Ableton Forum

Stromkraft wrote:

amigo wrote:Your collaborator needs to take his head out of his ass. He chose his path but he has no right to tell you that yours is the wrong path.

The collaborator in this case, or anyone else in general, are free to have an opinion and express it in any shape or form (judiciary laws permitting). Further anyone can decline to work with someone else for any reason, expressed or not.

Of course they do and their reasons are valid to them. I simply don't agree with their saying that you do not create their own art and by using samples you are stealing the art of many hard working artists. A bit pretentious methinks.

It's clear to me who needs to take his head out of his ass here.

You could be right and you are entitled to your opinion

This is a discussion that has gone on for years and it will continue as long as people have a passion for what they do and the talent to do so.

H20nly wrote:
1. The Verve - Bitter Sweet Symphony - There were over a hundred artists on that song (due to the symphony that plays along). The very beginning of the song (first few seconds) is said to be a Rolling Stones riff. The Stones, being the struggling artists they are, sued The Verve and won the case. They were awarded all the profits for the entire song... which is probably why you never hear it anymore even though it was so popular in the early 2000s.

Too bad I liked that song
But to be fair to the Stones it was probably the labels lawyers that sued.

TomViolenz wrote:

H20nly wrote:
1. The Verve - Bitter Sweet Symphony - There were over a hundred artists on that song (due to the symphony that plays along). The very beginning of the song (first few seconds) is said to be a Rolling Stones riff. The Stones, being the struggling artists they are, sued The Verve and won the case. They were awarded all the profits for the entire song... which is probably why you never hear it anymore even though it was so popular in the early 2000s.

Too bad I liked that song
But to be fair to the Stones it was probably the labels lawyers that sued.

yeah. it's a good song. a damn shame really... even the lyrics are credited to the Stones.

i guess it was more of the song that i initially thought but still doesn't account for all of the elements... AND they were even given permission.

check this out: http://www.soundsjustlike.com/2721/the- ... orchestra/

For me this is one of the most annoying songs of all time.

Just reading the title of it grates on me... those fucking strings

maybe i should have used Ice Ice Baby by Vanilla Ice/Queen as the first example then?

That one is a piece I originally disliked and have grown to appreciate for what it is (not necessarily for it being anything that I'm excited by).

Bittersweet symphony just... I don't even want to get into it because I know I'll sound like a hypocritical dickwad. I can't stand the pseudo-'big' sound and the short string riff which blares through the entire thing without once changing, as the novelty of it tugs on some pseudo-sentimental sensation and the guy sounds like he heard the loop and just started babbling over it with a harmonizer turned off and on. The second most annoying thing is his thick sludge of a voice in awkward layers.

good gawd! you really hate it!

you should do more of these reviews.

No thanks. I stopped doing that years ago when I recognized I had a problem and was not letting myself have music touch me simply for what it is.

I am better off simply liking or disliking something 'for the moment' with room to change opinion, than having an angst against anything that i choose not to like supposedly justified by pointless criticism. It does no one any good.

Imagine I am trying to explain this to a 9 yr old who just happens to love te song and spins around the living room swimming in the sound.

I suddenly ruin it all by bashing the track, and now he either has to feel a shame or a prideful resentment. Either of which is not any better off than innocence. Music and innocence. To get back that feeling when you first heard that thing and you saw those images in your head

yup. makes sense... i was in prison on marijuana trafficking charges when i first heard Bitter Sweet Symphony... so maybe the lyrics stuck with me in a more positive way than your take at the time.

make music for you. if you want to loop an 8-bar cameo beat for 12 minutes and call it yours, go for it. IMO, making music for anyone but yourself is much less respectable than using someone else's samples. if others enjoy it, all the better

memes_33 wrote: IMO, making music for anyone but yourself is much less respectable than using someone else's samples.

Making music you like for others to enjoy is hardly not respectable. Using samples of other's work uncreatively is just boring and an insult not just to your audience, but to yourself and the artist or producer you lift it from.

I think this whole thing is the lamest debate ever. In any art form the only thing that matters is self-expression. In other words your personal input. Good art is nothing more than this self-expression resonating with other people. You can express yourself in a billion different ways and just because you’re not playing an actual musical instrument in real time and showing proficiency doesn’t mean you can’t be an artist.

Maybe it’s true that a sampler isn’t a real musical instrument. However, it certainly is a legitimate tool of artistic expression. Creative sampling is difficult. It’s easy to take two loops and layer them together but it’s a whole different story to mix and match interesting material that wouldn’t seem to fit together at first glance and manipulate it until it sounds awesome.

I have much more respect for producers creatively using samples to make original and awesome stuff than for musicians robotically parroting a piece of music with no soul because they learned it by heart. Even if they are technically good.

At the end of the day it’s apples and oranges really.

BoddAH wrote:
Maybe it’s true that a sampler isn’t a real musical instrument.

A red herring. Who claims that a Sampler isn't a real musical instrument? No-one.

Stromkraft wrote:

BoddAH wrote:
Maybe it’s true that a sampler isn’t a real musical instrument.

A red herring. Who claims that a Sampler isn't a real musical instrument? No-one.

Most musicians who spent years honing their skills and mastering their instrument don’t consider samplers, computers, etc. (or anything really that can be programmed instead of played and doesn’t require actual dexterity) to be instruments.

And given the fact that you don’t actually “play” them, I have to agree. They’re not strictly speaking musical instruments. They’re production and composition tools. They require many skills like advanced synthesis knowledge, sound design, mixing technique, music theory AND an healthy dose of creativity but instrument virtuosity is Not one of them.

A producer using computers and samplers is much closer to a compositor than to a traditional musician but that’s alright. Composing is a legitimate art form as well.

I don't care what people who spent years mastering their 'instruments' consider.

Sure. The keyboard or the mouse might be the way in which one Uses the instrument, but the truth is, right now the definition of an instrument is a very fluid one.

I think the primary differences are in how things are 'performed'.

The key qualities of specific instruments are, how one interfaces with them equating to affecting their output, and creating unique controllable sounds.

Some are played in realtime. Some are played part by part and then edited. Some instruments Are editors rither in real time or in a presentation of time encompassed in one piece.

The moment someone puts a foot on a pedestal, trying to claim otherwise, they are wrong. They are blinded by their pride in accomplishment and ability. It is great that they are talented. There are differences between acoustic, electronic, digital, theoretical instruments. I respect them all.