GPBear
The Tape Crusader
it's not that one is better than the other, they're just two different ways of creating music.
read an interview the other day about someone who worked with dangermouse. before he also didn't really respect sampling, but once he saw Dangermouse in the studio ripping every CD he could find, collecting any possible sound source, he realized its worth was the fact that music could come from literally anywhere and that it's up to the producers/beatmakers to navigate all that media.
like yeah you can sample, but those samples are buried in this monolith of recorded music that the producers basically have to excavate like archaeologists. 99% of producers aren't like Puffy, where you just take a loop from a famous song and have someone rap over it; there's a lot of work behind the scenes that goes into it, and processing those samples as well. Like J Dilla and Madlib for instance, they'd sample a loop, but then chop it up and replay it, retune it on the pads, etc. So they are being original/creative, it's just that their instrument is pre-recorded music instead of a guitar or piano.
As someone who does play multiple instruments, I'd say more work goes into sampling, because you have to dig for hours, if not days, before you even begin to produce, and even then there's no guarantee what you're working with will come out after you've started. The ability to 'hear' songs within other songs, then re-arrange their components in order to form unique compositions is a lot like Jazz musicians who would 'cover' old standards, but change the melodies or keys or harmonies or tempo slightly in order to create a new piece of art. This has been going on for centuries, 'contrafactums' are nothing new - in fact the Star Spangled Banner ripped its melody off from an old drinking song. This is how music has operated since forever, musicians steal/copy/reuse musical phrases all the time because there's only so many ways to re-arrange the 12 tones we use in the west. It's just when african-americans and disenfranchised musicians start doing it, it all of a sudden becomes a legal issue, see: Biz Markie vs Gilbert O'Sullivan.
Not saying original artists shouldn't get their due if they are being looped, but in a lot of instances you'll see a Bob James type sue the shyt out of Madlib for way more than the single song they made is worth, simply because they re-used a snippet of a sound (regardless of if they repitched it/stretched it/etc.) It's another way to maintain systems of oppression, imo.
tl;dr: shyt's hard, b
read an interview the other day about someone who worked with dangermouse. before he also didn't really respect sampling, but once he saw Dangermouse in the studio ripping every CD he could find, collecting any possible sound source, he realized its worth was the fact that music could come from literally anywhere and that it's up to the producers/beatmakers to navigate all that media.
like yeah you can sample, but those samples are buried in this monolith of recorded music that the producers basically have to excavate like archaeologists. 99% of producers aren't like Puffy, where you just take a loop from a famous song and have someone rap over it; there's a lot of work behind the scenes that goes into it, and processing those samples as well. Like J Dilla and Madlib for instance, they'd sample a loop, but then chop it up and replay it, retune it on the pads, etc. So they are being original/creative, it's just that their instrument is pre-recorded music instead of a guitar or piano.
As someone who does play multiple instruments, I'd say more work goes into sampling, because you have to dig for hours, if not days, before you even begin to produce, and even then there's no guarantee what you're working with will come out after you've started. The ability to 'hear' songs within other songs, then re-arrange their components in order to form unique compositions is a lot like Jazz musicians who would 'cover' old standards, but change the melodies or keys or harmonies or tempo slightly in order to create a new piece of art. This has been going on for centuries, 'contrafactums' are nothing new - in fact the Star Spangled Banner ripped its melody off from an old drinking song. This is how music has operated since forever, musicians steal/copy/reuse musical phrases all the time because there's only so many ways to re-arrange the 12 tones we use in the west. It's just when african-americans and disenfranchised musicians start doing it, it all of a sudden becomes a legal issue, see: Biz Markie vs Gilbert O'Sullivan.
Not saying original artists shouldn't get their due if they are being looped, but in a lot of instances you'll see a Bob James type sue the shyt out of Madlib for way more than the single song they made is worth, simply because they re-used a snippet of a sound (regardless of if they repitched it/stretched it/etc.) It's another way to maintain systems of oppression, imo.
tl;dr: shyt's hard, b
