Do you really buy that expensive recording software?

[TerraMortim]

Huh? Pitch it down a keyboard?

I came to the conclusion (long ago) that you're just some loser trying to stir shit up on an internet forum so your posts mean pretty much nothing.

If you're not, and you really are as stupid as you make yourself out to be, please, for your own sake, turn off the computer and go get help. Or school. Either one.

since when has intelligence had anything to do with educational institutions? You know what? read a book from real scholars, your professor is probably as full of shit as the next guy, unless you're lucky enough to go to a school where they employ someone who actually knows someting. You get the odd person: Noam Chomsky, for example... but really telling someone to get some schooling won't do anything for them other than give them another meaningless accomplishment that they can pat themselves on the back for for the rest of their life, and enable them to make a few bucks more in their job of being fucked by their financial masters.

And to be honest, you haven't backed up what you say with any ptoof that you are of any significant intillectual ability. I don't know this pacman guy, but at least he does his homework, and actually knows the reality of A. global politics, which run your life and my own life. B. Copyright law. (look it the fuck up, he's not off base.) You can either believe what some guy with a sport suit and power tie says, or you can look at the actual laws... I don't think I would have to tell you which will get you more accurate results.

 

[TerraMortim]

I don't remember saying sampling isn't art or isn't music. I was just saying it wasn't original. Nice of you to try and put words into my mouth though, thanks.

Also, I was referring to the all-too-common backing tracks made from obvious samples of other songs, and not just bits/pieces. Although, even bits/pieces isn't very original. Is it art? Yes. But it's not original in my opinion. To ask whether or not something is art, is stupid. Anything about expressing emotions/ideas can be called art. Even pacman's shit that he hasn't figured out how to record yet.

I love when people nitpick through your posts and then follow up by putting words into your mouth.

Fucking cocksucker.

I don't know too many people who are making serious, or relevant music in that way. There is no epademic of it. You litterally did say that sampling was the opposite of being creative. Music IS art, so who are you to criticize? Have you made art that changes people's lives? I have no idea about his recording ability, and don't care. I never said he was a wicked songwriter or "studio gopher", he just has a pretty good idea of eality, which almost everyone is too ignorant to understand, and accept the explanations of their masters as reality.

No words were put in your mouth. YOU SAID.... sampling is not artistic. period. Read what you said.

a fucking cocksucker? Not hardly. hahaha. I don't have a desire for the genitals of men. So would a fucking cocksucker being someone involved in a threesome? Probably, unless there were sex toys involved, you could stretch the language a bit to fit. Is this among your sexual preferences, perhaps? eek!

 

[danny.guitar]

since when has intelligence had anything to do with educational institutions?

Since people started going to school to learn.

...that they can pat themselves on the back for for the rest of their life, and enable them to make a few bucks more in their job of being fucked by their financial masters.

I thought the entire purpose of school was to make more money? Oh, and learn something. But for most people, who have an education, it's merely to get a degree so they can get a better job, and learn something in the process. However, I think pacman should worry about a good education before anything else.

And to be honest, you haven't backed up what you say with any ptoof that you are of any significant intillectual ability.

And how is someone supposed to prove they have any 'significant intellectual ability'?

Are you smart? Let's see some proof.

I get the idea you're just the kind of person who likes to argue on the internet for the sake of arguing on the internet. With no real intentions except just to argue because you have nothing better to do.

So you mix words and even put some new ones into other people's mouth to stir shit up.

There's someone else like that too...pacman. Are you pacman?

 

[TerraMortim]

and don't even mention that "R&B" pop stuff they play on MTV, that isn't relevent regardless of how they did it.

 

[danny.guitar]

No words were put in your mouth. YOU SAID.... sampling is not artistic. period. Read what you said.

I said sampling was not original. Maybe you should go back and read.

 

[TerraMortim]

Since people started going to school to learn.



I thought the entire purpose of school was to make more money? Oh, and learn something. But for most people, who have an education, it's merely to get a degree so they can get a better job, and learn something in the process. However, I think pacman should worry about a good education before anything else.



And how is someone supposed to prove they have any 'significant intellectual ability'?

Are you smart? Let's see some proof.

I get the idea you're just the kind of person who likes to argue on the internet for the sake of arguing on the internet. With no real intentions except just to argue because you have nothing better to do.

So you mix words and even put some new ones into other people's mouth to stir shit up.

There's someone else like that too...pacman. Are you pacman?

The people who come up with the ideas that you are spending so much money to study RARELY have any significant formal eduaction, even some of them hadn't made it past basic formal eduation.

yes, schools are yet another institution to give them more money, and really that's all it has to do with. There have been so many cases where knowledge that was not profitable was suprsessed by educational institutions, lobbyists who then effect policy, in favor of skewed ideas that put their ideas as reality and keep the redistribution of wealth and power into their hands.

I have no idea whether I'm smart, and have no idea why I'd have to prove that to anyone. I'm definately not as confused and ignorant as a lot of people I see, whether that takes intelligence or common sense, it doean't really matter to me. I've gotten to a place in my life where I really don't care for social "norms" in the way of what is considered acedemic, smart, successful, etc. I do what I feel convicted to do, and it brings me personal peace, and contentment. If you have to prove it, you might not have it. Dunno. I don't have all the answers, but I can see bullshit for what it is. Why can't other people? Isn't it obvious?

I don't care about the "internet tough guy" retardation, I would have shouted that shit in your face in person regardless, and have to people on many occasions. I hate people who invalidate other people's methods for no apparent reason (maybe their own fears of being obsolete? I dunno). My intentions are to stick up for people who are belittled by your mindset. I've seen people who had a real understanding of art litterally give up, because the way they created their art was contrary to the old school snobs. That is a tradgedy, with their useless elitism, they've just caused the beautiful pool of great art to miss out on all of the greatness they could have created.

It's not so much relevant whether I enjoy stirring shit up or not. I personally love it, but this has nothing to do with that. This is to do with people belitlling others for nothing other than their methods to express themselves. Sampling can be original, if I find a great quote from some ignorant racists 40s government film that helps to bring the lyrical point to a more intense level, it's absolutely no lack of originality. THe clip as it was sampled was for an entirely different purpose. It's completely possible to create original and relevent art with samples... Another great example is Portishead.... they weren't so originial were they. . . . (sarcasm).

Me being Pacman? eh? Naw... I have no idea who he is, I just happen to see that he does have a good grip on reality with certain issues, and I thought it was quite pompous and downright stereotypical of someone with your chosen screen name to say something like that.

If you want to talk originality, why not try doing an instrument that isn't part of the typical modern rock/pop format of music. Take up the flute, or the bagpipes, or even pick up some ethic instruments to learn. That would be much more original than guitar (as the instrument that almost the entire world comes running to in order to make music)...I mean, after all how original can you be with that exact same instrument, with the same effect (distortion) playing the same old shit everyone's heard a million times over, which was never even that groundbreaking when it was done te first time. Sure, there are exeptions. Zappa was more original that most musicians since the begining of music and he used a lot of guitar... but do you presume you are on that level of genius? I certainly wouldn't.

Guitar is standard in our modern way of looking at music, only because of OUR MODERN SOCIETY. Music existed before the guitar, and believe it or not, it was just as good before this strange instrument became commonplace, and if the guitar suddenly ceased to exist, music as we know it would not fall apart. We would simply find new ways of expressing ourselves. I enjoy guitar, but it's far from original, regardless of what you play, everyone plays it, and almost every single song has it.

This might be long. but jesus dude, do you have to be such an asshole about the way other people create their music? It's no less valid or original than your choice to use the most stereotpical modern instrument out there as your chosen medium. I love the guitar myself, but I have no delusions as to it's superiority over other instruments for creaation.

 

[danny.guitar]

Hm, I'm a little too drunk to read every word in that short story, but I'll just say:

1. You still put words into my mouth and created an argument over nothing.

2. You seem to just like to type and hear yourself talk for really no reason at all, not even the sake of arguing.

3. I play guitar. Guitar happens to be probably the most popular instrument ever. Do you think that matters to me? Should I go play another instrument that is less popular for the sake of being more 'original'? By the way I also play a little piano, ukulele and even banjo. While those are still pretty popular I don't see what popular instrument has anything to do with ANYTHING.

4. All I said was I think sampling is not original. That is my opinion. If someone takes a voice cut from a movie or something I think that's cool and could sound good in a song. If someone takes half a song, pitch shifts it and adds in electronic drums and maybe some rap vocals, do I think that is original? No. Is it art? Yea, I guess.

 

[danny.guitar]

Oh, and even suggesting that I play another instrument for the sake of being original is just retarded.

First of all, you assuming I play with distortion is pretty much, uh, false. All I play is acoustic. And the music I write is not like most other music. Genius? No, but are you?

Oh, and if you want to base your opinion off a few bad recordings on my website or soundclick page then go ahead. You already made yourself out to be an ass, so just keep it up.

Anyway keep posting for the sake of posting something.

 

[TerraMortim]

never said that drunkard, bud think twice before you shit on other people for their "lack of originality". It's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think? There's nothing original about most music out there, and I doubt you are an exeption. Sampling makes one no less original, or artistically relevant, IT's all about the finished product not what tools were used to get the result.

It's no use arguing with you though, you're obviously really drunk and will as a result argue with anything I say as, from my personal experience drunkenness isn't exactly filled with the most common sense, at least thanks for filling me in on that tidit so I don't waste my time telling off someone who's too drunk to understand.

 

[TerraMortim]

Oh, and even suggesting that I play another instrument for the sake of being original is just retarded.

First of all, you assuming I play with distortion is pretty much, uh, false. All I play is acoustic. And the music I write is not like most other music. Genius? No, but are you?

Oh, and if you want to base your opinion off a few bad recordings on my website or soundclick page then go ahead. You already made yourself out to be an ass, so just keep it up.

Anyway keep posting for the sake of posting something.

What recordings? I've never heard your music dude. lol. I'm sorry you don't have confidence in it. I make my living making very bad recordings (but asthetically appropriate), but it works for me, and keeps people coming back. I'm the last person to criticize that. Bad audio is usually what is considered genius once all the people involved either die, or become vegetableg from exessive drug use. That was kind of funny, to be perfectly honest.

 

[danny.guitar]

never said that drunkard, bud think twice before you shit on other people for their "lack of originality". It's a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don't you think?

No. Because I don't sample.

There's nothing original about most music out there, and I doubt you are an exeption. Sampling makes one no less original, or artistically relevant, IT's all about the finished product not what tools were used to get the result.

No, there IS a lot of original music out there. I wouldn't call most of mine original. There's probably other songs they sound similar to. But the point is, it's original in the sense that I didn't take bits and pieces of it from other people's songs. I guess that's above and beyond your ability to comprehend.

It's no use arguing with you though, you're obviously really drunk and will as a result argue with anything I say as, from my personal experience drunkenness isn't exactly filled with the most common sense, at least thanks for filling me in on that tidit so I don't waste my time telling off someone who's too drunk to understand.

I actually wasn't THAT drunk last night. I read over my posts and I would have said the exact same thing today.

What recordings? I've never heard your music dude. lol.

So you call me unoriginal without even listening to my songs?

I'm sorry you don't have confidence in it.

I have a lot of confidence, but in my good songs. I haven't recorded any good songs in awhile because I don't feel I have the necessary tools/know how to make them sound as good as I'd like them to. For example, a better guitar, maybe a better microphone, better room etc.

 

[TerraMortim]

the pot calling the kettle black. You shit on others for being unoriginal with the tool they use to create their music, yet the tool you use to create yours is the most common choice. Sampling is just another tool.

There is some original music out there, but not a lot of it.

sampling is just another tool for creating music, and if someone uses it for their entire track they're an idiot anyway.

you were drunk enough to mention it in your defense. Wow, you lack that much clarity of mind when you're sober? That's what you're telling me.

I said I doubt you do. Most people don't, so using common sense you have a small likelihood of it, especially given your closed minded attitude as to whiat constitutes original art. Found art is very original when it's artistically relevant, even though someone else physically built it.

Really, a word of advice, don't worry about getting the best mic, room, or a better guitar, some of the most timeless music was done on very bad instruments, in horrible rooms or on the good ole sm58 treatment. good recording it cool but won't make your music any better or worse in it self. just make music that you believe in, and who cares if it's low-fi?

 

[danny.guitar]

I care. I'm picky as hell about how my recordings sound. If it's a great song, it doesn't matter how well the recording sounds, I agree. But my songs aren't 'hits', and they are far from it.

And to say someone is unoriginal because they play guitar, is retarded. Trying to compare that with someone sampling/taking parts from other people's songs is even more retarded! I don't understand how you can think the way you do or even if you believe the shit that you type.

If someone samples some drum sounds from another song and uses them in their own song as 'sounds' but still makes up their own drum beats with them I'd still say that's original. That's when you can call sampling a tool to make music.

But if someone takes half a song, pitch shifts it, and adds some beats/vocals over it I don't call that original at all.

I guess you just don't seem to get what I'm saying.

 

[TerraMortim]

yes I do, and I told you anyone who does that is an idiot anyway. Most people who maike serious music who sample do just what you said... just sample this note or this 3 second sequence and mangle it into something completely different.There's the odd shitheads that do what you say but then they are more just DJing than making music. I don't know anyone with any ammount of respect for their music (other than the MTV hype machine) who uses sampling as a technique that just pitches a song down and sings over it, there are some stupid pop/rap?/commercial idiots doing that, but what does that have to do with the rest of people who are just using sampling as a technique for making something that IS truely unique. Listen to DJ Shadow, UNKLE, or Portishead. They use A LOT of sampling, but in a very original way. I'm not huge on sampling for my own music, aside from the news clips and stuff like that I mentioned before, but I hate to see people belittle a legitamate technique for creating music. It can be original or unorignal just the same as using a guitar as a tool can be original or unoriginal. It's all how you use the tools that you have, that's where real originality and good art is made, not what techniques they used to get there.

I'm not saying that makes you unoriginal, I'm just saying you were saying that the tool that these particular people use is unoriginal, so is the guitar. THere are folks who make insanely original music with the guitar, and likewise with sampling. Get the connection I'm trying to have you make?

I'm just going to ignore your insults, not worth it.

 

[NYMorningstar]

TerraMortim, I'm going out on a limb here and I'm thinking you and Pacman9000 are the same dude. There's no way 2 peeps could be thinking like you do. A coincidence you joined together? maybe...

 

[castlerock]

holy shit! i came in here to vote and check out the discussion and i find a pointless 5 year flame war! oh well....this IS the internet. anyway, I voted 'download it'.

if you don't have the money to buy expensive software, then invest your time in learning Linux or get a MAC and use free software. ( an option not available in the poll ).

here. check out Ardour . It's high quality multi-tracking recording software and it's free (though the developer appreciates donations). and there is Hydrogen is a very good drum machine for the guitarist who wants to do home recording and doesn't have a drummer...or room for one.

With all the free open source software available for the musician, why download unreliable copys of commercial software that could contain malware? if you don't have the money to invest then invest your time in learning another operating system and use legally free software. the payoff is excellent.

 

[mshilarious]

I thought the entire purpose of school was to make more money? Oh, and learn something. But for most people, who have an education, it's merely to get a degree so they can get a better job, and learn something in the process.

One of the first things anybody would learn in school--English 101 or perhaps an intro Psych class--would be Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, which demonstrates that making money is pretty low on the list. Anyone who was paying attention to that lesson would be aware that the rest of their college career should be devoted to working on stuff higher up the list . . .

I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument

 

[TerraMortim]

TerraMortim, I'm going out on a limb here and I'm thinking you and Pacman9000 are the same dude. There's no way 2 peeps could be thinking like you do. A coincidence you joined together? maybe...

nope. You should get out more, there are a lot of people who think exactly the same way as I do. I run into them on a daily basis. I don't even know who the fuck he is. I just found that he sees past some of the bs that most people don't. Who knows if he sucks or is an idiot, dunno. I don't care, never said he was an amazing producer or songwriter or whatever, just that he did some research about copyright law pertaining to certain cases, and he does have a correct idea of the state of power in our modern governments and big corporations. Do your research, info is everywhere about this, it's not just some weird psycho babble. I don't even talk like him, he misspells words on purpose and I don't brag about myself like he does (that IS annoying).

 

[pacman9000]

pacman you aren't from Vancouver BC, Canada are you? You sound like someone I know lol

i wish...


I should have tried to make a move there when I lived on the West Coast...right now I'm in Boston...as a matter of fact on my next trip out west to visit friends in caliphonyia I plan to visit Vancouver, I keep hearing good things about it, clean city, beautifull, lots ov dank...

so what are the downsides other then a high cost of living?

 

[pacman9000]

I write songs completely from the ground up, however I often sample vocal passages from certain news broadcasts, documenteries (mostly from the 50s), industrial films, and b movies, to help to prove my point, and it actually adds emotional weight to the ideas which I'm trying to get accross (let them hear it right from the mouth of the enemey instead of whining endlessly about it myself).

Sampling doesnt take anything away from the artistic merit of a project in itself, as long as it is done is a way that is artistically important. You could go as far as saying that if you press a CD it's crap because it's just a sampling of the audio, and the only real way is to litterally cut an LP with a lathe, because that's making the sound in a physical manner (That IS fun tho). Sure, at times I could do the part myself, however sometimes, for example. that amen break, or sample from jerry falwel is perfect for what you envision for the art piece, and would drive the point further home in a way that explaining it lyrically until your lips fall off, wouldn't accomplish.

Regardless of playing ability or the process involved, great art is great art. I don't really know anyone who samples music who just takes it and rips it off without making it their own, or using some form of artistic flair and emotionality, aside from some really lame 80s mainstream shit like vanilla ice. Some of the most moving music I've heard is by people who aren't basically musical instrument playing machines, but people who really understand music, and how to express themselves with it, regardless off the methods and tools that they use to achieve their goal. Music is a language, and not everyone is fluent in it. Even many of the classical composers that we treasure, aside from the ususal bach, mozart, and bethoveen (that I know of), where criticized for their strange methods and sensibilities, yet the people who criticized them remained the king of their little shit pile for a few years, and other than their rediculous quotes, their names and work have been lost in the course of time, while the artists who truely understood music that they shat on live on in imortality.

On a more modern note, listen to people like DJ Shadow and tell me with one of his projects called UNKLE he doesn't have artistic merit, the songs are very emotional, and done in a very heartfelt way, and are every bit as much relevant artistically as that swell beatles or pink floyd tune (sorry) that everyone ejaculates uncontrolably from the sound of. He uses A LOT of samples, however, given his classical musical training, and his understanding of the emotionality of the art of music, he intelligently uses them in a way that creates a new artistic statement, very different to the sampled material.

To say sampling isn't real music, is the same as saying that the bauhaus art movement was not art. Some of their found object pieces, and general rebelion was quite profound, and have such an emotional statement to say, which is what real art is anway, reglardless if it's traditional, or not. Besides, without sampling, we wouldn't have ANY electronic music, that's where it started in the 30s and 40s.

Besides, most "real" musicians, rip off the same stupid riffs and chord progressions as everyone else and write one more piece of borish drivel that nobody will give a shit about, and generally has no purpose for existing, with nothing at all to say, no real emotion behind, and no point to it other than to enable the self centered creators to tell the world that "I want to drink a lot of beer and have groupies with AIDS and herpes polish my knob for me." That's hardly more origional than vanilla ice, even, who at least had a really "bitchin" hair do, and he DID get stabbed in the butt, which makes for at least something of a chuckle to think about, in a purely entertainment value way.

And btw..I AM a real musician, I play about 5 instruments, most of them in projects professionally over the course of my musical adventure, and have since an early age. Don't discount other people's artistic expressions if it was meant in that light, it just makes you sound like an old jaded fogey, bitter because everyone doesn't want thngs to be done the exact way they grew up doing it, and due to your depesperate attemts to hang on to what you have, cause yourself to miss the real point of things. ART, not technique.

I fucking hate hearing people put down artists if they happen to sample anything in their music. Just stop, kay?

A masterpiece of a post, and if I sample segments of this for future arguments I promise to give full credit...



I don't mean to put down other genre's, I happen to enjoy sampled "beats" the most, more then most funk records even (which are basically what I call "beats" played by live band)...Overall, the best music for me is sampled based music using samples of soul, classical, funk, rock, pop, folk, bluegrass etc when put over breakbeats or my own drums from a drum machine or live, and then I add other elements from the elektro for example, or a bass guitar..

The vibes of my music are all over the spectrum because of the vastly different forms of music I sample from..

but I may get into singing and doing folk music and maybe some punkRAAWK!!!!


On the other hand, I give credit to other genre's and I am a fan of many different forms...such as Punk Rawk, Folk, Experimental, Classical, etc etc...I listen to Beethoven, The Clash, Showbiz and A.G., Phil Ochs, Tom Petty and Buddy Holly on occasion, hell throw on some Huey Lewis "bad is bad"...but still sampling to me was the greatest music before the labels really started suing people left and right and stifled the creativity of the artform because people are less motivated to make music that can't be released to the public without being sued for everything you own.


So as not only a musician, but a fan of music, I wish to blow up major labels with the help of Usama, and police stations all over the country, it's only right...like they doin in Iraq...we need to do the right thing in this country as well.


funny though, I'm not so big on Dj Shadow, bought his first album and didnt feel it, thought it was boring not a real tribute to sampling, but of course I haven't heard his entire catalog...have heard some nice breakbeats he's sampled, definetly.