If people only knew about composers like Edgar Varese and Jon Cage, they would understand that hip hop was the realization of the century of experimentation of merging music with electricity. This was no "lazy" way of creation; it was the dream of geniuses who were thinking decades ahead of what they had available to use in their lives.
Sampling is basically free promotion. Most, if not all samples I've ever been interested in have lead me to discover the larger body of work produced by the artist's I sampled, which I would otherwise possibly never have discovered. So taking a 3 second obscure loop from an artist who I previously didn't give a shit about, has on many occasions led me to buy their whole album. In this common situation, everyone's a winner.
Weird ... to notice this a decade later, but more importantly, over that decade nobody brought up that it's only "digging," (and only a part of it at that) which is being being framed as the substance of what sampling is, and is for. While for someone engaged in a lifelong academic study ["musicology & ethnomusicology], who is also a multi-instrumental musician, writer, arranger, recording engineer & producer, AND a DJ to boot, as (... someone ... whom I "know"...) is, what people who dive into "digging" for samples come up with, is mostly stuff which would be easily pulled from the ever-growing knowledge catalogue of music, and known catalogue of music & audio media recordings, while the "academic" work yields constantly deeper understanding, with deep-roots dives into the antecedents of what is being dug into, yielding not only a richer comprehension of the whole (along with noticing, perhaps, some novel curiosities of note), of how styles, forms, and sounds met, combined, merged & emerged, integrated into and carried along culture, and came to be recorded, opening numerous avenues towards getting any particular sound, sample, phrase, or recording for a project, (including by creating a recording of it to sample). An unforgettable example of sampling being employed without any digging, came in the form of a song I already knew, and knew for what it was brought out (in recording school) as an illustration of. When it is intended to merely fade a song out (where there is no written, or desired ending), the common means is to vamp ... repeat a phrase, perhaps with variations, play, fooling around, over a suitable duration for the fade out. Every once in a while, the stuff that gets vamped might go off into a novel, amusing sort of direction, and be left "as-is," becoming an "unintended ending." One song that I had held as a great example of exactly that, turned out to be the recording which was used in recording school (The Institute of Audio Video Engineering) to explain how an "unintentional ending" occasionally comes about. The track was "I Know What I Know" on Paul Simon's "Graceland." ua-cam.com/video/2hanjM_IenU/v-deo.htmlsi=081zJFJ6DDk1aE27 Many years later, I wound up on-the-spot to fill in "body" for a "song" that had nothing going for it. It needed a f*ck-load of inventive ideas to "save it." And all-the-worse, I was working off-prem, (without my mainstay of resources on hand). But the first thing that came to mind was to fill-in a (non-existent) rhythm section beginning from Xitsonga guitars + bass syncopation, adjusting the chord progression appropriately to the song. ua-cam.com/video/b5T75orQ3Qo/v-deo.htmlsi=YJp6p8CLrnvOWC09 But I blanked on the name of the style & artists. Ah, but I could do a memory-jog by pulling the liner notes from "I Know What I Know." Or, so I thought. When I did, I got a massive surprise: There was only one musician, and one instrument "played" on that song. Paul Simon, "playing" the Synclavier. Not only was what I knew about "I Know What I Know" WRONG, what it was being used in recording engineering school as an example of was wrong. The "unintentional ending," was actually very deliberately constructed to make it seem like that's what it is. (The Synclavier: Specifically, the Synclavier II www.muzines.co.uk/articles/synclavier-ii/5897 ) If anything, the virtue of "digging" can best be found in the contemplative note of introspect that emerges from a sort of approach which might be seen as akin, in part, to a meditation, and in part to a quiet prayer of gratitude. (My own summary take on "Digging" being brought into center focus with DJ Shadow, in Scratch.) ua-cam.com/video/A8aMMpoSUSQ/v-deo.htmlsi=EvBICQuU9WDalm5Z&t=3148
I approached sampling after playing drums since grammar school and had some experience playing guitar and keys. Sampling made me develop an even greater appreciation of music. It made me want to go out and buy records that I'd never even think to listen to. Yeah, it's relatively easy to sample something and throw together a simple beat, but it's fun and something you can have a great time sharing and doing with your friends.
If a drum machine isnt a instrument, then what is a instrument then? Things that dont use electricity? By that logic, electric guitars arent instruments.
Sampling makes modern/electronic music more interesting. The meshing of different tonalities across eras makes for sonic experimentation beyond what pure synth can do.
As far as the idea of rap kids just saying hey let's be lazy and take the easy route and steal samples instead of making wholly new beats I think people need to understand how rap started. HipHop started as nothing more than a DJ playing records at a party and maybe every once in awhile say a little short rhyming phrase to hype the crowd or to promote his crew. This evolved into saying longer rhymes over the instrumentals or breaks of the record until eventually rapping became its own thing in its own right separate from DJing. So the art of rapping started as rhyming over other people's records for fun. The practice continued when rappers started to actually record their own songs. Sampling also became more than just taking whole portions of someone else's work but to manipulate the sample in ways, or to combine samples, to make a whole new composition.
Jelo Roc musical evolution as it should be. every genre has evolved otherwise we would still be listening to classical chamber music that was played in the 1700's. even that was looked down on in the day. if the previous generation thinks the music is a problem something is right ;)
i truly dislike people who knock samplers i play a variety of instruments and still love sampling, you honestly think its easy to grab sounds from a variety of sources and make them all sound good together. half of you down talking sampling probably cant do it
+ZoeMob187 Not only that but just having the ear for it. People act like they could just pick up any record and lift a riff or melody and make a hit. There's so much fine tuning, filtering, speed adjustments, etc.
Yes. And besides most original artists are riding the wave of using instruments someone else invented with a sound other people established before them. It's not that different from sampling to be honest.
Actually it's a piece of cake with todays software compared to the early days of sampling. If it sounds 'good' is rather subjective. It might sound great to you, but I might find the same thing a complete turd.
It’s easy to take a sampled loop off a vinyl and use it as it is but can you take multiple ones with different tempos and bpms and make a track that doesn’t sound like chaos. You cant call it stealing or unoriginal because theres not only one way of doing it and like will smith aka the fresh prince says in this doc, when you sample an old song that everyone forgot or nobody ever heard of it makes it sounds fresh and new again and also gains a new audience from a new generation.
by definition it’s called “lifting or borrowing” so if not being stolen then it’s being repurposed (at the least) … but for originality, you could have 3 or 5 different producers in different cities and there’s a high chance all the samples will be a unique experience.. so in that way, there’s still 100% creativity and originality that goes into sampling.
the artist's that sampled the old records made me want to go and find the originals. so, they did get paid. this brings the originals to a new generation, to people that would have never known these records!!
By the way, sampling was already done in 1979 by the Fairlight CMI Computer synthesizer. Peter Gabriel's fourth album and Zoolook are the best examples of early sampling.
When I was a kid and would buy rap cassette tapes and I always knew the dope songs would say "contains portions"...and then it said the original song name. I wonder who was the first person to sample? They knew what they were doing.
"Obscure Israeli Record..." -At the time, it was doing the rounds in many UK/European clubs, it was a Dance tune (which utilized the Sampler itself, pretty early on in 85')
Sampling is taking somebody else's work and creating something original from it that's why its called Sampling not Stealing , Stealing would be to deliberately take somebody else's work and use it as if its your own.
Wow, I saw this on MTV back then when it was originally aired. Now I'm 26 years older. And a lot of shit happened in between then and now. To me and in the world.
I still don't get it. People talk about the original artist getting compensated, because you're using a piece of their work... but what about the sampling artist getting paid for promoting the original artists work? Sampling artists are almost always adding something to the sample that makes it altogether different than the original work, and at the same time, creating awareness of the artist that may not have been there previously, especially among the enthusiasts who actually take interest in the sample sources. It seems to me that the compensation of the original artist and the promotion by the new artist should cancel each other out. The sampling artist should just be required to state the source in keeping with the concept of promoting the original artist.
they getting their share of the part they put in theirself and without the original their song would not be there and in most cases would not be so cool
The people who get sampled can't really complain, after their hype died down and along came hip-hop, it made more people go out and buy vinyls or even cd's, look at it like this..do they really think vinyls would still sell in todays market without beat makers? would they still be making money from sales? the answer is no, without beat makers their whole foundation of musical touch would be invisible Also it's not the artist that makes the melodies, it's people they hire to make them music to sing along to. In this generation with hip-hop dominating music of all kind, no fuckin' one would be blasting Wu-Tang then playing a fuckin' Aretha Franklin record lol.
You are probably right. If those artists were smart, maybe they would say forget asking for payment, and let other artists sample to bring back their popularity. But at the same time, back in those times, nobody knew that hip-hop would become the force it is today, and have that much power to push sales of their music. Also at the same time, producers were never going to stop sampling, paid or not...so we all know getting money on one side isn't going to stop them getting money on the other. They're getting paid off BOTH the sample rights and the 'resurgence' of people knowing their music. At the end of the day, if you're making money off a product that contains another man's product/work- that man deserves to be paid. I doubt there are many major label hip hop artists today (that sample or don't) that wouldn't be after that money if they were sampled by someone else who were making real money off that.
yogaframe jones Yeah i sort of agree, there are people who get sampled and simply don't care, i wouldn't know who half these old singers were if it wasn't for hip-hop/beat makers, countless times i had heard a sample and then liked it so much that i went to go check out that persons origional song, James Brown i think it was, loved people sampling him, and made sure people did just that, for me it all boils down to HOW the beat was sampled, if it's a straight up loop from a record, then i agree, pay for sample clearence if you are making substantial money from that, BUT if the sample is chopped up into tiny little pieces and the pitch is changed and it now sounds nothing like the vinyl version, i'm all for it.
Ryan Chance yeah I agree. I don't think it should be a flat X amount of money based on whether you used it or not. It should matter what/how much you used, and how much of the final product is flat out the other artists work vs if you made something almost completely brand new/unrecognizable out of it.
You know what Hiphop made the World a much much better place with how we make our music. All the music sampled by our great hiphop producers bought these otherwise forgotten songs back. These artists should be glad hiphop has renewed their songs. Plus the record labels have stolen their royalties anyway.
This was funny, I see no issue with sampling music, hell most of these guys can take a 4 bar loop and completely chop and rearrange it to the point where it isn't even recognisable to the original source of the sample.
+rorz999 I agree. Many hip-hop artists simply took the whole 'hook' from a existing song that was popular before and simple added some beats and a rap line. Just a random example: MC Hammer, "Can't touch this". The whole song is completely based on Rick James' "Super freak". Its 1:1 copy with only some beats and rap added. I'm sure mister Hammer had to pay for the royalties, but intellectually speaking it's a complete rip-off. And there are many, many other examples of this.
rorz999 Samplers were new them and I heard had limited memory and stuff so it was harder to do more with samples back then. Also sampling is an art form, sometimes looping is what what is needed.
rorz999 J Dilla or Pete Rock would disagree. However hip hop back then was more about the rapping than the beat. The rap was where most of the artistry was focused.
When Aaron Copland, American Compuser, uses lines from previous symphonies it's okay. If an American hip-hop producer uses a sample, every white musician goes ape shit.
Oh, that's because us musicians don't like when some jaggoff who doesn't even play an instrument, decides to jerk one of our tunes off. At least Aaron Copland is PLAYING the line, and adding certain bits to it instead of just pressing "Play" in the middle of a symphony while all of the players go get a drink.
chino8it Did he ask permission from the Composer before quoting the previous symphonic work, and get licensing? If so, it's OK. If not, not cool, unless the composer is long dead and the music public domain. Even in this instance, it's always best to credit the works borrowed / arranged / quoted in the new work, as well as crediting the original composers, regardless of copyright status.
I love how the idea back in the day was "it's easy, any teenager can do it in their basement". Haha. Prince Paul is genius. Pete Rock, Diamond D, the Dust Brothers, Premier, all these guys are very very talented producers, arrangers and composers. The musicians criticizing them back in the 80s could not make beats like these guys. Its not just what samples you use, it's how you use them and what else you combine them with. Everybody thought it was easy back then because they didn't understand it. Now that we have millions of people trying to do it, anybody trying to make this music will tell you that what the sample cats did back in the 90s was in no way "easy". Not only that, but how many riffs did these rock guys steal from blues guys, etc. etc. All music is based on music that came before it. Sampling just takes that concept a little more litterally. The key is that if all you are doing is stealing a loop and not adding anything of substance, yeah that's stealing in the same way that covering somebody else's song is stealing. When you start adding to it and making it into something new, that's musical progress. Hip hop made some huge leaps and bounds as far as adding to the styles of music that already existed. By sampling music that already existed they were able to come up with a whole slew of music that sounding compeletly unique. That's the case in point for sampling. The whole purpose of copyright laws (if you listen to the United States Supreme Court) is not to make musicians money or give them intellectual property in their music, the purpose of the law to entice people to make new and creative music. If the orginial muscians copyrights would have been too strictly enforced back in the 80s and 90s, we'd have no hip hop and we'd have LESS in the way of new music styles, which goes against the whole purpose of copyright law.
Exactly! Everyone who claims that it’s easy should try it themselves. Even nowadays in the DAW age it’s not as easy as one might think.
11 років тому
you are 100% correct - many studio engineers were astounded by what they were juicing outtta the sp-12 (Linn drum) then Akai heard the call to make the MPC from their popular rack mounts for flexibility.
There's a terrific new documentary like this called Copyright Criminals. It's on Netflix and Hulu. Also, there are a few insightful cartoon about copyright on the Creative Commons website that make a solid case that duplication does not equal stealing, because there is no loss of the original property. Choose a creative commons license for your creative works if you want people to sample or remix your work.
3:58 Still got my CASIO SK-5 PCM (Pulse Code Modulation), had a lot of fun with it in the day's. Those drum pads are still feeling and working great after 34 years!
Hahahaha every musician uses the same 12 notes and most of them rarely deliniate from 4/4 and the some melodic and chordal strutures that have been in place since the begining of western music. Tom petty for example owes his entire career to the sounds pioneered by black people and pop music in general has its deep roots in west african rhythms. How paid did west african tribes get? You cant control things like visual images or sound because they can essentially be endlessly reproduced. Its like wanting to claim possesion of patterns in nature. All you do as a composer is select notes and rhythms that you like to hear, what part of that selective process makes you the owner of them. They were there since...well, quite honestly, eternity.
Law and economics is based in morals and practical realities. And society has deemed it fair that artists' works be protected from plagiarism, to enable artists to get fairly compensated when their work generates money. If you boil down all music to 4/4, 12 notes -- I hope you're still aware how astronomically improbably it is that a 5-second riff, for example, is randomly the same between two songs. Do the math. So pretending music cant be plagiarized is just silly, but yes it's a matter of judgment like all other aspects of law. Everyone thinks like you until they run a company or create something themselves. And most people want laws that encourage fairness and morals, whether they are arbitrary or not. I'd agree current situation is impossible to enforce though. But forfeitting, and saying artists should have no legal protection is not the right way IMO.
Chris Brown i think that so often.. same thing with mixers, serato and ableton and of course nowadays computers and midi controllers. dammit wouldnt it be great?
Shout out to anyone who recognizes that the voice of the lawyer speaking at 7:43 was actually used by DJ Shadow as a sample in his live show "In Tune and On Time" at around the 43:00 mark, its here on youtube.
0:11 Can someone tell me if it's an actual "thing" to mechanically modify a mixer's crossfader to have a shorter path-length, to make faster cuts possible? Because it looks like that's what's actually been done to his; sorta cool.
Yeah, it was a "thing" back in the day to modify your crossfader for a shorter "throw" (faster cut-in). Now most DJ mixers come automatically with crossfaders that are almost on/off for scratching. Some have a dial so you can adjust between long throw (gradual fade-in for mixing) and short throw (on/off for scratching).
Ryan Dunlap in case you have a mixer that hasnt got this so called "curve-adjustment" or "cut-in-adjust" you can do some research about something called the "tape-mod" or "scrape-mod" this is some physical modification on your c.faders tracks, where you tape them or scratch them of, so that only the on/off contact remains. but if you do this you cant softblend anymore..(anyway useless, cause of the upfaders) back in the times we tried so much shit. but these mods are the only ones that made really sense. anyway nowadays we have universal, nearby indestructible faders like the "innofader" where you can adjust every feature of the fader. peace
Ryan Dunlap He isn't scratching with the crossfader or a modified crossfader, he is using the phono switch. Nearly all mixers have one of these switches on each channel. Enjoy.
The Positive Side of Sampling: Without sampling, many keyboardists would have been stuck with crappy sounding electronic pianos, Rhodes and Wurlitzer pianos that sounded nothing like acoustic pianos, analog synthesizers and organs. They could never have aspired to sound like guitarists, kalimba players, or drummers. The Negative Side of Sampling: Too many musicians see samplers as the lazy man's shortcut, so that they need not create their own original melodies or learn how to play their instruments. I do think that sampling things like public speeches given by politicians has a useful place, in terms of commenting on public affairs. Not to mention the interesting application of turning non-musical objects like pots and pans into musical instruments. So I'd never want to demonize samplers. But some discretion is advisable, IMHO.
+Mark Pettigrew Rhodes and Wurlitzer EPs sound fantastic. If you think they sound crappy, you may not have had enough exposure to them. They're, and particularly the Rhodes extremely dynamic instruments that when played and voiced correctly, can really bring out a beautiful softness or an edge. They were never intended to sound like acoustic pianos.
Terry Bailey Put it this way. Those electric pianos are fine, as long as one wants a good keyboard for performance in a band (e.g., a jazz band like the Crusaders, or a rock band like Supertramp). But in my opinion, only an acoustic piano is suitable for solo work with no accompaniment by a band. Joe Sample was an excellent Rhodes player. But like I said, he played with a band.
+Mark Pettigrew I'll give you that, they're not necessarily solo-ready instruments. Although I've heard some, particularly with the Rhodes playing some beautiful stuff. Of course, the whole topic of sampling is using samples in a large mix of instruments - a la a band with a Rhodes or Wurlitzer.
Terry Bailey Rhodes always reminded me of the vibraphone. I had an excellent album in which Gary Burton played the vibes along with guitarist Ralph Towner.
Back in those days there was no FL Studio or Garage band or Audiotool where you can make original authentic beats, you actually needed instruments and bands and lots of rappers came from the hood and we're too broke to get all that so that's why they sampled.
They did have music programs back then for the Amiga and Atari but they were really basic. Nothing like today but back then its amazing what they did do with what they had.
@@Sicbay138 but that was all super expensive. Not that a sampler was cheap but you maybe needed only one. And of course Drum machines were used , so many rap records using the 808.
Rick and Morty show creator Dan Harmon didn't ask Ice T to voice Water T because they were afraid he would say no. So they sord of just sampled/imitated his voice and Ice T loved it. It brought back Ice T to new fame, and he wasn't paid.
Funny how the loudest complaints come from those with the most successful careers, even now. I'm looking at you, youtube copyright claim robo-system: 2 seconds of footage or sound for a joke does not mean the 2 and a half cents little timmy makes off his videos over the next ten years should belong to Disney.
I won't lie. Much of my favorite music in any genre contains samples or has been used as samples. Even some of the video games I used to play and cartoons I used to watch as a kid have used sampling.
that is the number one reason why I don't loop or do one shot samples. I put my samples through a meat grinder and season it with Crisco. I take nasty ass pig feet and turn it into porterhouse steak
What I find funny is that they have trouble with sampling but cover songs are alright back when this was made it was a regular practice for bands some of which were complaining to make cover songs of American tunes with out the artist permission! such as Rolling stones,led Zepplin,Beatles,Adam ant,blondie! They all did that and were sucessful because of it!!
leeoni24 That was because the artists you mention didn't need to get the permission of the "Original Artists". Once one version of a song was issued it became fair game for anyone to cover, as long as they acknowledged the original songwriter and the publisher of the song. It was only before a song was released that permission had to be sought from the songwriters/publishers. Of course there were a number of instances in the 1960s where artists did thinly disguised versions of other peoples songs, changing a few words here and there, and tried to pass them off as their own compositions. In these instances the "thieves" were in a win-win situation .. if their copies became a hit they would simply admit their error and pay over royalties etc. to the true songwriters (getting fame, if not fortune, as a result) .. if their copies bombed no-one would ever notice ...
Roger Foster That makes sense but doesnt regardless of that fact make bands who complain about sampling kinda doing the same thing legal or not if you did a cover song you have no right to complain about sampling!
If im not mistaken it depends on the artist there record company can charge what ever they want.You can get a DJ permit that allows you to legally play live shows or upload videos with any samples legally
The only exception I have with sampling is the sampling of acoustic instruments and vintage synthesizers and drum machines. The ability to sample a TR808 or a MiniMoog Model D or Jupiter 8 allows musicians to use these sounds that are typically out of reach because of the vintage market prices.
+William Blackwelder Without digital pianos, keyboardists lacking the money to haul real grand pianos to gigs would be stuck with instruments sounding nothing like actual acoustic pianos.
But sampling is still inferior in small ways to real acoustic pianos. That's why I love the Roland V-Piano, which uses modeling technology to transcend the limitations of sampled pianos. The V-Piano Grand is particularly cool --- but it costs around $20,000, putting it out of reach for many keyboard players..
the courts killed sampling. we will never hear good music like this anymore. truth be told, everyone should be sued, everyone is recreating the drums that some one played in their tribe centuries ago.
doing it legally or illegally sampling is not stealing, its borrowing or lifting parts with or without permission. What Coldplay did with Viva La Vida is a direct ripoff of a joe satrianni song "if I could fly", The verse bridge and chorus are all parts of Joes song and they went into a studio, with instruments and played out this almost entire song hoping noone would notice that it was someone elses song. Everybody knows when a hip hop song comes on that there is probably a sample in there, Hell thats how the genre got started, rappers rappin over 12 inch dance singles durring the insrumental parts.
@Dana Dane If you are the Dana Dane much love and piece! (A hiphop legend) I just wanted ti say that the art of sampling has changed my life. None of my tracks were even listened to until I started sampling. Nothing wrong with sampling as long as the original artist gets compensation for it if need be so be it. With the age of Digital computer music all of it is sampled anyways.
wtf is that guy trying to say about the turtles sample? They digitally manipulated it so they're using a different sound source then the original? What? You lowered the pitch lol. I don't see how anybody can twist their vocabulary to make that mean that they "changed the sound source".
Its like all the bebop guys playing Cherokee over and over and calling it different things. Howling Wolf playing a reduced form of "All I want is a Spoonful" and calling it Spoonful. Bob Dylan rewriting folk standards and things he found on obscure 78s (Maggie's Farm). Before the music was public domain or traditional. Now with all the recording mediums and publishing companies chasing the dollar... things are different. Show me the artist benefiting other than by being advertised. Who owns the rights to the songs? Seldom the original artist. Kanye has a good racket sampling. Thanks to whosampled lots of people are learning about the original artists.
And to be fair, any kid can learn to play the guitar or drums in there basement just as easily, so the argument dosent make Mutch sense, why does music have to be “hard” to make, if it sounds good then it’s good
Yes, I do. I am all for sampling and borrowing and being inspired by music and re-using it. I understand your point that there are only so many concepts we can use before we run into something that is similar to something that has been done. I am just trying to point out how the law sees musical compositions (the arrangement and use of western 12 tone system) and a sound recording. Google this: difference between musical composition and sound recording
Talentless asshole Plant is nowhere near as great as Led Zepplin. He's not worthy to hold their dirty underwear. I don't even know the guy, has he done anything good at all?
For some reason I've never considered sampling entire musical phrases as a way to use sampling. Sampling a single note of an acoustic instrument is fine, that's what sampling was designed for. That's the way people were originally using pre-recorded pieces of tape to assemble music from scratch. If you sample entire musical phrases and play it back, then it as much rewarding as hitting play button on a CD player.
I'm sick of these dudes bitching about not getting paid and shit, like they don't have enough already. They should be glad that their music is not forgotten but lives on, even if in a different version. Ridiculous.
oldschoolcuc so if you make a song earn $50,000 frm it then I use your song 20yrs later and make $50 million frm it you telling me tht you wouldn't want to be compensated?
Incidentally, Mr. Stevens is only known to have recorded two jazz/blues tunes, both in 1930 with Ms. Smith. I know nothing else about him at all: adp.library.ucsb.edu/index.php/talent/detail/135731/Stevens_Steve_instrumentalist_piano
Son we steal then de-construct then rebuild. Nabbing loops has been done only way your gonna find a new loop is if you go digging in like Iraq or some next foreign country.
I still love that Robert Plants sampled his own Led Zeppelin vocals in "Tall Cool One." That must've been one of the first instances of that happening...
Sure, knowing your roots is one thing....... knowing your instrument and how to play it is another. I don't have a problem with that at all as it deserves respect. I do, however, have a problem with someone saying they're a musician and when asked what they play, respond with "I make beats". "Oh, so you're a drummer?" "Naw, man, I make beats in ----program name here---- and loops... "Oh!" Says I "You mean, you program a drum machine and lay down an entire drum track first, then play over it?" "Naw, man, I don't play anything, I just sample beats and roll them into my own, then sell them!" "Oh, so you're a piece of shit then! Sorry, I thought you had talent!"
Adam Borseti but he will create something that people will listen to in that genre, and vise versa to you? if you switched shoes both of you would have no idea what your doing nor satisfy anyone. So your comparing apples to oranges.
Dude. People who "make beat" are absolutely musicians! I started with guitar got pretty good at it and started 'making beats' and it's not like it's less challenging to make it sound good or anything. You can take any craft as far as you want. Anyone who makes music is a musician. I looked at your channel and it looks like you play with synths and stuff. Do you not consider yourself a musician when you are using a computer or a digital synth?
I don't know about you but I NEVER met a cat who makes beats calling themselves a musician although MOST of the ones I know play some form of keys and if bang out drums on pads that playing an instrument too..
If people only knew about composers like Edgar Varese and Jon Cage, they would understand that hip hop was the realization of the century of experimentation of merging music with electricity. This was no "lazy" way of creation; it was the dream of geniuses who were thinking decades ahead of what they had available to use in their lives.
Sampling is basically free promotion. Most, if not all samples I've ever been interested in have lead me to discover the larger body of work produced by the artist's I sampled, which I would otherwise possibly never have discovered. So taking a 3 second obscure loop from an artist who I previously didn't give a shit about, has on many occasions led me to buy their whole album. In this common situation, everyone's a winner.
Weird ... to notice this a decade later, but more importantly, over that decade nobody brought up that it's only "digging," (and only a part of it at that) which is being being framed as the substance of what sampling is, and is for.
While for someone engaged in a lifelong academic study ["musicology & ethnomusicology], who is also a multi-instrumental musician, writer, arranger, recording engineer & producer, AND a DJ to boot, as (... someone ... whom I "know"...) is, what people who dive into "digging" for samples come up with, is mostly stuff which would be easily pulled from the ever-growing knowledge catalogue of music, and known catalogue of music & audio media recordings, while the "academic" work yields constantly deeper understanding, with deep-roots dives into the antecedents of what is being dug into, yielding not only a richer comprehension of the whole (along with noticing, perhaps, some novel curiosities of note), of how styles, forms, and sounds met, combined, merged & emerged, integrated into and carried along culture, and came to be recorded, opening numerous avenues towards getting any particular sound, sample, phrase, or recording for a project, (including by creating a recording of it to sample).
An unforgettable example of sampling being employed without any digging, came in the form of a song I already knew, and knew for what it was brought out (in recording school) as an illustration of.
When it is intended to merely fade a song out (where there is no written, or desired ending), the common means is to vamp ... repeat a phrase, perhaps with variations, play, fooling around, over a suitable duration for the fade out.
Every once in a while, the stuff that gets vamped might go off into a novel, amusing sort of direction, and be left "as-is," becoming an "unintended ending."
One song that I had held as a great example of exactly that, turned out to be the recording which was used in recording school (The Institute of Audio Video Engineering) to explain how an "unintentional ending" occasionally comes about.
The track was "I Know What I Know" on Paul Simon's "Graceland."
ua-cam.com/video/2hanjM_IenU/v-deo.htmlsi=081zJFJ6DDk1aE27
Many years later, I wound up on-the-spot to fill in "body" for a "song" that had nothing going for it. It needed a f*ck-load of inventive ideas to "save it."
And all-the-worse, I was working off-prem, (without my mainstay of resources on hand).
But the first thing that came to mind was to fill-in a (non-existent) rhythm section beginning from Xitsonga guitars + bass syncopation, adjusting the chord progression appropriately to the song.
ua-cam.com/video/b5T75orQ3Qo/v-deo.htmlsi=YJp6p8CLrnvOWC09
But I blanked on the name of the style & artists.
Ah, but I could do a memory-jog by pulling the liner notes from "I Know What I Know."
Or, so I thought.
When I did, I got a massive surprise:
There was only one musician, and one instrument "played" on that song.
Paul Simon, "playing" the Synclavier.
Not only was what I knew about "I Know What I Know" WRONG, what it was being used in recording engineering school as an example of was wrong.
The "unintentional ending," was actually very deliberately constructed to make it seem like that's what it is.
(The Synclavier:
Specifically, the Synclavier II
www.muzines.co.uk/articles/synclavier-ii/5897 )
If anything, the virtue of "digging" can best be found in the contemplative note of introspect that emerges from a sort of approach which might be seen as akin, in part, to a meditation, and in part to a quiet prayer of gratitude.
(My own summary take on "Digging" being brought into center focus with DJ Shadow, in Scratch.)
ua-cam.com/video/A8aMMpoSUSQ/v-deo.htmlsi=EvBICQuU9WDalm5Z&t=3148
2:57 "Any kid in their basement can do that with a sampler."
:-D
HAHAHAHA ditto.
What is this 300$ sampler he is referring to?
@@vielkielo I'm not sure actually. Casio SK-1 would be cheap but kind of a toy
@@JC20XX gotta remember this was early 90s. $300 was equivalent to about $1200 nowadays.
I approached sampling after playing drums since grammar school and had some experience playing guitar and keys. Sampling made me develop an even greater appreciation of music. It made me want to go out and buy records that I'd never even think to listen to. Yeah, it's relatively easy to sample something and throw together a simple beat, but it's fun and something you can have a great time sharing and doing with your friends.
Steve Stevens' hair at 2:09 just made my day. Maybe the whole week.
OMG
There is SO MUCH great hair in this clip.
Spazio Jobim i want to sample his wig
Anyone can hit a drum with a stick too. But to sample something and create something impressionable takes skill and it’s an art
Drums are much harder than sampling. Lmao
If a drum machine isnt a instrument, then what is a instrument then? Things that dont use electricity? By that logic, electric guitars arent instruments.
I recommend you look up j dilla.
@BillyBong not really
This is why all my rap beats are dark and distorted
Sampling makes modern/electronic music more interesting. The meshing of different tonalities across eras makes for sonic experimentation beyond what pure synth can do.
As far as the idea of rap kids just saying hey let's be lazy and take the easy route and steal samples instead of making wholly new beats I think people need to understand how rap started. HipHop started as nothing more than a DJ playing records at a party and maybe every once in awhile say a little short rhyming phrase to hype the crowd or to promote his crew. This evolved into saying longer rhymes over the instrumentals or breaks of the record until eventually rapping became its own thing in its own right separate from DJing. So the art of rapping started as rhyming over other people's records for fun. The practice continued when rappers started to actually record their own songs. Sampling also became more than just taking whole portions of someone else's work but to manipulate the sample in ways, or to combine samples, to make a whole new composition.
Jelo Roc musical evolution as it should be. every genre has evolved otherwise we would still be listening to classical chamber music that was played in the 1700's. even that was looked down on in the day. if the previous generation thinks the music is a problem something is right ;)
This video is why the internet is awesome! Thanks for posting.
Sampling can make things riffs cant do. Sampling can make unknown sounds musical. It can be anything it is a whole new kind of art.
i truly dislike people who knock samplers i play a variety of instruments and still love sampling, you honestly think its easy to grab sounds from a variety of sources and make them all sound good together. half of you down talking sampling probably cant do it
well said
+ZoeMob187 Not only that but just having the ear for it. People act like they could just pick up any record and lift a riff or melody and make a hit. There's so much fine tuning, filtering, speed adjustments, etc.
ZoeMob187 check out the amount of material daft punk have sampled from and it all sounds original. and they are VERY success
Yes. And besides most original artists are riding the wave of using instruments someone else invented with a sound other people established before them. It's not that different from sampling to be honest.
Actually it's a piece of cake with todays software compared to the early days of sampling. If it sounds 'good' is rather subjective. It might sound great to you, but I might find the same thing a complete turd.
Hip hop is so cool I love it
Ah, happiness, such a wonderful feeling!
never seen so much happiness in one place.
Ecstasy
I will find you all and end your happiness
I am late for getting some hapinnes here?
Even Daft Punk and Prodigy have a lot of sampling on their songs. Remix culture is really present in the contemporary musical stream.
The prodigy really made an art out of it. I watched some video where a guy is reconstructing Prodigy tracks from the original samples and it’s insane.
@@mudi2000a And Art of Noise on so on....
It’s easy to take a sampled loop off a vinyl and use it as it is but can you take multiple ones with different tempos and bpms and make a track that doesn’t sound like chaos. You cant call it stealing or unoriginal because theres not only one way of doing it and like will smith aka the fresh prince says in this doc, when you sample an old song that everyone forgot or nobody ever heard of it makes it sounds fresh and new again and also gains a new audience from a new generation.
by definition it’s called “lifting or borrowing” so if not being stolen then it’s being repurposed (at the least) … but for originality, you could have 3 or 5 different producers in different cities and there’s a high chance all the samples will be a unique experience.. so in that way, there’s still 100% creativity and originality that goes into sampling.
the artist's that sampled the old records made me want to go and find the originals. so, they did get paid. this brings the originals to a new generation, to people that would have never known these records!!
RIP Tom Petty, Lou Reed, Adam Yauch, and John Berry. Thanks for the great music you left behind :-) . Condolences to the families :-(
By the way, sampling was already done in 1979 by the Fairlight CMI Computer synthesizer. Peter Gabriel's fourth album and Zoolook are the best examples of early sampling.
Hip hop been samplin since 73 when it was still a subculture not even a genre
even before that, there was Musique concrète.
When I was a kid and would buy rap cassette tapes and I always knew the dope songs would say "contains portions"...and then it said the original song name. I wonder who was the first person to sample? They knew what they were doing.
the beatles
@@mj.l fr
Hall & Oats are so dope. They actually like being sampled. Daryl Hall has admitted to sampling himself with early tech in the late 70s
Cold cut sampling ofra pure genius.... Ofras angelic voice was the icing on the cake.
"Obscure Israeli Record..."
-At the time, it was doing the rounds in many UK/European clubs, it was a Dance tune (which utilized the Sampler itself, pretty early on in 85')
always worth a watch because it covers all the angles about sampling in a nutshell
Sampling is taking somebody else's work and creating something original from it that's why its called Sampling not Stealing , Stealing would be to deliberately take somebody else's work and use it as if its your own.
exactly,when you cut,change the tempo and the pitch, in fact you make a new sound
That's called processing...
I don't understand.
you mean sampling is taking some part of the song without altering it at all ?
DJ_URBAN_BG Yes Sir you are Correct.
Ofra Haza was so beautiful RIP my dear
Wow, I saw this on MTV back then when it was originally aired. Now I'm 26 years older. And a lot of shit happened in between then and now. To me and in the world.
Greatest1979 was this really from Australian TV? I hear Kurt Loder narrating, makes me wonder if it wasn't MTV.
This brings back a lot of memories. I remember seeing this in the late 80s on MTV here in the states.
I still don't get it. People talk about the original artist getting compensated, because you're using a piece of their work... but what about the sampling artist getting paid for promoting the original artists work? Sampling artists are almost always adding something to the sample that makes it altogether different than the original work, and at the same time, creating awareness of the artist that may not have been there previously, especially among the enthusiasts who actually take interest in the sample sources. It seems to me that the compensation of the original artist and the promotion by the new artist should cancel each other out. The sampling artist should just be required to state the source in keeping with the concept of promoting the original artist.
I agree wholeheartedly & couldn't have said it better myself
they getting their share of the part they put in theirself
and without the original their song would not be there and in most cases would not be so cool
Great docu right here ! Takes us back... to the future !!
The people who get sampled can't really complain, after their hype died down and along came hip-hop, it made more people go out and buy vinyls or even cd's, look at it like this..do they really think vinyls would still sell in todays market without beat makers? would they still be making money from sales? the answer is no, without beat makers their whole foundation of musical touch would be invisible Also it's not the artist that makes the melodies, it's people they hire to make them music to sing along to. In this generation with hip-hop dominating music of all kind, no fuckin' one would be blasting Wu-Tang then playing a fuckin' Aretha Franklin record lol.
True that!
You are probably right. If those artists were smart, maybe they would say forget asking for payment, and let other artists sample to bring back their popularity. But at the same time, back in those times, nobody knew that hip-hop would become the force it is today, and have that much power to push sales of their music. Also at the same time, producers were never going to stop sampling, paid or not...so we all know getting money on one side isn't going to stop them getting money on the other. They're getting paid off BOTH the sample rights and the 'resurgence' of people knowing their music.
At the end of the day, if you're making money off a product that contains another man's product/work- that man deserves to be paid. I doubt there are many major label hip hop artists today (that sample or don't) that wouldn't be after that money if they were sampled by someone else who were making real money off that.
yogaframe jones Yeah i sort of agree, there are people who get sampled and simply don't care, i wouldn't know who half these old singers were if it wasn't for hip-hop/beat makers, countless times i had heard a sample and then liked it so much that i went to go check out that persons origional song, James Brown i think it was, loved people sampling him, and made sure people did just that, for me it all boils down to HOW the beat was sampled, if it's a straight up loop from a record, then i agree, pay for sample clearence if you are making substantial money from that, BUT if the sample is chopped up into tiny little pieces and the pitch is changed and it now sounds nothing like the vinyl version, i'm all for it.
Ryan Chance yeah I agree. I don't think it should be a flat X amount of money based on whether you used it or not. It should matter what/how much you used, and how much of the final product is flat out the other artists work vs if you made something almost completely brand new/unrecognizable out of it.
not all of them, some originals are crappy and didnt make extra promo after being sampled
Great channel for teaching music history.
You know what Hiphop made the World a much much better place with how we make our music. All the music sampled by our great hiphop producers bought these otherwise forgotten songs back. These artists should be glad hiphop has renewed their songs. Plus the record labels have stolen their royalties anyway.
the sampler @0:20 is the key to everything!
its taken me a while to understand but now i can grasp it
This was funny, I see no issue with sampling music, hell most of these guys can take a 4 bar loop and completely chop and rearrange it to the point where it isn't even recognisable to the original source of the sample.
+rorz999 I agree. Many hip-hop artists simply took the whole 'hook' from a existing song that was popular before and simple added some beats and a rap line. Just a random example: MC Hammer, "Can't touch this". The whole song is completely based on Rick James' "Super freak". Its 1:1 copy with only some beats and rap added. I'm sure mister Hammer had to pay for the royalties, but intellectually speaking it's a complete rip-off. And there are many, many other examples of this.
fuck u
fuck u
rorz999 Samplers were new them and I heard had limited memory and stuff so it was harder to do more with samples back then. Also sampling is an art form, sometimes looping is what what is needed.
rorz999 J Dilla or Pete Rock would disagree. However hip hop back then was more about the rapping than the beat. The rap was where most of the artistry was focused.
Wow this was very interesting to watch great upload
When Aaron Copland, American Compuser, uses lines from previous symphonies it's okay. If an American hip-hop producer uses a sample, every white musician goes ape shit.
Oh, that's because us musicians don't like when some jaggoff who doesn't even play an instrument, decides to jerk one of our tunes off. At least Aaron Copland is PLAYING the line, and adding certain bits to it instead of just pressing "Play" in the middle of a symphony while all of the players go get a drink.
except if he is a composer... isn't he technically not 'playing' anything?
chino8it Did he ask permission from the Composer before quoting the previous symphonic work, and get licensing? If so, it's OK. If not, not cool, unless the composer is long dead and the music public domain. Even in this instance, it's always best to credit the works borrowed / arranged / quoted in the new work, as well as crediting the original composers, regardless of copyright status.
false.
@@AdamBorseti I'm a musician and I'm also a big fan of sampling. Not every musician thinks like you
yeah. i saw an interview back in the days and one of them told that they where just happy to get famous after all! ...that is an attitude ... amen!
I love how the idea back in the day was "it's easy, any teenager can do it in their basement". Haha. Prince Paul is genius. Pete Rock, Diamond D, the Dust Brothers, Premier, all these guys are very very talented producers, arrangers and composers. The musicians criticizing them back in the 80s could not make beats like these guys. Its not just what samples you use, it's how you use them and what else you combine them with. Everybody thought it was easy back then because they didn't understand it. Now that we have millions of people trying to do it, anybody trying to make this music will tell you that what the sample cats did back in the 90s was in no way "easy".
Not only that, but how many riffs did these rock guys steal from blues guys, etc. etc. All music is based on music that came before it. Sampling just takes that concept a little more litterally. The key is that if all you are doing is stealing a loop and not adding anything of substance, yeah that's stealing in the same way that covering somebody else's song is stealing. When you start adding to it and making it into something new, that's musical progress.
Hip hop made some huge leaps and bounds as far as adding to the styles of music that already existed. By sampling music that already existed they were able to come up with a whole slew of music that sounding compeletly unique. That's the case in point for sampling. The whole purpose of copyright laws (if you listen to the United States Supreme Court) is not to make musicians money or give them intellectual property in their music, the purpose of the law to entice people to make new and creative music. If the orginial muscians copyrights would have been too strictly enforced back in the 80s and 90s, we'd have no hip hop and we'd have LESS in the way of new music styles, which goes against the whole purpose of copyright law.
Exactly! Everyone who claims that it’s easy should try it themselves. Even nowadays in the DAW age it’s not as easy as one might think.
you are 100% correct - many studio engineers were astounded by what they were juicing outtta the sp-12 (Linn drum) then Akai heard the call to make the MPC from their popular rack mounts for flexibility.
Crazy how many people in this video are now dead.
I think that way too.. What's wrong with us
@@ForceFedFetusFillet yearh Tom petty, Ofra Haza, Eddie van halen are dead now
THis also aired in the USA on MTV - australia obviously repackaged it ;) thanks for sharing !
There's a terrific new documentary like this called Copyright Criminals. It's on Netflix and Hulu. Also, there are a few insightful cartoon about copyright on the Creative Commons website that make a solid case that duplication does not equal stealing, because there is no loss of the original property. Choose a creative commons license for your creative works if you want people to sample or remix your work.
3:58 Still got my CASIO SK-5 PCM (Pulse Code Modulation), had a lot of fun with it in the day's. Those drum pads are still feeling and working great after 34 years!
Hahahaha every musician uses the same 12 notes and most of them rarely deliniate from 4/4 and the some melodic and chordal strutures that have been in place since the begining of western music. Tom petty for example owes his entire career to the sounds pioneered by black people and pop music in general has its deep roots in west african rhythms. How paid did west african tribes get? You cant control things like visual images or sound because they can essentially be endlessly reproduced. Its like wanting to claim possesion of patterns in nature. All you do as a composer is select notes and rhythms that you like to hear, what part of that selective process makes you the owner of them. They were there since...well, quite honestly, eternity.
Jake Ybarra loveu
preech
Law and economics is based in morals and practical realities. And society has deemed it fair that artists' works be protected from plagiarism, to enable artists to get fairly compensated when their work generates money. If you boil down all music to 4/4, 12 notes -- I hope you're still aware how astronomically improbably it is that a 5-second riff, for example, is randomly the same between two songs. Do the math. So pretending music cant be plagiarized is just silly, but yes it's a matter of judgment like all other aspects of law.
Everyone thinks like you until they run a company or create something themselves. And most people want laws that encourage fairness and morals, whether they are arbitrary or not. I'd agree current situation is impossible to enforce though. But forfeitting, and saying artists should have no legal protection is not the right way IMO.
Jake Ybarra,
Big L Well said
To sample another's work is a complement really, shame no one seems to see it that way.
I would kill the game if I could go back to 1988 with my Macbook Pro running Logic Pro X LOL!
Chris Brown i think that so often.. same thing with mixers, serato and ableton and of course nowadays computers and midi controllers. dammit wouldnt it be great?
+Mr. NICE Jay nah the old stuff sounds good too
+Curious Alien Word Up
The irony @2:57, now it's $900 laptops and pirated music programs
Word
the people who think its wrong literally give a single sentence explanation and the people who are for it actually have a good response
Not that I'm defending the former, but an argument doesn't need to be complex to be valid.
Shout out to anyone who recognizes that the voice of the lawyer speaking at 7:43 was actually used by DJ Shadow as a sample in his live show "In Tune and On Time" at around the 43:00 mark, its here on youtube.
That's amazing lmao
0:11 Can someone tell me if it's an actual "thing" to mechanically modify a mixer's crossfader to have a shorter path-length, to make faster cuts possible? Because it looks like that's what's actually been done to his; sorta cool.
Yeah, it was a "thing" back in the day to modify your crossfader for a shorter "throw" (faster cut-in). Now most DJ mixers come automatically with crossfaders that are almost on/off for scratching. Some have a dial so you can adjust between long throw (gradual fade-in for mixing) and short throw (on/off for scratching).
JamBurgler Extremely helpful, thanks so much :)
Ryan Dunlap in case you have a mixer that hasnt got this so called "curve-adjustment" or "cut-in-adjust" you can do some research about something called the "tape-mod" or "scrape-mod" this is some physical modification on your c.faders tracks, where you tape them or scratch them of, so that only the on/off contact remains. but if you do this you cant softblend anymore..(anyway useless, cause of the upfaders) back in the times we tried so much shit. but these mods are the only ones that made really sense. anyway nowadays we have universal, nearby indestructible faders like the "innofader" where you can adjust every feature of the fader. peace
Ryan Dunlap He isn't scratching with the crossfader or a modified crossfader, he is using the phono switch. Nearly all mixers have one of these switches on each channel. Enjoy.
i see it as recycling
And what does recycling do? Helps the planet.. (:
It’s resurrecting the old records
All art is “recycling” nothing is completely original.
Thanks that was good to watch. Coldcuts was the masters of sampling in '88!
The Positive Side of Sampling: Without sampling, many keyboardists would have been stuck with crappy sounding electronic pianos, Rhodes and Wurlitzer pianos that sounded nothing like acoustic pianos, analog synthesizers and organs. They could never have aspired to sound like guitarists, kalimba players, or drummers. The Negative Side of Sampling: Too many musicians see samplers as the lazy man's shortcut, so that they need not create their own original melodies or learn how to play their instruments. I do think that sampling things like public speeches given by politicians has a useful place, in terms of commenting on public affairs. Not to mention the interesting application of turning non-musical objects like pots and pans into musical instruments. So I'd never want to demonize samplers. But some discretion is advisable, IMHO.
+Mark Pettigrew Rhodes and Wurlitzer EPs sound fantastic. If you think they sound crappy, you may not have had enough exposure to them. They're, and particularly the Rhodes extremely dynamic instruments that when played and voiced correctly, can really bring out a beautiful softness or an edge. They were never intended to sound like acoustic pianos.
Terry Bailey Put it this way. Those electric pianos are fine, as long as one wants a good keyboard for performance in a band (e.g., a jazz band like the Crusaders, or a rock band like Supertramp).
But in my opinion, only an acoustic piano is suitable for solo work with no accompaniment by a band.
Joe Sample was an excellent Rhodes player. But like I said, he played with a band.
+Mark Pettigrew I'll give you that, they're not necessarily solo-ready instruments. Although I've heard some, particularly with the Rhodes playing some beautiful stuff. Of course, the whole topic of sampling is using samples in a large mix of instruments - a la a band with a Rhodes or Wurlitzer.
Terry Bailey Rhodes always reminded me of the vibraphone. I had an excellent album in which Gary Burton played the vibes along with guitarist Ralph Towner.
I think it was the best thing that ever happened. It's so fascinating
Nice throwback video. Guess things haven't changed much in over 20 years!
Back in those days there was no FL Studio or Garage band or Audiotool where you can make original authentic beats, you actually needed instruments and bands and lots of rappers came from the hood and we're too broke to get all that so that's why they sampled.
They did have music programs back then for the Amiga and Atari but they were really basic.
Nothing like today but back then its amazing what they did do with what they had.
There is HipHop with Original Music from back then. Do your research Dummy. Dude Talkin about FL Studio. Smh.
There literally was. Do you know what drum machines and synthesizers are? loooool.
@@Sicbay138 but that was all super expensive. Not that a sampler was cheap but you maybe needed only one. And of course Drum machines were used , so many rap records using the 808.
Rick and Morty show creator Dan Harmon didn't ask Ice T to voice Water T because they were afraid he would say no. So they sord of just sampled/imitated his voice and Ice T loved it. It brought back Ice T to new fame, and he wasn't paid.
Funny how the loudest complaints come from those with the most successful careers, even now. I'm looking at you, youtube copyright claim robo-system: 2 seconds of footage or sound for a joke does not mean the 2 and a half cents little timmy makes off his videos over the next ten years should belong to Disney.
I won't lie. Much of my favorite music in any genre contains samples or has been used as samples. Even some of the video games I used to play and cartoons I used to watch as a kid have used sampling.
It's fun watching the dinosaurs get mad at the little mammals for live birth. Culture moves on with or without your permission.
How does this add on to the conversation? I think a lot of people not just producers could learn from the old techniques to make better music.
Tard take.
BACK IN MY DAY, WE USE REAL INSTRUMENTS, WTF IS A DAW 😅😅😅
they’re still suffocating art. Playboi Carti hasn’t released an album in 3 years
awesome old coldcut footage from the begining!
that is the number one reason why I don't loop or do one shot samples. I put my samples through a meat grinder and season it with Crisco. I take nasty ass pig feet and turn it into porterhouse steak
dripping off the meat grinder?
One of my favorite snips its back in time. Keep vinyl alive. We host a webisode centered on crate digging. Swing by.
Cheers!
/HERO
Whoa Lou Reeds mullet.
That vocal Cold Cut scratches and samples. Sounds like Ten City - Devotion.
What I find funny is that they have trouble with sampling but cover songs are alright back when this was made it was a regular practice for bands some of which were complaining to make cover songs of American tunes with out the artist permission! such as Rolling stones,led Zepplin,Beatles,Adam ant,blondie! They all did that and were sucessful because of it!!
leeoni24 That was because the artists you mention didn't need to get the permission of the "Original Artists". Once one version of a song was issued it became fair game for anyone to cover, as long as they acknowledged the original songwriter and the publisher of the song. It was only before a song was released that permission had to be sought from the songwriters/publishers. Of course there were a number of instances in the 1960s where artists did thinly disguised versions of other peoples songs, changing a few words here and there, and tried to pass them off as their own compositions. In these instances the "thieves" were in a win-win situation .. if their copies became a hit they would simply admit their error and pay over royalties etc. to the true songwriters (getting fame, if not fortune, as a result) .. if their copies bombed no-one would ever notice ...
Roger Foster That makes sense but doesnt regardless of that fact make bands who complain about sampling kinda doing the same thing legal or not if you did a cover song you have no right to complain about sampling!
If im not mistaken it depends on the artist there record company can charge what ever they want.You can get a DJ permit that allows you to legally play live shows or upload videos with any samples legally
Tom Petty's name is very coincidental considering this context
The only exception I have with sampling is the sampling of acoustic instruments and vintage synthesizers and drum machines. The ability to sample a TR808 or a MiniMoog Model D or Jupiter 8 allows musicians to use these sounds that are typically out of reach because of the vintage market prices.
+William Blackwelder Without digital pianos, keyboardists lacking the money to haul real grand pianos to gigs would be stuck with instruments sounding nothing like actual acoustic pianos.
But sampling is still inferior in small ways to real acoustic pianos. That's why I love the Roland V-Piano, which uses modeling technology to transcend the limitations of sampled pianos.
The V-Piano Grand is particularly cool --- but it costs around $20,000, putting it out of reach for many keyboard players..
the courts killed sampling. we will never hear good music like this anymore. truth be told, everyone should be sued, everyone is recreating the drums that some one played in their tribe centuries ago.
Yeah that's no fun. It takes money to make music.
Not if you steal it by sampling somebody else ;)
John Doe then stop bitching and pay your dues for using someone's art
Durka Durka it killed the creative sound we were used to is all I'm saying
idk what ur talking about because sampling is still done in modern rap songs
It wuz a game changer. It changed the world it changed me
doing it legally or illegally sampling is not stealing, its borrowing or lifting parts with or without permission. What Coldplay did with Viva La Vida is a direct ripoff of a joe satrianni song "if I could fly", The verse bridge and chorus are all parts of Joes song and they went into a studio, with instruments and played out this almost entire song hoping noone would notice that it was someone elses song. Everybody knows when a hip hop song comes on that there is probably a sample in there, Hell thats how the genre got started, rappers rappin over 12 inch dance singles durring the insrumental parts.
Man, I love this documentary ! !
4:23 Like Andy Warhol?
24 Karat Blak I'm learning to fly
@Dana Dane
If you are the Dana Dane much love and piece! (A hiphop legend) I just wanted ti say that the art of sampling has changed my life. None of my tracks were even listened to until I started sampling. Nothing wrong with sampling as long as the original artist gets compensation for it if need be so be it. With the age of Digital computer music all of it is sampled anyways.
hahahah people are butthurt. Tom Petty... give it up, man
It's like a very early debate about piracy. It is kind of taking, but using it doesn't deprive anyone of their physical property.
Honestly i don't see the big deal of sampling unless you don't give credit to the original artist then it's a problem.
FoodNeedNow exactly. I think sampling helps the artists arguing about it, not hurt them.
Thank you for posting this! 💯 A-1
wtf is that guy trying to say about the turtles sample? They digitally manipulated it so they're using a different sound source then the original? What? You lowered the pitch lol. I don't see how anybody can twist their vocabulary to make that mean that they "changed the sound source".
Kronic Shade my thoughts exactly
Quelle heure est il ?
its only artistic laziness if its done horribly.
Facts
Does anyone have any knowledge about how this applies scratching?
Its like all the bebop guys playing Cherokee over and over and calling it different things. Howling Wolf playing a reduced form of "All I want is a Spoonful" and calling it Spoonful. Bob Dylan rewriting folk standards and things he found on obscure 78s (Maggie's Farm). Before the music was public domain or traditional. Now with all the recording mediums and publishing companies chasing the dollar... things are different. Show me the artist benefiting other than by being advertised. Who owns the rights to the songs? Seldom the original artist. Kanye has a good racket sampling. Thanks to whosampled lots of people are learning about the original artists.
This is still better than a bunch of dj mixes coming out today
"anyone can do it in their basement, it just doesn't seem quite fair" sir...increased access is inherently fair. Gatekeeping *yawn*
And to be fair, any kid can learn to play the guitar or drums in there basement just as easily, so the argument dosent make Mutch sense, why does music have to be “hard” to make, if it sounds good then it’s good
oh my. prince paul and de la soul! 3 feet high and rising! how many samples?! great album
fresh prince
Yes, I do. I am all for sampling and borrowing and being inspired by music and re-using it. I understand your point that there are only so many concepts we can use before we run into something that is similar to something that has been done. I am just trying to point out how the law sees musical compositions (the arrangement and use of western 12 tone system) and a sound recording. Google this: difference between musical composition and sound recording
Robert Plant sampling Led Zepplin???? HOW DARE HE!
Adam Wilmot bahahaha
Talentless asshole Plant is nowhere near as great as Led Zepplin. He's not worthy to hold their dirty underwear. I don't even know the guy, has he done anything good at all?
Michael Bauers , Big Led Zeppelin fan, eh? And the name Robert Plant doesn't ring any bells?
:)
I had to point that out for you.
does this documentary at any point explain how they could use samples without getting copyrighted
For some reason I've never considered sampling entire musical phrases as a way to use sampling. Sampling a single note of an acoustic instrument is fine, that's what sampling was designed for. That's the way people were originally using pre-recorded pieces of tape to assemble music from scratch. If you sample entire musical phrases and play it back, then it as much rewarding as hitting play button on a CD player.
0:02 "first thing we do when we're puttin a track together is start with the beat"
nice, that must be that legendary 'typing on a keyboard' sample!
I'm sick of these dudes bitching about not getting paid and shit, like they don't have enough already. They should be glad that their music is not forgotten but lives on, even if in a different version. Ridiculous.
That's right
oldschoolcuc nah bruh, people shld be paid for their hard work and creativity....
I disagree with that. Besides, they are already getting paid, no need for getting every little bit of money they could.
what worries me is that "intelectual rights" are copyrighted during lifetime of the composer + (PLUS) 70 yeasr after death!!!??? WTF???
oldschoolcuc so if you make a song earn $50,000 frm it then I use your song 20yrs later and make $50 million frm it you telling me tht you wouldn't want to be compensated?
Steve Stevens at 2:09... he looks remarkably young... didn't he play piano for Bessie Smith in the '20s?
Incidentally, Mr. Stevens is only known to have recorded two jazz/blues tunes, both in 1930 with Ms. Smith. I know nothing else about him at all: adp.library.ucsb.edu/index.php/talent/detail/135731/Stevens_Steve_instrumentalist_piano
People are so damn greedy .
what?
SoundWave yup! it sure is...And ppl love it hahahaha!
Legislate refrigerators? What did the refrigerators do wrong??
Good artists copy, GREAT ARTISTS STEAL!
Son we steal then de-construct then rebuild. Nabbing loops has been done only way your gonna find a new loop is if you go digging in like Iraq or some next foreign country.
Sampling should never ever be illegal, that would basically get rid of every edm song ever
This is what happens when music stops being art and becomes commerce.
nobel 11 heres someone obviously doesnt know they talkin bout
Honestly, I can't even remember what I meant by that comment.
nobel 11 haha nice one
Artists' gotta eat too though bro.
No the producers and record labels get that money musicians have to TOUR to eat.
I still love that Robert Plants sampled his own Led Zeppelin vocals in "Tall Cool One." That must've been one of the first instances of that happening...
ah white recording artists who've forgotten that all rock n roll copied the blues...
Sure, knowing your roots is one thing....... knowing your instrument and how to play it is another. I don't have a problem with that at all as it deserves respect. I do, however, have a problem with someone saying they're a musician and when asked what they play, respond with "I make beats".
"Oh, so you're a drummer?"
"Naw, man, I make beats in ----program name here---- and loops...
"Oh!" Says I "You mean, you program a drum machine and lay down an entire drum track first, then play over it?"
"Naw, man, I don't play anything, I just sample beats and roll them into my own, then sell them!"
"Oh, so you're a piece of shit then! Sorry, I thought you had talent!"
Adam Borseti but he will create something that people will listen to in that genre, and vise versa to you? if you switched shoes both of you would have no idea what your doing nor satisfy anyone. So your comparing apples to oranges.
Apples to oranges? How bout' musicians to non-musicians?
Dude. People who "make beat" are absolutely musicians! I started with guitar got pretty good at it and started 'making beats' and it's not like it's less challenging to make it sound good or anything. You can take any craft as far as you want. Anyone who makes music is a musician. I looked at your channel and it looks like you play with synths and stuff. Do you not consider yourself a musician when you are using a computer or a digital synth?
I don't know about you but I NEVER met a cat who makes beats calling themselves a musician although MOST of the ones I know play some form of keys and if bang out drums on pads that playing an instrument too..
Sisters of Mercy -Temple of Love `92 - Touched by the hand of Ofra Haza R.I.P