who does 100% original material only ? .. please vote

Discussion of music production, audio, equipment and any related topics, either with or without Ableton Live

I do 100% original mater only

Yes
101
68%
75% or more is original
26
18%
More than 50% original
4
3%
less than 50%
9
6%
no original material
8
5%
 
Total votes: 148

smutek
Posts: 4489
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2003 3:30 pm
Location: Baltimore,United States

Post by smutek » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:35 am

Like I say, I fell asleep on the couch. 4:30 am here but I think I am just going to stay up, go grab a breakfast sandwich and get to work. Plenty to do today.

Yeah, I remember the dialup days. When you going to treat yourself to something faster mohn?

HD1
Posts: 667
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by HD1 » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:39 am

not an option, I be living in the countryside where its just not possible bar satellite feeds...

anyways its done now, good day to you sir!
bing bing!

noisetonepause
Posts: 4935
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
Location: Second row from the expensive puddle, under ten others

Post by noisetonepause » Tue Mar 21, 2006 11:17 am

RopeyPunter wrote:paws (if I may refer to him as that)


You may.
meaning of the english language as dictated by the scholars who have... coined it.
They don't coin words at Oxford. They go through what's been written in English and look how old words are being used and which new words have entered the language. I could rant about this all day, but suffice to say that language is a funny thing to study as 'proper' language, grammatically and semantically 'correct' language never exists orally and only rarely in writing. It's more like a chaotic flux where what's proper is forced upon the living, breathing, evolving entity that is the language (I read Arabic at U of Copenhagen which is a prime example). Oxford Dictionary scholars don't coin words, they're constantly chasing the elusive and pluralist spirit of the English language. They describe, they don't invent.

(this is one of my 'things', sorry!)
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.

forge
Posts: 17422
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:47 am
Location: Queensland, AU
Contact:

Post by forge » Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:26 pm

noisetonepause wrote:usual load of bollox
PAWS! please point me to the conversation where Smutek made the ponies comment!

And also, whatever happened to your website? I'd really like to hear some of your music/read your words now AFTER I've met you! I realised I probably checked it out about 2 years ago now and that's not good enough.

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:34 pm

Go Ropey GO you have them all running scared :wink:

mercyplease
Posts: 1003
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:22 am
Location: Sent back to hell

Post by mercyplease » Tue Mar 21, 2006 3:47 pm

RopeyPunter wrote: If you get a microphone and record your father beating you senseless for ruining his jockstrap, that my friend is sampling.
You often equate your points with violent anecdotes, why?

DKushner
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Chicago IL

Post by DKushner » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:40 pm

RopeyPunter wrote:
DKushner wrote:Dude, I think you are missing the point of what sampling is. Licensed or unlicensed, sampling is the art of taking material that someone else in all liklyhood recorded, and using it to make new music. It's all implied in the word sampling.


Does anyone out there, think that sampling means something other than working with pre-recorded audio? Is that not what the word means in regards to music production?

Since you're hell bent on the precise meaning of the term "100% Original" then you should get precise on the term sampling, and understand that definition too.

Sampling is a whole artform, and either you like it or you don't like it. Therin lies the answer to the question of: if something is not 100% original, is it any better or worse than something which is?

In reference to music production, the same question is "do you like sampling?" which is wholy objective.
dude, did you just string a bunch of words together or what ? Anyways, I'll address the questions you raise.....your definition of sampling is , well its both bullshit and partially right. If you get a microphone and record your father beating you senseless for ruining his jockstrap, that my friend is sampling. Ripping a black eyed shite loop is also referred to as sampling. Recording sound to a medium, is sampling. Recording other peoples stuff is not implied in the word sampling, no more then the word eating means chewing on another person's face. does anyone out there believe sampling means anything OTHER than ripping someone elses stuff....in short, yes most people without a bib permanently fixed to their chin ....and maybe you should get precise on the term sampling ....as for 'do you like sampling?' ...thats subjective man, subjective.
if something is not 100% original, it is as good as it sounds. if something is 100% original it is as good as it sounds.


Sampling as an art.

I stated: sampling is the art of taking material that someone else in all liklyhood recorded.

Man you even put it in boldface.


In what way does that not encompass your rude thing about your dad beating you with a hot microphone or whatever? "Someone else in all liklyhood recorded" leaves plenty of room for you to do the recording of source material yourself.



I stand by it all. Except the objective part, you're right, its subjective. but the rest? I stand by it. Sampling as an artform implies the usage of already recorded material, frequently by someone else. Why are you hung up on the issue of originalty of source material as a measure of quality when the state of the art frequently involves using pre-recorded material?


If you really wanted to get technical about the difinition of sampling as a science, it only applies to digital recordings- no tape. So if you want to be so super anal, then you must always make that disticntion.
If you get a microphone and record your father beating you senseless for ruining his jockstrap, that my friend is sampling.
becomes
If you get a microphone and record to a digital medium, your father beating you senseless for ruining his jockstrap, that my friend is sampling.
^^^This my friend, is how annoying you are being about the "100% Original" thing.

But then, that all straitened out, what about stuff like BFD, Kontakt, Stylus Atmosphere Trilogy, Battery, Triton Fantom Motif and anything else using pcm, Yellow Drums, Darbuka, Latigo, or mellotron or anything else of the ilk? All of these rely entirely on the usage of prerecorded material and almost always the material was recorded by someone who is not the end-user. Music made with these is not original?
dude, did you just string a bunch of words together or what ?
Hell yeahz I did, fuckin paragraphs and sentances rock!

DKushner
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:45 pm
Location: Chicago IL

Post by DKushner » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:47 pm

noisetonepause wrote:
RopeyPunter wrote:paws (if I may refer to him as that)


You may.
meaning of the english language as dictated by the scholars who have... coined it.
They don't coin words at Oxford. They go through what's been written in English and look how old words are being used and which new words have entered the language. I could rant about this all day, but suffice to say that language is a funny thing to study as 'proper' language, grammatically and semantically 'correct' language never exists orally and only rarely in writing. It's more like a chaotic flux where what's proper is forced upon the living, breathing, evolving entity that is the language (I read Arabic at U of Copenhagen which is a prime example). Oxford Dictionary scholars don't coin words, they're constantly chasing the elusive and pluralist spirit of the English language. They describe, they don't invent.

(this is one of my 'things', sorry!)

Doh! is now in the dictionary. I gaurantee that wasn't coined at Oxford but rather by Homer Simpson.

glu
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:27 am

Post by glu » Tue Mar 21, 2006 4:55 pm

I have some old beat up instruments. A harp, 100 year old mandolin, a funky-tuned guitar played with a violin bow....

sampling these instruments is fun. I have turned the guitar/bow into a symphonic instrument, and an ambient sound generator, the mandolin into all kinds of stuff, and the harp is my number one sound! I use it as a rough wave and then synthesize it and add Fx... some really cool sounds that are original, meaning you don't hear them very often in music. They compliment each other wonderfully.

I was very satisfied once I started doing this. I felt like my individual sound was developing. Check out my website in my sig, go to the music page.. , to hear some clips of tracks that use these. the songs are older, and my site sucks right now, but they are good examples of what i am talking about.

composing is a whole other monster in terms of originality. I hope to find my unique place in this cesspool of talent.

peace

gordon
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu

guest4444
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:33 pm

Post by guest4444 » Thu Mar 23, 2006 5:37 pm

what a load of fucking shit coming from that ropeypuker
your dead against sampling you fucking idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU USE ABLETON LIVE
:lol: :lol:

TranNgoc2010
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:38 pm

Post by TranNgoc2010 » Thu Mar 23, 2006 6:42 pm

Hello, I post this now! I think if you do 100% original music you are ok. If you sample songs that is ok as well. Are you happy with your music? If you are happy then you are ok. If you are not happy you are not ok. I make house and sometimes I have to sample a snare drum because the snare drum I use from Battery is weak. I am trying to be happy today with my music. yesterday i was not happy. But I did 100%

charles-l
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 2:31 pm
Location: London

Post by charles-l » Thu Mar 23, 2006 7:39 pm

yeap same for me - originality is what counts, there is some good remixes and sample based mix out there but I feel it is the exception. Alot of remixes are a money making scam. Also I rarely use samples myself.

Charlie :D

www.silver-kyoto.com

hambone1
Posts: 5346
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:31 pm
Location: Abu Dhabi

Post by hambone1 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:17 am

IMO, those (like me!) without the talent or ability to write quality original tracks need to DJ, or plagiarize and regurgitate the sampled works of others.

That's not to say that it can't be entertaining, require a certain amount of skill, or be fun. And I suppose nothing is 100% original any more.

To each his own... whatever works for you!

RePeter
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:42 pm

Post by RePeter » Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:06 am

Sorry to bump this one, but I've only just seen this thread and its gonna take me a year to read it and by then its going to be on page 100.

has anyone mentioned The Avalanches or DJ Shadow yet.... people who make unbelievable records out of hundreds of samples... very little performance on a traditional instrument.

Its not a remix, or even a mashup... it's composed music.
MBP 2.4 & a shit load of Faderfoxes!

Tyrant
Posts: 165
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:57 am

Post by Tyrant » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:11 am

sample everything
P4 3.2 ghz 1gb ram,160gb system hd,80gb audio hd,M-Audio AudioPhile 24/96,M-Audio Delta 1010 LT,M-Audio Radium 49,M-Audio Trigger Finger,Uc 16,Roland MC 303,Beringer EuroRack UB1622FX Pro,Alesis Monitor 1 MK2

Post Reply