3 ms·

in an age of abundant content it's a valid choice. Whatever. I remember hearing the "grey album" and have still not recovered from the aesthetic disgust. It's

in an age of abundant content it's a valid choice. Whatever. I remember hearing the "grey album" and have still not recovered from the aesthetic disgust. It's just absolutely pathetic that people steal, steal, steal, and then add, as their contribution, a load of their own shit--only to be praised for it! And called "artists"! And base careers off of it! Legal matters aside, it should just be utterly banished from decent society. just a thinly-disguised rearrangement of the same 3 chords? Yeah, well, you might as well say, "Geez, music just keeps using the same 12 notes over and over, therefore it's okay to take exact recordings of other people's work, decimate it, and sell it as your own." Dishonor should not be rewarded. Neither should dishonesty.

anigbrowl 17y ago
I upvoted you because I think you raise a valid point, but I still disagree. Personally, I know where you're coming from; I make electronic music as a hobby, but I can't bring myself to use samples because then I feel like it's not me any more. However, I don't see it as theft, any more than I see a production of a Shakespeare play as theft. Stealing is when you're dishonest about the source of your raw material and represent it as your own creation. An interesting juxtaposition of known material is a commentary in itself, regardless of whether you like it; and the guy's career is as a producer, not as a musician or composer. For that matter, both Mozart and Bach were regarded by some as mere hacks, appropriating or accepting tunes from others and applying mere technique to arrive at elaborate (but not fundamentally complex) arrangements. I'm unsure why you seem so personally offended by this, to the point of finding it indecent and dishonorable. I've been blatantly ripped off by a (book) publisher in the past, and it made me mad, but not to the extent of rejecting an entire branch of creative technique. Can you explain, without the invective?
- mynameishere 17y ago
  I guess there's a distinction between remaking music and copying it (bit-for-bit) that people aren't seeing. Or, they see, and don't care. Now, if you make the 2000th cover of "Yesterday" and sell it, that's one thing. If you take the original 2 minute recording of "Yesterday", add yourself belching on top of it, and sell it as your "own", then you're a thief and an artistic wrecker. I think this comes down to opinion. The principle is firm, but the disgust is sometimes lacking. When this little gem was released, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJePNFkkvFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJePNFkkvFk ...the outrage was vicious and near-universal. DM is doing the exact same thing, and I would argue, to a much, much greater extent, because he isn't contributing, you know, actual music, like the above recording.
  - menloparkbum 17y ago
    This seems like a matter of taste. Certain people were apoplectic about the Kenny G. But tons of people actually loved that Kenny G thing (look at the youtube comments). Scary, but true. The Grey Album seems to draw the most ire from Beatles fans who consider their recordings sacrosanct. Personally I liked the 99 problems remix better than either of the two original songs. Related, I'd rather listen to a Girl Talk track before I'd listen to any one of the songs he samples...
    - ssharp 17y ago
      You bring up some good points. But associating Danger Mouse with Girl Talk is doing Danger Mouse a HUGE disservice.
      - menloparkbum 17y ago
        I thought the other way around, but to each his own... >:)
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    I guess there's a distinction between remaking music and copying it (bit-for-bit) that people aren't seeing. Define it.
    - menloparkbum 17y ago
      Yeah that's a tough one. I have a musician friend who was obsessed with figuring out what equipment the neptunes used on certain songs and then remaking the instrumental part of the tracks. to my ears, they were pretty much indistinguishable from the originals. what's the distinction?
    - mynameishere 17y ago
      I guess it doesn't seem too hard to define, but maybe the confusion is philosophical. When I say bit-for-bit, that's what I mean. When I say "remake" it involves using your own voice and instruments to make a new recording. That's actually been the default through all history. There's no "original recordings" for Beethoven's music. If you buy a pop song's sheet music, never having heard the song, that's a very traditional kind of making music, and completely appropriate. But really, philosophically. Here's an original recording (couldn't find the studio version): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZHmHqEE7k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZHmHqEE7k Okay, and here's a great remake. I say great because it's so completely original at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVuh1Ymve2I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVuh1Ymve2I And here's a ripoff (sort of. The sampled parts were paid for), which you probably already guessed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo I really like that song, but that guy added very little to the original remake, so to speak.
ssharp 17y ago
The grey album was never officially sold by Danger Mouse from what I remember. Most albums that contain samples go through a legitimate clearing process. Many songs never get released because of sample clearance issues. People who truly profit from stealing someone else's work are generally sued. Danger Mouse has a lot more on his resume that the Grey Album and other chopped samples. He's clearly an extremely talented producer and songwriter, as already mentioned. Next time before you go on a little rant, you should at least know what you're talking about. I've made songs out of samples before and many without. I don't think their is less merit in either method. Some songs with samples are significantly more difficult to put together than 100% original compositions.
pj 17y ago
I agree with you and upvoted you, but you gotta realize we are in a den of thieves here...
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
rossriley 17y ago
I voted you up because it is a valid point and you shouldn't be downvoted as much. I think it is a matter of deciding how original do you have to be to earn the badge of creativity for yourself. If you think of the great pop artists, Warhol and Peter Blake for example they all sampled from popular culture but they did it in such a way that they created a visual look that defined art for the generation they created it in. Equally with music some of the best modern music has used samples to good effect, think of DJ Shadow's work and one of my personal favourites The Avalanches - they took small fragments of other people's work but arranged it in such a way that what they created was an original work in its own right. In the creative industries we all are influenced by what's around us and artists who do not sample are no different in this regard they just use their influences in a slightly different way.

anigbrowl 17y ago

I upvoted you because I think you raise a valid point, but I still disagree. Personally, I know where you're coming from; I make electronic music as a hobby, but I can't bring myself to use samples because then I feel like it's not me any more. However, I don't see it as theft, any more than I see a production of a Shakespeare play as theft. Stealing is when you're dishonest about the source of your raw material and represent it as your own creation. An interesting juxtaposition of known material is a commentary in itself, regardless of whether you like it; and the guy's career is as a producer, not as a musician or composer. For that matter, both Mozart and Bach were regarded by some as mere hacks, appropriating or accepting tunes from others and applying mere technique to arrive at elaborate (but not fundamentally complex) arrangements. I'm unsure why you seem so personally offended by this, to the point of finding it indecent and dishonorable. I've been blatantly ripped off by a (book) publisher in the past, and it made me mad, but not to the extent of rejecting an entire branch of creative technique. Can you explain, without the invective?

mynameishere 17y ago
I guess there's a distinction between remaking music and copying it (bit-for-bit) that people aren't seeing. Or, they see, and don't care. Now, if you make the 2000th cover of "Yesterday" and sell it, that's one thing. If you take the original 2 minute recording of "Yesterday", add yourself belching on top of it, and sell it as your "own", then you're a thief and an artistic wrecker. I think this comes down to opinion. The principle is firm, but the disgust is sometimes lacking. When this little gem was released, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJePNFkkvFk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJePNFkkvFk ...the outrage was vicious and near-universal. DM is doing the exact same thing, and I would argue, to a much, much greater extent, because he isn't contributing, you know, actual music, like the above recording.
- menloparkbum 17y ago
  This seems like a matter of taste. Certain people were apoplectic about the Kenny G. But tons of people actually loved that Kenny G thing (look at the youtube comments). Scary, but true. The Grey Album seems to draw the most ire from Beatles fans who consider their recordings sacrosanct. Personally I liked the 99 problems remix better than either of the two original songs. Related, I'd rather listen to a Girl Talk track before I'd listen to any one of the songs he samples...
  - ssharp 17y ago
    You bring up some good points. But associating Danger Mouse with Girl Talk is doing Danger Mouse a HUGE disservice.
    - menloparkbum 17y ago
      I thought the other way around, but to each his own... >:)
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- GHFigs 17y ago
  I guess there's a distinction between remaking music and copying it (bit-for-bit) that people aren't seeing. Define it.
  - menloparkbum 17y ago
    Yeah that's a tough one. I have a musician friend who was obsessed with figuring out what equipment the neptunes used on certain songs and then remaking the instrumental part of the tracks. to my ears, they were pretty much indistinguishable from the originals. what's the distinction?
  - mynameishere 17y ago
    I guess it doesn't seem too hard to define, but maybe the confusion is philosophical. When I say bit-for-bit, that's what I mean. When I say "remake" it involves using your own voice and instruments to make a new recording. That's actually been the default through all history. There's no "original recordings" for Beethoven's music. If you buy a pop song's sheet music, never having heard the song, that's a very traditional kind of making music, and completely appropriate. But really, philosophically. Here's an original recording (couldn't find the studio version): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZHmHqEE7k http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzZHmHqEE7k Okay, and here's a great remake. I say great because it's so completely original at the same time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVuh1Ymve2I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVuh1Ymve2I And here's a ripoff (sort of. The sampled parts were paid for), which you probably already guessed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx3m4e45bTo I really like that song, but that guy added very little to the original remake, so to speak.

ssharp 17y ago

The grey album was never officially sold by Danger Mouse from what I remember. Most albums that contain samples go through a legitimate clearing process. Many songs never get released because of sample clearance issues. People who truly profit from stealing someone else's work are generally sued. Danger Mouse has a lot more on his resume that the Grey Album and other chopped samples. He's clearly an extremely talented producer and songwriter, as already mentioned. Next time before you go on a little rant, you should at least know what you're talking about. I've made songs out of samples before and many without. I don't think their is less merit in either method. Some songs with samples are significantly more difficult to put together than 100% original compositions.

pj 17y ago

I agree with you and upvoted you, but you gotta realize we are in a den of thieves here...

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

rossriley 17y ago

I voted you up because it is a valid point and you shouldn't be downvoted as much. I think it is a matter of deciding how original do you have to be to earn the badge of creativity for yourself. If you think of the great pop artists, Warhol and Peter Blake for example they all sampled from popular culture but they did it in such a way that they created a visual look that defined art for the generation they created it in. Equally with music some of the best modern music has used samples to good effect, think of DJ Shadow's work and one of my personal favourites The Avalanches - they took small fragments of other people's work but arranged it in such a way that what they created was an original work in its own right. In the creative industries we all are influenced by what's around us and artists who do not sample are no different in this regard they just use their influences in a slightly different way.