Am I the only one who finds it annoying when a sampler gets all pissy if the original artist objects to the sampling? Like when the Beastie Boys insulted AC/DC after being told that they didn't endorse sampling: "Well, we don't endorse people playing guitars." Yeah, nice burn there, Beastie Boys, but the guys playing guitar will still have a job whether someone samples their work or not, whereas if a sampler runs out of music to borrow, he's fucked. I'm not placing a value judgment on the the practice of sampling; it's just extremely ignorant and disrespectful to bite the hand that you stole food from, is all I'm saying.
Hide / Show Replies
It was rather dickish of the Beastie Boys to say such a thing; the people you sample from have as much a part in creating your hit single as you do. However, I'd like to address the part of your paragraph that talks briefly about the sampler running out of music to take from.
I believe that a sampler will never run out of music to sample from, so long they are creative, and the reason I say that is this: a sample can come from anywhere; Rock, Soul, Folk, J-Pop, Easy Listening, Blues, etc. It's all about thinking outside of the box. Anyone can loop 2 or 4 bars of an old Soul record, and anyone can rap over old (or worse, recent) House tracks. It takes more talent and creativity, however, to chop 2 notes of a Soul record and put them in a context different than that of the original song, or take small sections of completely unrelated songs and string them together into another melody. Plus, with today's technology, you can do almost anything with a sample. Timestretching, reversing, filtering... Then there's the practice of micro-sampling, when the samples get really small. Even then, not everything in the song has to be sampled. In fact, the more often a sampler can create their own melodies along with a sample. The Prodigy and Daft Punk's Discovery album are good examples of this.
I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that while the guys who play guitar are always gonna have a career, with the nigh-infinite possibilities of sampling, so will a sampler, provided they expand their minds beyond the basic looping of old Soul or R&B records.
To pity someone is to tell them "I feel bad about being better than you."
Sen
I think this page ended up a bit disorganised, like the Gratuitous Panning one, and that it wouldn't hurt to have a bit more on the history of sampling and all that. Anybody else feel that way, or 's it just me?
Edited by Sen Probably should get working on that essay now... Hide / Show Replies
Yes, this topic's broken. If The Beatles existed before the invention of samplers, they can't really be said to have used sampling; but the way the intro's written, that fits. If this topic went by what "sampling" actually means, it would probably have to be split or renamed.
Thinking of either heavily editing or deleting this entry:
First of all, "Hide and Seek" has no "beat" to speak of, being an A Capella track and all. Second, the part about using the actual clip from the song is redundant and obvious, since that's pretty much the definition of sampling (unless it's an interpolation). So should I edit this or just delete it?
To pity someone is to tell them "I feel bad about being better than you."