Bremerton, Washington, USA
|
daft punk: sampling ethics discussion.
StoreTags: daft punk, sampling ethics
Viewed 5428 times. 19 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: frnortnr, bbwax, jdg, craque, KidQuaalude, daswesen, crabster, djugel, Artsigreg, dumafuji, nightowl, Vorbe, em978, stringedthry, Analog, Unknownforce, j_chot, Tridact, hecanjog
-->
Ok. We need to talk. I used to really like Daft Punk until em978 mentioned this link in the other daft punk blog. I thought instead of hijacking that thread with this discussion, I'd bring it over here.
link
Take a listen to some of this- a lot of it strikes me as really lazy use of samples! I listen to some of it and think that it's a fair use, and then i listen to other parts and I think "wow thats wayyy too close to a direct ripoff."
Have they gone too far? Doesn't somebody else deserve a LOT of the credit for a Daft Punk record? | |
Comments
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Vorbe
Just remember you're using words to express yourself that you didn't create.
“oh but that’s different now you're taking it to the extreme ” would seem to be a common rebuttal to such a statement, I think the art lies in the selection and construction.
I think daft punk are experts at creating memorable hooks through the use of samples and their own work, that's the reason why you'll rarely hear a daft punk sound that you can't remember, it’s one of the things I find interesting about them, they have a signature even with their use of samples. Sure they have done a few creatively/technically weak tracks (ie robot rock) but they’re still catchy as hell though. Some of their songs seem like ode to the samples themselves which in itself is great .
The synth/guitar solo in digital love is timeless, same with aerodynamic, and something about us.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Marklar
So what counts as a sample, exactly?
If I record a bass line that I like and pull it into something like Recycle, how is that different from learning to play that bass line on my own and recording it into a sequencer?
The difference is the performance aspect of it (aside from the timbre thing). A sample is someone else's performance, while if you play it yourself it's your own performance.
So how does electronically altering a sample make it more yours? It's still someone else's performance. If you want to use the "I'll make it my own" argument, then shouldn't you do the performance yourself instead of using a sample?
When using a sample, it seems more honest to me to use it as is, rather than obfuscating it so that it will more easily pass as original work. If you can't stomach a straight sample then perform it yourself; otherwise, give credit and make no apologies.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
deltasleep
But I think even the most liberal of you will agree that there IS a limit. Lets say I play an entire disco track through a reverb- and call it my own. Are you going to defend that?
There has to be a limit somewhere. When I listen to Breakwater - "Release The Beast" (used in "Robot Rock") I think that line is crossed. I won't fault them for making good music- I fault them for not calling this a Breakwater remix instead of their own work! The distinction between those two is increasingly confusing too.
I bring this stuff up because as a musician I grapple with where to draw the line- I do a lot of covers, but I try to at least admit it's a cover. I think its plagiarism not to. And don't cite Andy Warhol here- he was copying ICONS, and I think we can all agree that none of these bands are iconic, or so popular that they are almost common knowledge images or recording. The equivalent might be my making a song out of samples obviously from a particular Elvis song- not from my choosing to lift 8 bars of a relatively unpopular disco act.
But I come from a hiphop ethic of sampling, where easy identification of samples used (especially over used) is a dishonor.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
em978
I would add the point, that with hip hop there is far more of a context switch when they samples something since it is used in a way that since it wasn't intended for hip hop .. when you sample disco and make another dance track it's pretty silly.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
frnortnr
i can't agree abut running a disco track through reverb, you can't say that they go that extreme. they do add their own touch to the tracks. but what about cover songs then? the original artist doesn't get credit on those........
this has changed my opinion of them, but not for better or for worse.
plus i found some awesome music i had never heard before. sweet.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Marklar
Oh yeah, deltasleep, there is a limit. Vanilla Ice and MC Hammer taught us that.
Taking old classics and simply rapping (poorly) over them and taking credit...is wrong. Turning those classics into crappy pop music...worse.
Sampling does have a dark side, I don't think that anyone can deny that. But you have to take the good with the bad; no way to pull them apart.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
stringedthry
i agree that they should be taken to task for their blatant borrowing/stealing/plagiarism - whatever you want to call it. and whether or not they give credit to the original artists, it's lazy. it's one thing to write a track with another in mind. it's something different to set a sample against a bass drum and call it your own. sure, much of sampling can be looked at in the same way but i think it all comes down to intent. using a sample to enhance your own track is far different from processing an existing song with filters and a drumbeat and calling it your own. there's a threshold of effort there. just ask yourself, are you adding to someone else's sound or are you creating your own through the use of samples? sadly, far too many "artists" are part of group one.
but as someone who saw them a week ago in LA, i have to give them credit as performers. the light show, the costumes, the unique set they played - i was definitely impressed. everyone danced their asses off. and no one cared what was sampled.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
deltasleep said: "I won't fault them for making good music- I fault them for not calling this a Breakwater remix instead of their own work! The distinction between those two is increasingly confusing too."
yeah this is the thing. i agree.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Unknownforce
daftpunk are the best dance band (by popular consensus) on the planet because they plagurise good but unpopular disco songs that the the average music listener doesn't know about and probably couldn't give a fuck about.
I do however, and agree with what you're saying.
I'm surprised it took so long for a debate like this though, as someone mentioned on the link, 2 of the most obvious examples were included on a "sampled" cd from 2002. I actually bought the cd, heard the tracks, thought "OMG!" searched the net and found a a site that listed daft punk samples and proceeded to download them for comparison.
I've never been much of a daft punk fan so it didn't surprise me/bother me too much, discovering the orginal dj shadow samples from entroducing annoyed me though and heck i even knew the whole album was sampled!
There's something infinitely disapointing about reading Dj shadows drum programming techniques only to find that the bit you really liked that you thought was painstakingly and meticulously programmed was in fact a 10 second long unaffected sample...
I have also thought about doing a workshop at an stfu on how to make a hit song in 30 minutes using 1 of the daft punk songs :P
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
bb01
cbit said: "deltasleep said: "I won't fault them for making good music- I fault them for not calling this a Breakwater remix instead of their own work! The distinction between those two is increasingly confusing too."
yeah this is the thing. i agree"
this sums it up for me too damn it
was going to do the quote thing as well
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
bbwax
deltasleep said: "I won't fault them for making good music- I fault them for not calling this a Breakwater remix instead of their own work! The distinction between those two is increasingly confusing too.
yah. i see your point, i think.
it's almost as if - artists can call their songs a "remix" if they sample the crap out of a song by a popular current artist, but if they sample the crap out of an older now obscure artist it's an "original work" somehow.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
djugel
"they have a signature even with their use of samples."
sorta .. it's that they are house ... I can break out old 91 chicago mixtapes .. and hear snippets of the songs they've sampled.
Dafk Punk made a bigger splash than most also because of a good timing and the Chemical Brothers. They were the filter disco group with slightly more technoish drums ... and res'd out bass/leads for all the stupid people and for DJ's like Robert Armani to squeeze into their sets...
crossover works.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
j_chot
they're producers, not writers.
plus, even if you use the exact samples they did, you'd still never sound like daft punk.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Tridact
Mmmmmmm, I sure love me some big stupid res'd out basses and leads.
08/03/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
djugel
I always preferred clanking metal..
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
