Well that's the end of rap music!

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Never your argument? It was your first friggan post in this thread.

Samping itself is not creative. Just like hitting COPY and then PASTE on your computer is not original or creative.

You're taking something and copying it.

When you're duplicating something, you cannot be creative.

If you do something like rap overtop of it, the rap may be "creative", but the sampling of the original is not...someone else created that (hence the term 'creative').

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
God, molly, you are such a b!tch at times.

To each, their just deserts.


Here's a relatively early example of oneof those badass plagiarist rap artists, ripping off other people's work:

'Taverner's Western Wynde Mass is one of the great English choral works of the 16th century and here its various sections were interspersed with shorter modern items, affording a running contrast of style and sound. '

http://www.clare.cam.ac.uk/life/choir/recent.html

'The 1995 celebrations of British music have ranged far and wide: from Purcell to Tippett, from Taverner to Britten. Many claims have been made for these composers, yet so many of them should by rights have applied to Taverner alone. 'The first great English composer' has been used as a banner to describe Purcell, yet it was Taverner who was the first English composer of sufficient breadth and scope to establish an identifiable school of composition in his native land. Where Purcell has been described as the 'leading composer in Europe of his time', the same could be said with equal force of Taverner, for there was little in the immediate post-Josquin generation to rival him. Furthermore 1995 is doubly relevant to Taverner, who died in 1545 and was born in the mid-1490s, possibly in 1495.

Originally in a spirit of wanting to flatter Taverner by copying him, composers of every generation up to that of Purcell, and including Purcell himself, tested their contrapuntal techniques by basing music on the 'In nomine' section of the Benedictus of Taverner's Missa Gloria Tibi Trinitas.

Less well established is that his compositional method, for example in setting chant or developing themes, continued to be used throughout the remainder of the 16th century.

To give one example, Robert White transferred Taverner's scoring and texture from the Credo of the Missa Gloria Tibi Trinitas at 'Et incarnatus est' wholesale to the 'Sicut locutus est' section in his own six-voice Magnificat (2).

Arguably the most poignant example of Taverner's influence on his successors came from his 'Western Wind Mass'.


Perhaps he hoped that by choosing a secular tune on which to base a Mass setting (the first time such a thing had been done in English music) he would establish a series to go alongside the great European ones of L'homme armé or Mille regretz. '

http://www.gimell.com/Database/ReleaseNotes/995notes.html

'O Western Wynd' is a secular song, of anonymous attribution.

Perhaps Taverner should not have used it as a
basis for his great mass, and instead waited until such time as a more medicore but more ah, obvious, idea entered his head.

[Asher]

As a sidenote, Molly, please use your massive cranium to figure out how to improve the readability of your posts. Perhaps make use of the [ quote ] tag, or follow proper grammar rules to differenciate between your work and the work you're "sampling".

[BustaMike]

I agree completely with AS and Snapcase.

The people in this thread who are arguing otherwise are the people that have NO MUSICAL TASTE WHATSOEVER. The argument is being made by people that have never listened to more than what MTV and the radio have spoon fed them. To be fair, if all I ever got of music was MTV, I'd hate rap too. The example of Ice Ice Baby has been brought up 5 or 6 times. Of course that song sucks, but it's one freakin' song that you guys seem to be basing an entire argument around.

Samples don't simply consist of just a chunk of someone else's song. They don't even have to be music to begin with, yet great things can still be created. Take the album Deltron 3030 (Del the Funky Homosapien, Dan the Automator, Kid Koala). Automator manages to sample sci-fi sound bits from everywhere, even SMAC. The result is an album that sounds unlike any soundbit that may have been used in its production, yet wouldn't be half the album it is w/o them. Should they have to pay for every single tiny thing they used (even a speech clip from a video game) even though their creation was completely original and in no way steals or detracts from anything they sampled? Of course not, unless you don't want good music like this to be made anymore.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
And if you've read and actually comprehended anything in this thread, you'd realize that was never my argument.

Sampling, by definition, is not creative...

[Asher]

Automator manages to sample sci-fi sound bits from everywhere, even SMAC. The result is an album that sounds unlike any soundbit that may have been used in its production, yet wouldn't be half the album it is w/o them. Should they have to pay for every single tiny thing they used (even a speech clip from a video game) even though their creation was completely original and in no way steals or detracts from anything they sampled? Of course not, unless you don't want good music like this to be made anymore.

The SMAC soundbits aren't being sold on their own as art, and therefore would likely not be affected by this ruling.

However, if Vanilla Ice stole the riff from Queen/Bowie, he'd be forced to pay royalties for the riff. Just like The Verve had to pay the Rolling Stones for the riff in Bittersweet Symphony...

The people who are using "musical taste" to justify their opinion in a legal argument are laughably stupid, at best.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Sampling, by definition, is not creative...

Are you reading what you're posting in context?

Molly's post was about how "sampling" has been going on for ages. It doesn't matter. It's not my argument.

He has not proven that copying someone else's work is creative, nor can anyone prove that. Sampling is, by definition, copying it.

Doing something with the copied work may be creative, but sampling -- by definition -- is not.

Can we get some more stupidity in this thread, please? It's starting to get incredibly amusing. I've never seen people call copying creative before.

You guys must've had the best defenses for cheating in school.

[BustaMike]

Asher, perhaps I can relate the musical concept to something you can understand.

In web design, everything you see today was based upon someone else's code or design. This is a fact that every web designer knows. If you are looking to create your own website, the first thing you do is look at how others did it. You want to add so cool effect or scripting. Look at how others did it. It's really easy to just hit View -> Source.

Let's say you've finished your site and it looks great. Is it bull**** that you've borrowed code from another site to help create rollover images for your buttons? According to you, the whole creative process that went into making this new site is now irrelevent because you copied, pasted, and modified one little thing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher
As a sidenote, Molly, please use your massive cranium to figure out how to improve the readability of your posts. Perhaps make use of the [ quote ] tag, or follow proper grammar rules to differenciate between your work and the work you're "sampling".

When lecturing someone on the proper use of English, try to make sure your spelling is correct.


Also, please note the consistent use of paragraphs in my previous post.

I believe none of the works I quoted run on into any original work of mine.

Oh, and juvenile insults aren't a substitute for coherent arguments, no matter what might be current practice in your 'social' circle- or should that be dot?.

And no matter how hard you try,and you're 'obviously' trying very hard (or obviously very trying? either will do)
you can't patronize me, no matter how much effort or sarcasm you put into it.

3/10 for effort though.

[Asher]

Originally posted by BustaMike
Asher, perhaps I can relate the musical concept to something you can understand.

In web design, everything you see today was based upon someone else's code or design. This is a fact that every web designer knows. If you are looking to create your own website, the first thing you do is look at how others did it. You want to add so cool effect or scripting. Look at how others did it. It's really easy to just hit View -> Source.

Let's say you've finished your site and it looks great. Is it bull**** that you've borrowed code from another site to help create rollover images for your buttons? According to you, the whole creative process that went into making this new site is now irrelevent because you copied, pasted, and modified one little thing.

If I went and stole the most distinctive part of a website wholesale -- let's say the Hotmail logo and layout -- then that is absolutely theft.

The problem is too many talentless f*cks are profiting off of someone else's work. Vanilla Ice should have never made a dime off of Ice, Ice Baby, and Puff Daddy should be sleeping on the street.

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
When lecturing someone on the proper use of English, try to make sure your spelling is correct.

I was lecturing you to make your posts more readable -- one of the solutions is to use correct formatting. My posts are fairly readable, even with the odd typo...

Again, you seem completely oblivious to what's actually being said here.

Also, please note the consistent use of paragraphs in my previous post.

I believe none of the works I quoted run on into any original work of mine.

As an artsy intellectual, surely you know that when you're not block-quoting something, for every paragraph that continues a quote, you preface it with a quotation mark. You also make inconsistent use of a single and double quotation marks. The main quotation, or outer quotation, is a double. The inner quotation is a single.

For example: "I had a chicken 'burger' for lunch."

[BustaMike]

Originally posted by Asher
If I went and stole the most distinctive part of a website wholesale -- let's say the Hotmail logo and layout -- then that is absolutely theft.

The problem is too many talentless f*cks are profiting off of someone else's work. Vanilla Ice should have never made a dime off of Ice, Ice Baby, and Puff Daddy should be sleeping on the street.

Now see, this is the root of your problem. Sampling does not have to involve the most distinctive part of another's work. In AS's original example, the sample was 3 notes from a song that were then modified to sound totally different. You keep bringing up Vanilla Ice, but that's a crappy example. Of course that idiot should have to pay for the sample, the song has the freakin' same beat and sound and everything 'cept the vocals. This is the exception, not the rule. A blanket ruling on all sampling in music is retarded as it treats all works, including the good ones, like the unoriginal crap that is Ice Ice Baby.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Asher
Are you reading what you're posting in context?

Yes, you said that was never your arugment, and yet it was your very first post. I can understand you failing to understand others, but how can you fail to understand what you wrote?

Your first post, sampling isn't creative.

Later, on two seperate occasions you say, that was never my argument.

Oh, really, then please explain what your original argument means, and how it means something other than what it says.

[Asher]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Yes, you said that was never your arugment, and yet it was your very first post. I can understand you failing to understand others, but how can you fail to understand what you wrote?

Your first post, sampling isn't creative.

Later, on two seperate occasions you say, that was never my argument.

No, I did not. Please re-read and then read again what you're quoting. This is what I said was not my argument:

Of course, if you were aware of anything outside of the geekspace you inhabit, then you'd realize that sampling/plagiarism/unattributed quotes/referencing has been going on since time immemorial:

Do you mind explaining to me how that quote equates to saying "sampling is creative"?

[Asher]

Originally posted by BustaMike
Now see, this is the root of your problem. Sampling does not have to involve the most distinctive part of another's work. In AS's original example, the sample was 3 notes from a song that were then modified to sound totally different. You keep bringing up Vanilla Ice, but that's a crappy example.

It's the perfect example of some idiot profiting off of someone else's work. That or ANY Puff Daddy song.

As for the other argument, how can you even prove you're sampling 3 notes? That's such a small sample (pardon the pun) to base a case on.