3 ms·
Funny headline... you don't create samples, you take samples
by 3stripe 13y ago
Funny headline... you don't create samples, you take samples
- 3stripe 13y agoWhy was this downvoted?
- JonnieCache 13y agoBecause it's tedious semantic quibbling, and it's not even correct. One samples a record, by doing this one creates a sample in ones sampler. One then plays this sample in a record of ones own, just like you would any other instrument or sound. You will likely manipulate the sample, like in the video, and then you will have created a new sample. This isn't very clear in the video, because the editing process in modern software is very non destructive, so you never actually "make" a new sample. In the more primitive hardware of the past, the process is much more explicit. If you have some other point to make about creative/artistic legitimacy, you should just make it.
- 3stripe 13y agoSo by your description, if it was really about how Daft Punk 'created' that sample, the article would just be a description of how they plugged a record player into a sampler and pressed the record button. Which it clearly isn't. Hence my first comment.
- JonnieCache 13y agoI guess it sounds like you're pretending not to understand what is a fairly simple linguistic ambiguity, in order to start and then win a boring argument. Sorry if this sounds mean, but you did ask.
- f00_ 13y agoEven if you didn't read that, you must at some point come to the conclusion the word "sample" is a bit ambiguous and might have many contexts and uses wouldn't you? Trying to make yourself feel smart by making a witty one liner, which in all fairness was unjustified, won't win you any awards.
- skunkworks 13y agoNo one, and I mean absolutely no one, is confused about what it means to sample a song, or to create a sample, or to take a sample from a song. That would be a tedious semantic argument of no value. So most people interpret would instead interpret it as snide commentary on the illegitimacy of sampling as an art. Which most people also don't like. Hence the downvoting.
- sliverstorm 13y agoBecause we all love unexpected debates over trivial semantics! Can't get enough of them!
- elvinmelvin 13y agothe final product of the sample taken produced a newly created track. at least for sake of brevity, created seems acceptable in this context. it also probably is a good way of conceptualizing the legal issues involved (©) when an artist manipulates a sample enough to create a new derivative work so distinct that it ought be deemed a separate entity from the original. These legal limits are still being tested but after watching the video, i like the idea of looking at this manipulation as a form of creation rather than simply "taking". your legal millage may vary.
- 3stripe 13y agoAgreed, so the sample is taken/used to create something new. I'm not saying that sampling is not creative, and I've done it myself on plenty of tracks. But a sample only becomes creative after it is taken. You can't 'create' a sample because it is just a snippet of audio. As the article says, it's about "building songs from samples". I'm not being pedantic by the way.. I just see the person who 'created' the sample as the original recording artist.
- 001sky 13y agoI just see the person who 'created' the sample as the original recording artist. This is a perpetual debate =D. Although I'm not sure its black or white. A good artist can use a "sample" in the same way a panatone color is used by a pointillist painter. At that stage, its all about the spectrum of color, the contrast, and the entire effevt of many points of color...not just the quality of the sampled pigments in any one brush-stroke.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- catshirt 13y agoDaft Punk is using samples to create a new sample. so i think everyone is correct in this argument; they are using samples to create samples.
- aldanor 13y agoIn the context of this post, you indeed take and mangle samples. Generally speaking, you can create/synthesize samples, nothing wrong with it.