Sampling

[Guest Anglesault]

Whatever it's called when someone (often a rapper) takes part of an older song (Often a Rock song) and then procedes to change all the words or sing/scream/rap over the existing song. Now I'm sure you know my feelings on it. But that's not the reason I'm doing this. I would like for people who enjoy this form of art to kind of explain it to me. Are they paying homage? If so, why not do the song the way it was meant to be done (A cover?) Is it lack of creativity? Are they making some kind of statement? Appeal to fans of older music? I'm probably just gonna observe alot in this thread.

 

By the way, Anti-This thing people can post their opinion as well.

[Guest red_file]

What you describe (stripping the vocals of an existing song and then supplying new vocals without significantly changing the music &ct) is the basest and least appealing form of sampling. That it's the most common and commercially viable is a shame.

 

The best way to think of sampling is as a form of musical collage; taking pieces of pre-existing work and arranging it in a way that creates a unique whole. To me, it isn't appreciably different from a lot of techno that uses pre-existing sounds to construct the songs. The important thing is how it sounds at the end, not how it came to sound that way.

 

Paul's Boutique is an example of where sampling was headed before it became impossible to sample freely. On that album, they boys sampled in layers, creating a lush framework for their raps.

 

nine inch nails uses samples all the time in their (his) work, but the samples are distorted to the point that they become unrecognizable.

 

The common perception seems to be that sampling other songs is lazy to some degree. Certain people have been lazy about their sampling (Puffy being a prime offender), but sampling itself requires skill when done well.

[Guest Incandenza]

Sampling can indeed be an art. Negativland has made a career out of it, and, back in 1981, David Byrne and Brian Eno collaborated on an album called My Life in the Bush of Ghosts, in which cleverly used samples--sometimes refered to as "found sound"--enhance the funky, African-influenced beats and rhythms.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Inc and red have explained it well. Copyright laws have cut the legs out from the art of sampling somewhat... with the exception of DJs who will freely sample without regard for such things, great artists as they are. You've also got bootlegs and mashups, which will take the music from one popular song and the vocals from another, and combine them into a new song. Admittedly this doesn't take too much effort (though probably more than you'd think), but they're fun to listen to.

[Guest ant_7000]

And also the thing about sampling it is a way to homage and respect to the original artists. Old artists can collect royalties off sampling, so it does benefit for them as well. I don't like lazy sampling like what Puff and Irv does, and I don't like people sampling songs that is less than 5 years old that everyone still remember (i.e Jlo's current songs). Neptunes are good at sampling because they'll sample obscure songs and then arrange them.

[Guest Phr33k]

I call it ripping off the music of others because you're too untalented to make your own, but hey, diff'rent strokes...

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Two words - DJ Shadow.

 

I love the whole concept of sampling. Taking what others have made and rearranging it, enhancing it, making it more than the sum of its parts. Sample using artists are musical magpies, drawing on the very history of the artform, reinvigorating it, warping it to their own design. Its hardly limited to rappers. All kinds of electronica and pop use it too. All hail sampling. It can gain under-appreciated artists recognition.

[Guest Lethargic]

Like the immortal Rich Robinson once said...

 

Playing NHL on playstation doesn't make me a hockey player. Putting other people's music into a computer doesn't make you a musician.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

I love good sampling. As mentioned before, the Beastie Boys are one of the best when it comes to samples--besides the Dust Brothers groundbreaking work on Paul's Boutique, there's also a lot of wonderful, hilarious, and fitting stuff on Check Your Head, where they mix samples with live instruments to create some really great effects.

 

Moby, though really hit and miss with the overall quality of his work, does some smart sampling on his last two albums. The old field music from the 30's that he uses on songs like "Honey" and "Natural Blues" come off as another component of the music he's created. It adds a lot of punch and weight to tracks that are largely instrumental--it plays like another layer.

 

There are also some really fun sample-based groups out there, foremost of which are the Avalanches. The album Since I Left You is composed from something like 900 samples and nothing else, a few of which you can recognize, most of which you can't. What you get is a really impressive collage effect. The shtick can get tiresome after a bit, but some of the better moments, like "Frontier Psychiatrist," are always cool to revisit.

 

Bottom line, I think good sampling that either creates a unique piece of art in itself or augments a song to take it to another level is absolutely great. You're looking at a process that's not too different from the stuff Picasso, Braque, and Duchamp were doing with found art and collage in the early 20th century, and I think that's pretty darn fun.

[Guest razazteca]

Sampling was at the basis of Hip-Hop in the early days of the 80s with Africa Bambata doing Planet Rock and Rock It by Herbie Hancock being the greatest form of the art. But recently certain producers have become lazy in just stripping the lyrics without changing it or adding anything new to it such as the case with Sean Combs.

 

A person with sampling skills can take a 30 sec loop, reconfigure it mix in some pop culture references and make it into something orginal. A great DJ could take 2 turntables mix a 30 sec loop sample with a pop culture reference and fade it into a classic song......its beauty would make Farooq say DAMN.

 

Check out the Mix Tapes by DJ Rectangle for some quality sampling without the dj shoutouts which always ruins the tracks. Or the Prodigy's Dirt Chamber Sessions as this album is nearly an hour of high quality sampling with a techno twist it ranges from classic Beastie Boys beats to Jane Addition to UK rock with a sweet techno backbeat.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

In rap music, it can make some good songs. Sampling is good when done right. But the problem comes when the song is too new. Songs like "Sing for the moment" are good ways of sampling since(atleast to me), same meaning with new lyrics. Songs like "Banned in the USA" are bad because well, bad rapping and taking the meaning of the song out of it.

 

That is how I alteast look at it.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Like the immortal Rich Robinson once said...

 

Playing NHL on playstation doesn't make me a hockey player. Putting other people's music into a computer doesn't make you a musician.

That attitude is like saying Warhol's soup can isn't art... but then, I suppose some would say it isn't. Once again, dif'rent strokes I suppose/

[Guest EricMM]

Sing for the moment is a blatent rip off of Aerosmith. Sampling is good IMO if you can't go "Hey, that song is such and such." Unlike, Puff with I'll be missing you, J'Lo from Jenny from the block, and other talentless songs.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Songs like "Banned in the USA" are bad because well, bad rapping and taking the meaning of the song out of it.

Hey now, what's wrong with "Banned in the U.S.A."? The Boss re-sung the hook and worked with them on the song, so he obviously agreed with the message, and I think it fits rather well. There's really no other way I can imagine them doing the song so it'd work any better.

[Guest Vyce]

Too much bad sampling has killed it for me.

 

Puffy is the prime offender. He fucking RUINED Kashmir.

[Guest Lethargic]

That attitude is like saying Warhol's soup can isn't art... but then, I suppose some would say it isn't.

It's nothing like that at all. Warhol created that painting. He put brush to canvas. He didn't take the Mona Lisa, draw a moustache on it and say look at my new piece of art! You don't take somebody else's music, change it around and say listen to my new song. It's not your song. It's somebody elses. If you wanna do somebody else's music do cover songs. Either go find some talent, write your own music and become a real musician or go pick up a mop and become a real janitor. Musicians and songwriters play musical instruments. They don't scratch somebody else's records and they don't push buttons on computer keyboards.

[Guest Flyboy]

I think AS started this thread simply because he hates "Sing for the Moment".

[Guest Anglesault]

I think AS started this thread simply because he hates "Sing for the Moment".

Among other songs that have been destroyed, yes.

[Guest Lethargic]

I think AS started this thread simply because he hates "Sing for the Moment".

I hope so. How can a person NOT hate that song? It's terrible. That's one of the most terrible songs I've ever heard.

[Guest Anglesault]

I think AS started this thread simply because he hates "Sing for the Moment".

I hope so. How can a person NOT hate that song? It's terrible. That's one of the most terrible songs I've ever heard.

It's my number one worst song ever. And I've heard "Because I Got High"

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

That attitude is like saying Warhol's soup can isn't art... but then, I suppose some would say it isn't.

It's nothing like that at all. Warhol created that painting. He put brush to canvas. He didn't take the Mona Lisa, draw a moustache on it and say look at my new piece of art! You don't take somebody else's music, change it around and say listen to my new song. It's not your song. It's somebody elses. If you wanna do somebody else's music do cover songs. Either go find some talent, write your own music and become a real musician or go pick up a mop and become a real janitor. Musicians and songwriters play musical instruments. They don't scratch somebody else's records and they don't push buttons on computer keyboards.

Alright, I think we've just got different concepts of sampling then. That stuff that P Diddy and them do, ok, that's not artistic or anything.

For an example of what I'm saying, take kid606's remix of Straight Outta Compton (I recommend everybody downloading that anyway). There's not a single element in that mix that wasn't in the original. But what he did with it, that's just art.

Metaphorically speaking, that's like taking Michaelangelo's David, smashing it, and then making a pony out of the broken pieces.

[Guest Lethargic]

Metaphorically speaking, that's like taking Michaelangelo's David, smashing it, and then making a pony out of the broken pieces.

EXACTLY. It's like taking something great like Michaelangelo, destroying and turning it into some stupid shit like a pony. That's EXACTLY like sampling. Destroying real art to turn it into crap.

 

Listen, look at it in "real" music terms. Let's say a band comes out with a song which is just a turned around version of Welcome to the Jungle. They mix it up and turn it around. They play chorus, pre-chorus and then the verse instead of the other way around. Nobody would call that art. They'd call it a rip off because that is what it'd be. But yet if some DJ Dumbass68 takes the guitar riff and the vocal track, lays them over some BOOM BOOM BOOM dance beat and rearranges all the parts, people call it art. Call me crazy, but I'd have more respect for the band that stole the music but yet actually PLAYS the music than for some guy can't play his own music so he plays somebody else's.

[Guest Edwin MacPhisto]

I think it's an issue of concept. I admire the guy who has the idea to remix and modify existing work as much as the guy who strings together a few chords. The results can be so interesting if the artist is really committed to making something fun, new, and exciting, and not in it for the cash (i.e. a lot of the pop rappers who just jack a hook and loop it).

 

He didn't take the Mona Lisa, draw a moustache on it and say look at my new piece of art!

 

Heh heh. Duchamp did. I personally find that piece both clever n' hilarious, considering the historical context, but that's me, and this isn't the art history nerd board, so I'll cease discussion of that now.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

The problem you have is with people not playing anything. But you are ignoring talent. Which is wrong. It takes a nak to make a another song into a new song. Not everyone can do it. Those who think it isn't talent haven't done it. It takes a creative mind. Like if you paint a picture of some flowers. Its been done billions of time. Now if you take that picture and change it around to make something different. There is talent.

 

Besides: the most important part of a song is a baseline. It could be from a PC or by a bass or a piano or anything. That is the foundations of a song. And there are only so many baseline cords and tunes to do. What makes songs different is what you put on top of the baseline. Sampling in its purest form is taking that baseline and adding more to it to make it different. ALL music styles do it. And to say they don't is just lying to yourself.

 

As for "Sing for the moment", is it a bad song because you don't like the lyrical content or is it a bad song because you don't like Eminem? And if you call it a bad song because you don't like the artist, you aren't a true music fan. Because that is just not accepting talent for what it is.

[Guest Anglesault]

As for "Sing for the moment", is it a bad song because you don't like the lyrical content or is it a bad song because you don't like Eminem?

 

Make no mistake, I hate Eminem. But if this was some terrible run of the mill Eminem song, I wouldn't care. But it's Dream On. If he wanted to cover Dream On, and it came out this bad, I'd hate it, but the guy made an attempt. But this is bastardizing a great song for no real reason. I'm sorry, Dream on was simply not meant to be rapped and/or sound like that.

[Guest Lethargic]

I don't care how much I hate somebody if they put out a good song. A good song is a good song. I don't like Eminem but I don't hate all his music. I still like his first CD and I've liked one or 2 off each album since. But this song is TERRRRRIIIIBLLLLLEEEEE. It's terrible for Eminem, it's terrible for Aerosmith, it's just plain awful. It's one of the worst songs I've ever heard without a doubt. Even bad songs sometimes at least have a hook or SOMETHING that justifies it's existence, this one has NOTHING. Musically and lyricaly it is completely pathetic. I don't even think it would've made the album, much less become a single, without the Dream On gimmick.

 

Actually I HAVE sampled and mixed stuff cause I used to be in a rap group. I used to put a lot of music together for it. The thing is, the group was a joke. It was just a joke for us to have something to do while our real band looked for a drummer. Our whole point of doing it was to prove that any loser can rhyme words over other's people music. The point was to show that it didn't take talent to do that. We fucking sucked. We have no talent. But yet we sold a shitload of tapes, CDs and shirts. There were even FAN SITES dedicated to us! It was hilarious. Here we are just doing a joke, saying we're just a couple of loser ass white guys that have no raping ability at all, but we can be successful at it cause talent and originality doesn't matter. And it worked beyond our wildest imaginations. We just figured we'd record some stuff on the 4-track, laugh at how much we suck and how stupid we are and then be done with it. We ended up releasing a full length cassette, a split cassette with another band, getting put on a compilation CD, getting put on the soundtrack to an indy movie, put out a full length CD, put out a greatest hits and rare tracks CD, a EP CD, plus all the merchandise crap. We ended up making more money in the 2 years of that group's existence than we did in the 10 plus years of the "real" band.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

AS: So you hate the song because its Dream on being used, not the fact that the song uses Dream on to make a point.

 

Letharic: There are those who sample who are GOOD artist. Just because you made underground and indy fame doesn't mean jack shit. Could it also be the fact that white people rapping sells no matter the talent level(See V. Ice and Marky Mark). It does take talent to make good music. It doesn't take talent to just sample. On the same note, it takes talent to play a gutair well or drums or anything else. It doesn't take talent to just play it. Look at the Romones. They sucked but just wanted to play just to play.

[Guest Anglesault]

AS: So you hate the song because its Dream on being used, not the fact that the song uses Dream on to make a point.

What point? That he could bastardize a classic? To tell you the truth, I wouldn't like that particular song regardless. It's just not very good.

[Guest IDrinkRatsMilk]

Metaphorically speaking, that's like taking Michaelangelo's David, smashing it, and then making a pony out of the broken pieces.

EXACTLY. It's like taking something great like Michaelangelo, destroying and turning it into some stupid shit like a pony. That's EXACTLY like sampling. Destroying real art to turn it into crap.

Well, not quite so blasphemous, cause the original song still exists after you've destroyed it.

 

I'm not talking about dance music. Laying guitar riffs and vocal tracks over a dance beat isn't hard. I can make a good (as good as these things get anyway) dance remix in 10 minutes, literally. But if you completely break down a song into the basic elements of that song, then rebuild it in a totally different way, that is hard. It takes more creativity and skill than writing a decent song the old fashioned way. Trust me, I've done both.

[Guest CED Ordonez]

I can only remember the "Dream On" portion of Eminem's "Sing for the Moment". If you can't remember the rap portion of the song yet recognize the song being sampled, it's not a very good rap song involving sampling.