From daniel Sent Thu, Jun 10th 1999, 02:14
From daniel Sent Thu, Jun 10th 1999, 02:14
being a "mad" monkey I feel a need to respond. Throughout this whole argument I have observed one thing. 1. there are those who look at music strictly from an intellectual point of view I said this before but if you only look at music from an intellectual stance you are missing out. Music sometimes is just meant to be enjoyed not over analyzed. If it sounds good to you then why does it matter if it was sampled or not? This does not mean you can't analyze and theorize about it. What it means is that sometimes music is just music; while other times it is an intellectual pursuit. Learn to know when to apply those principles. I guess what I am saying is that you cannot say "samplers bad; synthesis good". They both have their places and their purposes. And I have never understood the assertion that in order for music to be good it has to be hard to make. Difficulty is a matter of perspective. next question: so why do I sample? simple. I cannot play drums and have no rhythm to speak of. So what I do is find a sample I like. I then use it's underling structure as my basis. Then the sample is processed and generally destroyed until it does not sound anything like the original. However, the structure (though by this point it is not apparent) is still there. Example: I sampled a basic hip hop beat. Slowed it down; distorted it; applied reverb (and a host of other things). I then placed it into my sampler and from my sequencer set the bpm to around 300. The end result was a 4/4 beat. But it still had the depth of the original sample without sounding a thing like it. -daniel Head Monkey Mad Monkey Records http://monkey.eliteware.com