psylon
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Posts
- 15
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBnbosEgZxc
If the verse from around 1:50 isn't 'taking off', I don't know what is.
Most over rated genre (major boring) Your experience.
- Thread starter Happy Camper
- Start date
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBnbosEgZxc
If the verse from around 1:50 isn't 'taking off', I don't know what is.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
That isn't a particularly good example. It's a simple loop that keeps repeating itself without ever building to anything. That actually proves Cain's point.
If you want good stuff like this, go straight to the source that these guys are ripping off...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXdIoctdk-0
If you want good stuff like this, go straight to the source that these guys are ripping off...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXdIoctdk-0
psylon
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Posts
- 15
- Likes
- 0
What you linked is no more dynamic than what I linked, aside from the fact that it was recorded with the instruments being played instead of sampled (not that it makes any audible difference providing the sampling has been done well).
In regards to the totally played out and eternally looping 'who made this first and who sampled this and that' argument, I frankly couldn't care less and don't understand how anyone that does is any more a fan of the music than they are of the icon that made it. At the end of the day:
1. There is quite a difference between 'sampling' and 'ripping off'. If something has been ripped off, there was no new inspiration used in making the track. Good hip hop artists use samples in inspired ways and make new things out of existing sounds, or at the very least use the sample in a way that is more paying respect to the originator than biting them. When it comes down to it, playing and recording instrumental sections that can already be found in existing pieces is nothing more than stubborn.
2. I want what I think sounds good. Despite the fact that a majority of hip hop artists pay a lot of respect and homage to who they sample in their songs, it shouldn't matter as long as it's pleasing to the ears. I don't care who wrote the riff or played it first, I'd much rather listen to the track that uses it best. I honestly can't respect the musical opinion of someone that judges music by factors aside from the audible qualities.
In regards to the totally played out and eternally looping 'who made this first and who sampled this and that' argument, I frankly couldn't care less and don't understand how anyone that does is any more a fan of the music than they are of the icon that made it. At the end of the day:
1. There is quite a difference between 'sampling' and 'ripping off'. If something has been ripped off, there was no new inspiration used in making the track. Good hip hop artists use samples in inspired ways and make new things out of existing sounds, or at the very least use the sample in a way that is more paying respect to the originator than biting them. When it comes down to it, playing and recording instrumental sections that can already be found in existing pieces is nothing more than stubborn.
2. I want what I think sounds good. Despite the fact that a majority of hip hop artists pay a lot of respect and homage to who they sample in their songs, it shouldn't matter as long as it's pleasing to the ears. I don't care who wrote the riff or played it first, I'd much rather listen to the track that uses it best. I honestly can't respect the musical opinion of someone that judges music by factors aside from the audible qualities.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Watch it again. There is a LOT more variation there from musical phrase to musical phrase, both in the backing groove and the lead vocals. There's a sax solo working over the top of it too with a great deal of variation and counterpoint as well.
A groove without variation and counterpoint becomes monotonous fast.
I work in a creative business, and a lot of my friends are musicians and artists. Art is based on influences, and cross pollenization is part of the creative process. But there are three golden rules most artists I know follow when incorporating other people's work into their own.
1) The material being used should be put in a context that is completely different than the original one.
2) If you are using someone else's work, you had better do more with it and do it better than the original artist did.
3) You should clearly and publicly acknowledge your sources. To use someone else's work without clearly identifying it as not your own is disrespectful.
I hear way too much sampling that doesn't follow any code of ethics at all. Personally, I prefer musicians who can compose and play instruments for themselves. Creative performance based on inspiration and skill is always better than cut and paste. But I recognize the craft of editing.
Show me sampling that can do this...
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54y_XDKNxPg[/VIDEO]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54y_XDKNxPg
DEVASTATING!
There's an interesting story behind this clip. This was part of a filmed concert called "The TAMI Show". It had a lot of different acts that were popular at the time... Beach Boys, Leslie Gore, The Rolling Stones, Jan and Dean, etc. The Stones demanded top billing and the last spot on the bill and got it. But they went on immediately following this performance by James Brown. Keith Richards described it as being the "worst business decision of our career". The audience was spent before the Stones even took the stage.
The TAMI Show was unavailable for a long time, but it was recently released on DVD. I can't imagine anyone who loves 60s rock not having it.
A groove without variation and counterpoint becomes monotonous fast.
I work in a creative business, and a lot of my friends are musicians and artists. Art is based on influences, and cross pollenization is part of the creative process. But there are three golden rules most artists I know follow when incorporating other people's work into their own.
1) The material being used should be put in a context that is completely different than the original one.
2) If you are using someone else's work, you had better do more with it and do it better than the original artist did.
3) You should clearly and publicly acknowledge your sources. To use someone else's work without clearly identifying it as not your own is disrespectful.
I hear way too much sampling that doesn't follow any code of ethics at all. Personally, I prefer musicians who can compose and play instruments for themselves. Creative performance based on inspiration and skill is always better than cut and paste. But I recognize the craft of editing.
Show me sampling that can do this...
[VIDEO]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54y_XDKNxPg[/VIDEO]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54y_XDKNxPg
DEVASTATING!
There's an interesting story behind this clip. This was part of a filmed concert called "The TAMI Show". It had a lot of different acts that were popular at the time... Beach Boys, Leslie Gore, The Rolling Stones, Jan and Dean, etc. The Stones demanded top billing and the last spot on the bill and got it. But they went on immediately following this performance by James Brown. Keith Richards described it as being the "worst business decision of our career". The audience was spent before the Stones even took the stage.
The TAMI Show was unavailable for a long time, but it was recently released on DVD. I can't imagine anyone who loves 60s rock not having it.
buffalowings
Went way too far, too many times.
- Joined
- May 14, 2010
- Posts
- 4,542
- Likes
- 42
psylon
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Posts
- 15
- Likes
- 0
Most producers do clearly state who they sample. I get as disappointed as I assume you do when I hear a sample being used without having been 'flipped', as the term goes, in the slightest. That's not sampling, that is biting. This is what I was talking about earlier; people are passing opinions that are honestly uneducated (that isn't a stab at you, by the way). Apart from how much one judges music on things like the skill it took to play the instrument, myself and most people that slate on hip hop tend to agree on many grounds musically, they just dislike the same hip hop I dislike while assuming the hip hop I do like is the same.
In the underground hip hop scene, biting samples or claiming distinctive riffs or melodies as one's own is totally looked down upon.
Some of my favourite sample use is shown in this track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIK_4243TXQ
Which sampled this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VpDqzTNO-M
Furthermore, the saxaphone was not sampled, it was recorded for the track by Uyama Hiroto.
In regards to being dynamic, I admit the track I showed before wasn't as good of an example when we're talking production. When it comes to hip hop, you want to be checking out the instrumental stuff most of the time if you want truly dynamic and detailed tracks. Rapping over something that isn't either repetitive or subtle just doesn't work unless the lyrics themselves aren't a main focus. The thing with Edan is, half of the fun is the various effects and things he throws around on the vocals as opposed to just the beats.
In the underground hip hop scene, biting samples or claiming distinctive riffs or melodies as one's own is totally looked down upon.
Some of my favourite sample use is shown in this track:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIK_4243TXQ
Which sampled this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VpDqzTNO-M
Furthermore, the saxaphone was not sampled, it was recorded for the track by Uyama Hiroto.
In regards to being dynamic, I admit the track I showed before wasn't as good of an example when we're talking production. When it comes to hip hop, you want to be checking out the instrumental stuff most of the time if you want truly dynamic and detailed tracks. Rapping over something that isn't either repetitive or subtle just doesn't work unless the lyrics themselves aren't a main focus. The thing with Edan is, half of the fun is the various effects and things he throws around on the vocals as opposed to just the beats.
bcasey25raptor
Aka: Brycon Casey
aka mental patient
aka Enter Darkness
aka Shurefan
aka reaperofaudio
aka everyone knows
aka very funny
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2010
- Posts
- 4,481
- Likes
- 73
psylon
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Posts
- 15
- Likes
- 0
Quote:
This conversation is really going off track. The original point I want to convey is that I disagree with the attitude of disliking an entire genre of music based on one's limited experience with it.
Every single criticism I have seen against hip hop has based most of its points on the alleged bad quality of the lyrics or lack of skill and creativity (which is subjective in itself) involved in production. What are they ever basing their opinions on? When I ask them for examples of artists they are using as sources for their critique, they will always list to me a bunch of crap that I dislike as much as they do.
To answer your quoted proposition, sampling can do anything than live played instruments can do, but I'd like to see the instruments required to play this...
bcasey25raptor
Aka: Brycon Casey
aka mental patient
aka Enter Darkness
aka Shurefan
aka reaperofaudio
aka everyone knows
aka very funny
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2010
- Posts
- 4,481
- Likes
- 73
Quote:
This conversation is really going off track. The original point I want to convey is that I disagree with the attitude of disliking an entire genre of music based on one's limited experience with it.
Every single criticism I have seen against hip hop has based most of its points on the alleged bad quality of the lyrics or lack of skill and creativity (which is subjective in itself) involved in production. What are they ever basing their opinions on? When I ask them for examples of artists they are using as sources for their critique, they will always list to me a bunch of crap that I dislike as much as they do.
To answer your quoted proposition, sampling can do anything than live played instruments can do, but I'd like to see the instruments required to play this...
I respect underground hip hop but i still find it boring. I know there is talent in it but i get no enjoyment from it.
Deep Funk
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Posts
- 3,273
- Likes
- 38
Agreed, "Paul's Boutique" by the Beastie Boys at least had a sense of fun, creativity and self-mockery to it. Why did you not go for Souls Of Mischief for instance? "93'Til Infinity" is epic and I only admit that because I used to be a Hip Hop lover. DJ Format made some interesting tracks too.
Thing is, the moment the old Funk and Soul groups are brought in to be compared to the Hip Hop of later times the old Funk and Soul hides more groovy and creative gems than you can imagine. Ask Leeperry among others. Sorry but your sample does not compare with "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag" or "Move On Up". Why did Kanye ever decide to sample that classic, the sell out...
Thing is, the moment the old Funk and Soul groups are brought in to be compared to the Hip Hop of later times the old Funk and Soul hides more groovy and creative gems than you can imagine. Ask Leeperry among others. Sorry but your sample does not compare with "Papa's Got A Brand New Bag" or "Move On Up". Why did Kanye ever decide to sample that classic, the sell out...
BobSaysHi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Posts
- 3,370
- Likes
- 96
BobSaysHi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2010
- Posts
- 3,370
- Likes
- 96
bigshot, the way you describe music makes it seem like you assume everyone looks for the same thing in music. Or, at the very least, you believe that your music taste is more refined than say, for example, mine. I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but my music taste is (or at least was) similar to bcasey's, so I can only assume you would have a similar reaction.
I don't care about technicality. In fact, I feel it detracts from the music. You like to zoom in on the microdetails, I prefer the bigger picture. Repetition and Texture are more crucial to me than someone being more technically proficient.
Also, you mentioned that you felt someone's song had been done before, only better by James Brown. All music is merely a repeat of music before it. I assure you, as I'm sure you feel the same, that James Brown was bested before he even started playing.
I think I lost where I was going with that...
Anyway, I'm going to pull a bcasey. Would you mind listening to this:
and then perhaps this:
The first is an example of a band that I consider to have very little technical merit, but creates a very clear atmosphere through it's use of texture and repetition. The second is an example of a band which I consider has technical merit, but chooses instead to focus, again, on texture to create an atmosphere.
The reason I decided to respond to you is that you constantly preach how open-minded you are towards music and how "the kids don't get it" when you in fact disregard everything that doesn't require intense technical training. I feel that is hypocritical.
I prefer Erik Satie and you prefer Louis Armstrong. You are not right and I am not wrong. Music is not objective.
edit: OH YEAH, and you had the audacity to say that society is to blame for the lack of respectable music tastes. I don't feel that music has gotten worse. Rather, I feel that music has gotten more prevalent. It's different, but not necessarily worse.
I don't care about technicality. In fact, I feel it detracts from the music. You like to zoom in on the microdetails, I prefer the bigger picture. Repetition and Texture are more crucial to me than someone being more technically proficient.
Also, you mentioned that you felt someone's song had been done before, only better by James Brown. All music is merely a repeat of music before it. I assure you, as I'm sure you feel the same, that James Brown was bested before he even started playing.
I think I lost where I was going with that...
Anyway, I'm going to pull a bcasey. Would you mind listening to this:
and then perhaps this:
The first is an example of a band that I consider to have very little technical merit, but creates a very clear atmosphere through it's use of texture and repetition. The second is an example of a band which I consider has technical merit, but chooses instead to focus, again, on texture to create an atmosphere.
The reason I decided to respond to you is that you constantly preach how open-minded you are towards music and how "the kids don't get it" when you in fact disregard everything that doesn't require intense technical training. I feel that is hypocritical.
I prefer Erik Satie and you prefer Louis Armstrong. You are not right and I am not wrong. Music is not objective.
edit: OH YEAH, and you had the audacity to say that society is to blame for the lack of respectable music tastes. I don't feel that music has gotten worse. Rather, I feel that music has gotten more prevalent. It's different, but not necessarily worse.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
BobSaysHi, I'm afraid I don't know what to say about those tracks. They are so ordinary and bland, there really isn't much to say. I suppose they might be nice to fall asleep to.
The more you know about the past, the better qualified you are to compare it to the present. Again, there is a "Smurf philosophy" that says that everything is equal and you can't compare anything because it's all good. That's a lie. The theory of equality is the textbook definition of "undiscerning". There is enough great music in the world, there's no reason to live with mediocre music just because it's convenient and right in front of you. If you really love music and it's more to you than just a background soundtrack to have playing while you do something else, you'll want to seek out the best. The more you know, the less patient you'll be with ordinary stuff.
Re: James Brown... there was never anyone like James Brown before James Brown. He was a giant of soul music. Blinding talent and totally unique. No one ever bested him. His signature sound became ingrained in funk and soul, and everyone who came after used elements of his style. Some, like George Clinton's Parliament/Funkadelic and Sly and the Family Stone took it further and added their own unique voice to the mix. But most just watered it down and did bland James Brown. Who wants bland James Brown?!
Re: Eric Satie... His music is fine for what it is, minimal and pretty, but I wouldn't trade Mahler or Beethoven for Satie in a million years. Sometimes you have to struggle to accomplish things. You have to work to rise above the rest and be true to yourself. I admire those sorts of people a lot more than those who coast through life doing the bare minimum. For Impressionism, I think Debussy and Ravel are MUCH better composers than Satie ever was. And Romantic and Classical music are MUCH richer genres of music than Impressionism. That seems to me to be pretty much self evident. Again, it is possible to compare. Everything isn't equal.
You can feel free to like Satie or these bands. I'm not saying you shouldn't. You should listen to whatever makes you happy. Just don't expect those with more musical experience and more discerning tastes to feel the same way. That isn't being arrogant, that's stating a fact.
The more you know about the past, the better qualified you are to compare it to the present. Again, there is a "Smurf philosophy" that says that everything is equal and you can't compare anything because it's all good. That's a lie. The theory of equality is the textbook definition of "undiscerning". There is enough great music in the world, there's no reason to live with mediocre music just because it's convenient and right in front of you. If you really love music and it's more to you than just a background soundtrack to have playing while you do something else, you'll want to seek out the best. The more you know, the less patient you'll be with ordinary stuff.
Re: James Brown... there was never anyone like James Brown before James Brown. He was a giant of soul music. Blinding talent and totally unique. No one ever bested him. His signature sound became ingrained in funk and soul, and everyone who came after used elements of his style. Some, like George Clinton's Parliament/Funkadelic and Sly and the Family Stone took it further and added their own unique voice to the mix. But most just watered it down and did bland James Brown. Who wants bland James Brown?!
Re: Eric Satie... His music is fine for what it is, minimal and pretty, but I wouldn't trade Mahler or Beethoven for Satie in a million years. Sometimes you have to struggle to accomplish things. You have to work to rise above the rest and be true to yourself. I admire those sorts of people a lot more than those who coast through life doing the bare minimum. For Impressionism, I think Debussy and Ravel are MUCH better composers than Satie ever was. And Romantic and Classical music are MUCH richer genres of music than Impressionism. That seems to me to be pretty much self evident. Again, it is possible to compare. Everything isn't equal.
You can feel free to like Satie or these bands. I'm not saying you shouldn't. You should listen to whatever makes you happy. Just don't expect those with more musical experience and more discerning tastes to feel the same way. That isn't being arrogant, that's stating a fact.
bigshot
Headphoneus Supremus
Quote:
I'm not sure what your point is with this example. Did you watch that TAMI Show video I posted?
I'm not sure what your point is with this example. Did you watch that TAMI Show video I posted?
psylon
New Head-Fier
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2011
- Posts
- 15
- Likes
- 0
Yes. Musically, there is nothing done that is unachievable by using samples to piece sounds together. Furthermore, I don't care about being able to watch a video. I'm a musicphile (and to a degree an audiophile), a video or a well-done live performance is nice to watch, but the lack of one isn't going to detract from anything for me. The fact that they put on a big stage show isn't going to affect my opinion of their music.
I'd also like to point out that you're constantly pushing away from my original point to argue for argument's sake instead of actually addressing it. I like your music, I'm not trying to prove that my music is better. I listen to all music. I could post music from various genres that trumps what you listen to in every technical aspect you seem to be pulling out to show off, but that isn't the point I'm trying to make. I'm getting ticked off by how much you're turning this into a competition as opposed to discussing the point you started talking to me over in the first place.
Deep Funk, although I like the beats of Souls Of Mischief, Heiroglyphics and that general scene, I much prefer abstract hip-hop. It has better use of lyricism and it brings more to the table with production, which is why I chose to use it as an example. It's something that most blind critics have never heard anything remotely like before.
I'd also like to point out that you're constantly pushing away from my original point to argue for argument's sake instead of actually addressing it. I like your music, I'm not trying to prove that my music is better. I listen to all music. I could post music from various genres that trumps what you listen to in every technical aspect you seem to be pulling out to show off, but that isn't the point I'm trying to make. I'm getting ticked off by how much you're turning this into a competition as opposed to discussing the point you started talking to me over in the first place.
Deep Funk, although I like the beats of Souls Of Mischief, Heiroglyphics and that general scene, I much prefer abstract hip-hop. It has better use of lyricism and it brings more to the table with production, which is why I chose to use it as an example. It's something that most blind critics have never heard anything remotely like before.
Users who are viewing this thread
