one song and looping it underneath some horn samples from another and some strings from another and some guitars from another is not sound design.
nice arbitrary definitions. not even gonna argue with your dumb ass just go ahead and explain how these people sampling shit are not doing sound design you colossal fucking dumb child
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li6TSwybqjU
>>64639821
>>64639821
>it's not, you get a bassier response by playing closer to the neck and a brighter response around the bridge, the angle of your pick is going to change the attack of the note, and the place where you play the note on the fretboard will change how it sounds.
holy shit I know, that's called playing guitar you retard and its no where near comparable to the options of articulation available when you can make literally ANY sound come out of a sampler
>>64639922
>no where near comparable to the options of articulation available when you can make literally ANY sound come out of a sampler
dude filters lmao
>>64639922
hahahahahahahahahaha
nice ridiculous move of the goalposts. Didn't know we were talking about foley now. hahaha you fucking idiot.
>>64639920
you literally just proved his point lmao
>>64639978
>dude filters lmao
what exactly do you think happens when you change the timbre of a guitar string with your finger?
this is the perfect example of why you sampling haters are completely retarded
>>64640015
you are a complete dumbass. still not gonna argue with you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjr1d-OOq3o
inb4 someone uses the word nonlinear
>>64640023
because spending hours just to go bleep bloop makes something more interesting right
>>64639914
>ITT
Nice goalpost shifting
>John Cage and Schaeffer never made /bleep/ music.
Were they proficient in other classical instruments?
>>64639922
>it's literally not playing guitar. You can't include shit that's not playing guitar as part of playing guitar to make it seem more complicated than it is compared to sampling
Of course it is. You are using selective reasoning to make sample-based music more complex than music produced with analog instruments. You are selectively comparing the act of strumming a guitar to the act of creating a completed electronic piece.
>>64640074
>Nice goalpost shifting
lol, so what, are we now talking about every living human on the planets conversations over the last millennia? This thread is the only thing that matters in this thread.
>>64640044
Why not just learn how to actually play instruments and make something really cool like this instead of 50 minutes of video game menu music?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS8O9fEa19Q
>>64640048
>le electronic music isn't real music meme
Is r3ddit down again?
>>64640124
Surprised you didn't just post Queen.
>>64640163
Yeah isn't it weird when real musicians show up on /mu/ nowadays
>>64640048
>because spending hours just to go bleep bloop makes something more interesting right
no, it was because of the thing you said about filters.
>>64640074
>>64640074
>Of course it is.
no it isn't. there's nothing selective about it. Even if you do include the mixing and production of a guitar in your argument it only weakens your position anyway because you are pointing out ways that playing guitar is in fact, just like sampling, by selectively including sampling in your definition of playing guitar. lamo
>>64640124
nice soft rock grandpa. I'll be over here in the fucking future with spaceships irony and transgenderism thank you very much
>>64640136
>it's artificial and "created" so it's obviously better
You're still playing notes, harmonies and rhythm faggot, you're not making anything better because you used samples.
>>64640188
except you are given more interesting options for sound design, literally any sound ever.
>>64640187
>Medeski, Martin & Wood
>soft rock
leave
>>64639552
>>64639523
Too bad I play violin
>>64640213
So what, your minor arpeggio's better because you had to filter a pile of shitty sounds that didn't work out ?
"sound design" doesn't mean shit if you're barely even composing something worthy
>>64637957
I can't listen to "musicians" that make me think "I could do this better and actually play it myself", they are way predictable, they lack the musicianship to actually make something interesting.
>>64640117
>lol, so what, are we now talking about every living human on the planets conversations over the last millennia
I guess you've never read one of these threads before?
Besides see >>64638317
>>64640187
>>64640187
>there's nothing selective about it
There is. You are comparing the non-end result of a guitar to the end-result of electronic music.
>you are pointing out ways that playing guitar is in fact, just like sampling, by selectively including sampling in your definition of playing guitar. lamo
Incorrect because sampling is the manipulation of pre-recorded audio. You could simply record yourself, that would not necessarily be sampling.
But what you (conveniently) fail to acknowledge is this step of recording that instrument in the first place. If you are sampling something, you are "getting out of" recording that initial sound. That is why it's less work (see: less talent involved).
>>64637846
i think you're lost, senpai
i get what you mean, but this isn't really the community for you
>>64640226
I don't care what the fuck it was it doesn't have any balls especially compared to the kind of music cool kids like
>>64640310
>You could simply record yourself, that would not necessarily be sampling.
it's still prerecorded even if you record yourself dumb fuck
>>64640310
>If you are sampling something, you are "getting out of" recording that initial sound. That is why it's less work
and the person playing the instrument is getting out of a different process that's not more or less difficult.
>>64640361
>it's still prerecorded even if you record yourself dumb fuck
That's not sampling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28music%29
>and the person playing the instrument is getting out of a different process that's not more or less difficult.
Not if they are a composer/engineer as well.
>>64640447
>Not if they are a composer/engineer as well.
wrong. they still have gotten out of the process the sampler has to undergo.
>>64640447
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sampling_%28music%29
>wikipedia
oh I am laffin
sampling is literally collage in aural form.
see what happened to collage as an artform? literal dated dada trash. sampling will suffer the same destiny.
>>64638087
>There's no inherent value to playing an instrument.
HAHAHA this is what 'producers' actually believe. jesus crist thats sad
It's a ridiculous comparison, because in sampling someone already did the work of arranging, performing and producing an entire complete work of art before you even touched it. A guitar note is just a single pitch ringing from a string, by itself it's just a note.
It's like saying rearranging a picture of the Sistine chapel has the same artistic merit as painting the Sistine chapel.
Sampling needs to fucking die, makes it so that any loser with a copy of Ableton can call himself a producer because they can slow down and add "lo-fi" filters to shitty 80s music.
>>64640538
>they still have gotten out of the process the sampler has to undergo.
That step is unnecessary. Just play the part you want.
>oh I am laffin
Why?
>>64640579
oh really?
http://www.damienhirst.com/texts1/series/kaleidoscope
thanks stan brakhage for the hot opinions
how about...
>>64637787
If it's so fucking simple, can you do me a favor and put together the follow up to Since I Left You for me, I've been waiting for it for far too long. Thanks.
>>64640644
>That step is unnecessary.
that's what makes it easier
>>64640632
the way instrumentalists treat sound is much more like how you think people treat sampling.
tons of people did all this work to make your instrument and create a whole system of harmony and melodic organization to guide what you do, and you just come along and pick some little variation on that sound, maybe use some other prebuilt effect to change it.
>>64640705
>slippery slope logic
lmao
>>64637873
Is that why it's turned into a shitshow over the past few weeks?
>>64637996
I believe you mean Steamy Ray Vaughn.
Sampling is a tool, like any other technique/instrument etc etc
I think sampling is GREAT, incredible. Flipping a sample is a very fun thing to do. HOWEVER, all too often you'll hear a great producer with samples, and then when you take samples away, he's actually trash. The samples do the heavy lifting. I think you should learn how to use samples, but also learn how to write music on your own.
>>64640680
wow just wow. only a bloody retard would take a mosaic for a collage. dont answer to me ever again, you mentally impaired fool.
>>64640733
>that's what makes it easier
Read: lazy musicians, less talent, etc
>>64637414
why discuss anything, the quote or whatever it is that you have says everything that needs to be said
>>64640762
yes
>>64640760
see:>>64640680
http://www.damienhirst.com/texts1/series/kaleidoscope
its only a slippery slope in the png. what happened when painters left the studios? then stopped having to represent reality? then stopped using paint? where is the limit?
>>64640733
No, it's not even remotely comparable. I've worked with samples, I'm not ignorant of the process. Because when I hit a fretted note on the guitar all that comes out is that note, when I hit a key that's been programmed to play back a chopped up sample I'm getting a fragment of the entirety of someone else's hard work. I'm literally taking someone elses work and claiming it as my own. The fact that Western music is divided into twelve pitches has no more inherent influence on a work of art than the fact the color wheel exists in painting.
>>64640760
>doesn't understand the point of the post
lmao
>>64640838
lol nice b8 mr minutiae
>>64640932
Are you baiting? That's not a collage dude.
>>64640887
well, truthfully, someone did the math to create an acceptable scale that determined where that fret was placed . .. not exactly the same as color
>>64640961
absolutely irrelevant hairsplitting, mr autismo
For some reason I just knew /mu/ couldn't have an intelligent civilized discussion about this shit.
>>64637414
While sampling is an art in itself just as much as it is a tool that facilitates art, just like any other instrument, I still can't shake the feeling that it is fundamentally different. Instruments are physical, or at least specific in their output, while sampling is a process hypothetically only restricted by music currently available.
Is sampling less of an art than playing an instrument?
>>64637527
>I'm fucking tired of these talentless hacks looking at songs as interactive playthings.
Nice straw man. Sampling is in no way inherently disrespectful. In many instances, sampling actually revives popular interest in forgotten music.
>>64637593
>the instrument isn't original either
What? How? I suppose you only play music with your own instruments? There isn't even a vague social notion of needing to credit the maker of an instrument you when using it to play music.
>>64637917
If I presented you with a unidentified piece of music, you would have no idea how much time and effort went in to producing that piece. Also, your position is the same position held by former opponents of electric instruments and recorded music (I think it was Schoenberg who resisted recording music because it reduced audio quality).
>>64638199
>If using samples or synths somehow was so easy that any monkey could do it, then they WOULD be doing it.
To be completely fair, there are a lot more Vaporwave albums made every day than any other genre, and I'd wager those take the least amount of effort to produce. I think the difficulty argument is the wrong way to approach the artistic value of something.
>>64639405
Even the most fundamentalist of music composers and analysts would have to disagree with you. Even those who believe only the notes of the music matter, and context is entirely irrelevant, would analyze the lyrics of an opera should they be presented.
>>64640989
http://www.damienhirst.com/texts1/series/kaleidoscope
please note: the artists page includes neither the word mosaic nor collage
the relevance is taking something you did not make and making something with it
please go fuck yourself
(drops mic)
(masturbates vigorously)
(is a fucking champion)
(feels touch of regret)
(cleans house rest of the day)
>>64638379
Who *is*?
>>64640897
>understands but thinks it's stupid
>samplecuck gets mad
lmao
>>64640887
just because you are bad at sampling doesn't make you right.
of course western harmony influences your sound.
Your instrument was designed by other people and is the product of all their hard work. When a musician samples they are likewise using someone else's hard work, they are just use entirely new instruments with each new recording. They both do the same thing just one is too lazy to go beyone a single product of other people's work, and the other is always seeking out new ones without any of the documentation or codified vocabulary an instrumentalist can exploit.
>>64641404
Nah, not gonna work. Sorry.
>>64637414
Sampling is stealing just like copying a melody is stealing. If an artist actually gets permission for a sample than it's not stealing anymore, but it's still lazy and I won't respect them.
>>64637873
underrated post
>>64641466
>Sampling is stealing just like copying a melody is stealing
Well it's worse because you are ALSO stealing someone else's original performance, as well as the melody. It's doubly bad
>>64641466
see, this is the problem:
all creativity is important
sound collage, sample based music (unless youre a shit) takes a lot of fucking work to cut and modify and arrange the pieces. its hard work and takes technical know how and artistic sensitivity.
fuck the autists
a real artist knows the goal
INFINITE FREEDOM
INFINITE MUSIC
INFINITE CREATIVITY
fuck you autist value hierarchy hairsplitters
>>64641559
>sound collage, sample based music (unless youre a shit) takes a lot of fucking work to cut and modify and arrange the pieces. its hard work and takes technical know how and artistic sensitivity.
That can also be applied to compositions and productions with physical instruments.
>>64640177
OH MY GOD HAHAHAHAHA
SOMEBODY LITERALLY USED THE TERM "REAL MUSICIAN" HERE
HANG YOURSELF ASAP
>>64641600
of course, its only the autist hairsplitters who would argue otherwise.
i just listened to albert ayler's performance at coltrane's funeral
im kinda shaken up.
>>64637414
As long as the desired sound is produced, who gives a fancy fuck?
>>64643611
this
DJ FUCKHEAD BTFO
https://youtu.be/AyRDDOpKaLM
If you're taking that sample and making it sound completely different from the source material, then I see nothing wrong here
>>64643537
Imagine if he had sampled Glenn Miller or some other shit for his performance? Would it have the same effect? Of course not, that sound if significant because it's the pure expression of his personal being. I felt the same with Cecil Taylor's performance at Ornette's Funeral.
Sampling is taking someone else's life and claiming it as your own. Cheap and it should be destroyed.
>>64642800
>>64641559
Bandcamp "producer" detected
>>64643763
butthurt uncreative marcel fandingo wannabe detected
like off the meter
broke my detector m8
gotta build a new one
should it be analogue or digital?
>>64643737
Irrelevent and incorrect.
This thread really brings out the asshurt soundcloud "producers" lmao. " EY BRUH LETS COLLAB ON DIS SICK VAPORWAVE TAPE BRUH"
Why can't you admit that you're objectively less creative than the people you sampled. It's like taking a picture of painting and thinking you deserve as much respect as the original artist.
>>64643958
not really
relevant and clearly a bit one-sided and hyperbolic
like if i spend two weeks creating a pd algorithm to so i can tweak samples with a slider or a virtual knob on my laptop, it may in fact be an expression of my being, perhaps somehow "pure,", but nonetheless heavily mediated by hardware, software, etc.
blompl
