Gentle Giant HAS BEEN HIP-HOP SAMPLED!!!

I've listened to it, and......I hate it ( oops now I said the H word )

I don't know how to add to what has already been said.  Both sides have thusfar made valid points, but I think I'm going to side with the anti-MF Doom camp.  This is simply because I find the value of sampling to be a significant step below real composition and even cover versions.

(I should choose my words carefully here) At least Led Zeppelin were talented instrumentalists . . . and their takes on the blues songs they performed were not merely ripoffs of the originals, but innovative re-workings that genuinely added to their musical value (though I do admit that credit to the original composers should have been present on the albums)

But let's not judge not Mr. Doom as a musician; the whole rap movement is rooted in its poetry - the music itself is often ancillary to the words.  Having listened to the song several times, MF Doom still retains his credibility as an artist in this respect, even if not as a musician.

Moatilliatta wrote: It may not be right to sample someone else's song, and most of the time it's done, it is done poorly, but I think Madvillain is one of (if not the) best Hip-Hop group out there right now. Much more interesting and creative than your average artist.

 2nd that notion. 

And if this really bothers you all so much, how about you go contact the boys in GG and let them know?  it's alot better than listening to you alll whine and complain about Hip-Hop.

Edited by alan_pfeifer

Imagine if a hip-hop fan saw this. He/she would think of us as a bunch of pretentious, stuck up, elitistist. Seriously guys. Just because you don't like something dosn't mean it's not good. The fact that a hip-hop artist samples prog artist is not insulting the artist, it is complementing them by showing how there work influences artist to this day.

 

Certif1ed wrote: The Ryan wrote: Certif1ed wrote: The Ryan wrote: (...)Sampling has nothing to do with being a musician, same goes for monotonous beats and ethnic/urban verbal-poetry put on an audio CD.(...) Sampling is a tool in the modern musician's toolkit, just like notes. There is an artistry in being able to put together samples in interesting ways, just like notes. I never said sampling is not art because that's not the discussion. You said, and I quote, "sampling has nothing to do with being a musician" - and I helpfully pointed out that these days, it very well might. The overall tone of your post made out that anyone who uses samples can't be a musician (I know that's not what it said, but the implication was more than there ).

I was not implying, you were inferring.

Someone who samples can be a musician, but sampling ALONE makes no one a musician by any credible definition. Music and instruments go hand and hand, a 'toolkit' is there for tuneups.

^ ...

Pseud0 wrote: Zweck wrote: Pseud0 wrote: sorry, but rappers dont have very much musical talent.  If they did, they would write their own music.  All these guys do is take other peoples music and talk in rhymes over it horrible. And Ulver would be above that sort of stuff, now wouldn't they? And while we're at it, let's denounce almost all orchestras, as most of them just play some sh*t written on pieces of paper, it's like reciting poems. ulver and rap are completely uncomparable.  Where in ulver's music is there stolen repetitive samples with backbeats and moron's rhyming over them?

Whether G. is a moron or not I leave entirely up to you, however, I do believe much of "Blood Inside" is based upon samples one way or another. And more concretely there's a song on the Blake-album where I distinctly hear Coil, which is a bit ironic as they based most of their sounds on samples. And as far as beats go, there's no way you can deny the omniprescence of beats in Ulvers music.

but they arn't repetitive garbage beats.  Btw, WRITING music inspired by samples of others work  and creating something utterly brilliant and unique is different than stealing a couple seconds worth of music and repeating it over and over again. 

^ correct. you wont see a rapper sampling a soul singer (or whatever the hell its called) in the way ulver did on 'blinded by blood'

The Ryan wrote: I was not implying, you were inferring. Someone who samples can be a musician, but sampling ALONE makes no one a musician by any credible definition. Music and instruments go hand and hand, a 'toolkit' is there for tuneups.

I know you weren't implying, I was being kind to someone who needed a clue.

I only inferred by your exact words, excuse me for not reading between them.

A toolkit is for more than tuneups - the problem with generalisms is that they miss huge areas of fact.

Here's another one of yours:

 

The Ryan wrote: Digital sampling does not involve an instrument.

Can anyone else spot the "deliberate" mistake?

Edited by Certif1ed