really ? what or who are you refering to ? with respect to the original = I am better bit.smutek wrote:Some of the attitudes in this thread seem to reflect an attitude that orginal= I am better (with original,in this case, meaning I program everything myself) but how original are you if you are writing yet another epic trance track, or drummy techno track, or dissonant "IDM" piece?
who does 100% original material only ? .. please vote
bing bing!
Its really sales in general. My wife sells cameras and everyone she deals with is a pro, or atleast thats what they tell her. I'll never forget the customer that was pissed off because her pictures of the moon didn't come back right, she was convinced that the problem was either with the camera my wife sold her or the film processing. My wife tried to explain to her about lighting and exposure settings and why her picture didn't turn out, the lady angrily exclaimed "yes, I know, but I had my flash on...."forge wrote:DeadlyKungFu wrote:Where do you work? I'd like to buy a 4-track.
I hope you feel better.
Just ask them if they know of any other bands that used a 4 track, I bet they balk and miss reciting the names of every fucking band that recorded an album before 1980 (or whenever).
<walks over to the guitar section to play 'Stariway' poorly on an expensive rig I have no intention of buying>
I don't know how anyone can stand working in music shops, discount aside.
isnt it just like the music industry in general though? Every fucker in the world has an opinion on music and thinks they know something about it - you could spend 15 years working on just the snare sound in your song and finally unleash your masterpiece on to the plebs and some thick dickhead with a $200 fender squire + amp starter combo who knows sweet child o mine and paint it black will tell you the snare is to toppy.
Yes, because your flash is going to reach all the way to the fucking moon.......
Makes me laugh everytime I think about it. My wife didn't say that, she is incredibly restrained; I think she has to be in her line of work, but that is what she was thinking. Its funny though, my wifes last job was in a shop that catered to professional level photographers and now she is at a differen't company that deals with the consumer market. She says the people that came into the pro shop were the biggest assholes by far.
Anyway, just thought I'd share the moon story.
Ropey,RopeyPunter wrote:really ? what or who are you refering to ? with respect to the original = I am better bit.smutek wrote:Some of the attitudes in this thread seem to reflect an attitude that orginal= I am better (with original,in this case, meaning I program everything myself) but how original are you if you are writing yet another epic trance track, or drummy techno track, or dissonant "IDM" piece?
I'm not going to go through and point fingers and quote individual posts, but that was the impression I got from some of the posters. I'm going to leave it at that.
If you'll excuse me, I don't watch much television but discovery times has been really kicking tonight.
First there was an interesting documentary about a prison in Columbia where the guards are not armed but the prisoners are, with 9mm's and mac 11's.
Next there was one about the madrid train bombings
And now there is one on called "hate rock".
So I must take my leave my friend and go be a couch potato. You're welcome to come by if you'd like, my wife made homemade vegetable minestrone soup and there is a fresh pineapple and orange juice in the fridge.
smutek wrote:Ropey,RopeyPunter wrote:really ? what or who are you refering to ? with respect to the original = I am better bit.smutek wrote:Some of the attitudes in this thread seem to reflect an attitude that orginal= I am better (with original,in this case, meaning I program everything myself) but how original are you if you are writing yet another epic trance track, or drummy techno track, or dissonant "IDM" piece?
I'm not going to go through and point fingers and quote individual posts, but that was the impression I got from some of the posters. I'm going to leave it at that.
If you'll excuse me, I don't watch much television but discovery times has been really kicking tonight.
First there was an interesting documentary about a prison in Columbia where the guards are not armed but the prisoners are, with 9mm's and mac 11's.
Next there was one about the madrid train bombings
And now there is one on called "hate rock".
So I must take my leave my friend and go be a couch potato. You're welcome to come by if you'd like, my wife made homemade vegetable minestrone soup and there is a fresh pineapple and orange juice in the fridge.
I thought so...bit of a cop out, plus a bit of a lengthy post for someone who doesnt want to 'get into it' - would have been just as quick if not quicker to just highlight what you were refering to...especially given such a stark rationalisation, which as far as I can tell, was intentionally avoided.fact is, no one implied that original = i am better.
bing bing!
-
DeadlyKungFu
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:26 pm
Ropey - No need to get on Smutek, he's just stepping out of this one, it's all good. You need your own radio talk show, you ask more questions than my wife, it's cool, it's just your style, getting into the nitty gritty of truthyness.RopeyPunter wrote:smutek wrote:Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah BlahRopeyPunter wrote:Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
Smutek - I was watching the same thing, what a headtrip, that stuff IS out there, people are strange. The only channels I really watch are Discovery, Discovery Times and The Science Channel. Not Everyone Loves Raymond...
and putting Smutek quotes in your sig is SO 3 hours ago... whatever, fanboy.
Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah...
heh, easy there, I'm not intentionaly getting on smutek's case, just highlighting the facts. Speaking of facts I enjoy smutek's contribution to this board, but like you say I'm all about that nitty gritty...
anyways, the reason I put smutek's quote in my sig was because it's a breakthrough for my whole argument in this thread....to re-iterate, I subscribe to the sentiments put forth by paws (if I may refer to him as that), LOFA, smutek et al on the whole existential/molecular physics/what-does-it-all-mean front....BUT, certain standards need to be met to fully deserve the label 100% original. going by the laws of arithmetic and the structure and meaning of the english language as dictated by the scholars who have maintained and coined it.
throughout the thread it seems that the concept of the art, and the physical art itself are seperate and can be judged seperatly & together, and one could make arguments to assertain whatever conclusion they wished from this perspective....fine, so be it, its all water-tight so far.
my argument was always that one cant be acurate in calling their art 100% original if they have used pre-fab loops, used samples they were not involved in creating, or used someone elses composition etc....this is objective, and smutek agrees with me in so much as...well....read my sig
one could say the same, and this would be subjective , about the concept of the art. Its just not right to conclude your art is 100% original because you tweaked it different, did something new, put some fresh spin on something which doesnt fulfill the 'physical' criteria of arranging it yourself, recording the samples yourself etc....to be 100% original both the concept and the physical manifestation of the concept must be original, ...and as I said , if you dont fulfill the physical criteria then it doesnt matter how unique the concept is, and vice versa.
so basically, I was right all along, and you all should really group-buy a truckload of headbraces & bibs, you'd make a huge saving which could go towards a dictionary
ps - as you address what I say, dont forget no one suggested, implied or had 'airs' (sp?) that original = i am better.
anyways, the reason I put smutek's quote in my sig was because it's a breakthrough for my whole argument in this thread....to re-iterate, I subscribe to the sentiments put forth by paws (if I may refer to him as that), LOFA, smutek et al on the whole existential/molecular physics/what-does-it-all-mean front....BUT, certain standards need to be met to fully deserve the label 100% original. going by the laws of arithmetic and the structure and meaning of the english language as dictated by the scholars who have maintained and coined it.
throughout the thread it seems that the concept of the art, and the physical art itself are seperate and can be judged seperatly & together, and one could make arguments to assertain whatever conclusion they wished from this perspective....fine, so be it, its all water-tight so far.
my argument was always that one cant be acurate in calling their art 100% original if they have used pre-fab loops, used samples they were not involved in creating, or used someone elses composition etc....this is objective, and smutek agrees with me
in so much as...well....read my sigone could say the same, and this would be subjective , about the concept of the art. Its just not right to conclude your art is 100% original because you tweaked it different, did something new, put some fresh spin on something which doesnt fulfill the 'physical' criteria of arranging it yourself, recording the samples yourself etc....to be 100% original both the concept and the physical manifestation of the concept must be original, ...and as I said , if you dont fulfill the physical criteria then it doesnt matter how unique the concept is, and vice versa.
so basically, I was right all along, and you all should really group-buy a truckload of headbraces & bibs, you'd make a huge saving which could go towards a dictionary
ps - as you address what I say, dont forget no one suggested, implied or had 'airs' (sp?) that original = i am better.
bing bing!
-
DeadlyKungFu
- Posts: 3603
- Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 8:26 pm
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.
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.
there you're probably most on track for what the original poster meant by this thread - I'm guessing the whole point of his question was to gauge how many people create all their own sounds with synths/drums etc etc and how many use samples. Here we are at page 9 and it's still being debated and most people havent really answered the question.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.
And Ropey Punter - do you have your period lately? you started out here so mild mannered and united against the evil Radeon, but lately you seem to be slating everyone and everything. I would have thought with your recent 20 grands worth of stuff you'd be on top of the world!
Last edited by forge on Tue Mar 21, 2006 12:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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.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.
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.
bing bing!
Ropey,
You are an interesting character but I grow weary of this debate. What will happen is I will quote the posts that gave me the impression that "blah blah blah" was implied and you will subject every word of every post to a meticulous grammatical dissection in an attempt to prove to me that because of A B and C "blah blah blah" was not implied and therefore my impression was wrong and therefore by that brutal and uncompromising reasoning what I felt can only be false.
But...
The simple fact remains that some of the posts I read did give me that impression because if they had not I would not have written the things I did as a counter argument. Nothing you can write is going to change that.
In some cases I am open to review what was said to give me a certain impression with the goal of determining if, well.... maybe I got the wrong impression.
This is not one of those cases.
Now, will I have to prove to you why this is not one of those cases?
On and on we go ad infinitum.
Now, the fact of the matter is that I invited you over for homemade soup, fresh pineapple and orange juice and you did not even have the manners to properly decline my invitation.
You are an interesting character but I grow weary of this debate. What will happen is I will quote the posts that gave me the impression that "blah blah blah" was implied and you will subject every word of every post to a meticulous grammatical dissection in an attempt to prove to me that because of A B and C "blah blah blah" was not implied and therefore my impression was wrong and therefore by that brutal and uncompromising reasoning what I felt can only be false.
But...
The simple fact remains that some of the posts I read did give me that impression because if they had not I would not have written the things I did as a counter argument. Nothing you can write is going to change that.
In some cases I am open to review what was said to give me a certain impression with the goal of determining if, well.... maybe I got the wrong impression.
This is not one of those cases.
Now, will I have to prove to you why this is not one of those cases?
On and on we go ad infinitum.
Now, the fact of the matter is that I invited you over for homemade soup, fresh pineapple and orange juice and you did not even have the manners to properly decline my invitation.