General Music Chat

.....................................

Yep, This is a good read.

Remember when you were elemenary school, & you got to cut & paste pictures out of magazines to make a collage? Did that make you a photographer? An Artist? I think not. Perhaps a sort of "graphics artist," at best, but what you did there, while it used a minimal amount of creativity, the result could not be considered an original work of art. It's merely a compilation of the leg work of others.

Creating something that's influenced by others is one thing, but compiling recorded samples is a form of plagiarism, if you should dare to call it your own work. It's certainly nothing to be proud of.

Beethoven may very well have written new stuff at age 8, Mike. I did, too, though it was rather derivative. He did NOT swipe bars of other ppl's music, paste them together & call them his own work. That's what these new upstarts would do, but they take it even one step farther in that they don't even play the stolen material...they simply cut & paste sampled recordings. Rather low, imho, & in no way can it either be considered "art" or "original." You may as well call the kid doing the Guitar Hero game a guitarist, or even a musician, even though he's never held a real instrument in his life.RIDICULOUS!

collage is widely respected form of pop art.
every hear of ray johnson? he used photos, clippings from newspapers, and anything he could get his hands on to make art.
as long as you take those photos and make something new with them it's just as much original art as the original.

hendrix stole when he recorded the star spangled banner. He plagiarized 'taps' - how is that different from simply dropping in that horn piece? It made a very powerful statement that was completely original bcuz of it's context.

Covering a song is closer to plagiarism than sampling it IMO. But again, it really depends on the sample.


"but they take it even one step farther in that they don't even play the stolen material" - Beethoven didn't play the stuff he wrote. He couldn't even hear in the end. He didn't use new notes... and I bet someone with more of a grasp of classical music than me could point out phrases he wrote that are similar to earlier composers. It's natural to be inspired by other's works and to borrow some good ideas from them and make them your own - no different than any blues gtr player stitching together phrases that obviously did not originate in this century.

now admittedly - I hear that phil collens 'take take me home' and they basically play the pc track in the background while they rap over the top - nothing short of kareoke... but it's really no different than what weird al is doing... and far be it from me to tell anyone that's not art.


take vanilla ice -ice ice baby, for example (oh no - did I just become a vanilla ice champion - I never thought I'd see this day). He blatantly stole the bassline from david bowie... but few listen to that song and think it resembles bowie at all.

"You may as well call the kid doing the Guitar Hero" -you've really made a quantum leap here...
let me simply say that almost anything passes for art - but few things pass for good art and that is up to the audience to decide.

ya know " in a jack benny voice" you singers and guitar players really have no room to talk about midi, its us drummers that have to worry.... those darn midi drum machines

No worries mate! Nothing can beat a live skin slammer !!

.....................................

collage is widely respected form of pop art.
every hear of ray johnson? he used photos, clippings from newspapers, and anything he could get his hands on to make art.
as long as you take those photos and make something new with them it's just as much original art as the original.

hendrix stole when he recorded the star spangled banner. He plagiarized 'taps' - how is that different from simply dropping in that horn piece? It made a very powerful statement that was completely original bcuz of it's context.

Covering a song is closer to plagiarism than sampling it IMO. But again, it really depends on the sample.


"but they take it even one step farther in that they don't even play the stolen material" - Beethoven didn't play the stuff he wrote. He couldn't even hear in the end. He didn't use new notes... and I bet someone with more of a grasp of classical music than me could point out phrases he wrote that are similar to earlier composers. It's natural to be inspired by other's works and to borrow some good ideas from them and make them your own - no different than any blues gtr player stitching together phrases that obviously did not originate in this century.

now admittedly - I hear that phil collens 'take take me home' and they basically play the pc track in the background while they rap over the top - nothing short of kareoke... but it's really no different than what weird al is doing... and far be it from me to tell anyone that's not art.


take vanilla ice -ice ice baby, for example (oh no - did I just become a vanilla ice champion - I never thought I'd see this day). He blatantly stole the bassline from david bowie... but few listen to that song and think it resembles bowie at all.

"You may as well call the kid doing the Guitar Hero" -you've really made a quantum leap here...
let me simply say that almost anything passes for art - but few things pass for good art and that is up to the audience to decide.

#1 - I don't see "pop art" as being a relevent form of art. Peter Max was MUCH more of an artist than anyone who does mere collages, imho.

#2 - Hendrix did NOT "steal" the Star Spangled Banner. He covered it in his own way, & put his own take on it. He also did not claim the song as his own work.

#3 - covering a song is perfectly alright, as long as you don't call it your own work, like these folks do that use the garageband samples do. It simply is NOT their own work, but a mere compilation of the much harder work of others.

#4 - while Beethoven didn't perform his works, he could, & did, play the various pieces on the keyboard as long as he could hear. He DID create his own work, he did not use snippets of other ppl's melodies & call them his own. He may have been influenced by the work of others, as we all are, but he didn't steal whole measures & paste them together & call them his own. He'd probably have been run out of town on a rail if he had done so. These days, I guess, anything goes, if you want to call yourself an "artist" in any medium.

#5 - Weird Al actually DOES create his own version of other ppl's works. He also writes his own songs. He also gives credit to those who actually wrote the originals. Most of the ppl I see using garageband call their results their "own songs," & that is a bald-faced lie, imho.

#6 - just because someone becomes famous for doing something wrong doesn't make what they did right. Vanilla Ice not only stole bass lines, but entire recordings with the vocals removed, as he spoke his crappy rap over it. This is not something that should be sold as a "new work." This is plagiarism at its worst.

#7 - a kid singing over his guitar hero game is only doing something original if he's using his own words, but that still doesn't constitute "art" to me, because the very base of the work is stolen from other ppl's works.


Sure, there's a lot of things that pass for "art."

"Country art," where you cut boards & nail them together & paint 'em up to look like a cat or whatever, is not something that I'd call "art."

In fact, a print of a famous painting is not "art," in my book. It's a mere representation of the art.

A musical recording is also representative of the artists' conception of what he wants his music to sound like. When that representation is snipped & placed into another work, it does not create a new work of art. It might be something, but it ain't art. Art is original, something from the heart & soul of the artist. You cannot "feel" someone's snippet as if it came from your own self. There is no cognitive development of that original idea, when you decide to put it into your own thing. When a guitarist uses a snippet of another's measure in his own work, it's often even unconscious, but either way, at least I can give him credit for playing it. I cannot give you credit for cutting & pasting measures of music by other ppl that you choose out of a catalogue. I could get a monkey to do that. Why would you consider it to be "art" or "original," in any way?

I just can't.

everything I do is in midi...except guitar but now they got that with midi ability from what i hear.

#1 - I don't see "pop art" as being a relative form of art. Peter Max was MUCH more of an artist than anyone who does mere collages, imho.

not sure I want to debate proximity to art or what makes one art form more valid than another.
mere collages - tell me how you really feel -hehe.

ok, what about warhols use of the soup can is that not the equivalent of a using a loop from someone elses music - it's art about art. Or max's use of the statue of liberty?






"#2 - Hendrix did NOT "steal" the Star Spangled Banner. He covered it in his own way, & put his own take on it. He also did not claim the song as his own work." -wasn't refering to the star spangled banner itself rather the introduction of the melody from the military tune 'taps' right after the rockets red glare and the bomb noises. Hendrix plays taps note for note - in stark contrast to the rest of the song that embellishes upon the star spangled banner. My point was that he 'ripped off' taps. But it's ok because he used it to make a greater piece of art.




"#3 - covering a song is perfectly alright, as long as you don't call it your own work, "
sure, but it's "less original/less artistic" and takes "less work/less imagination" than simply stealing the bass line and making everything else up yourself -whether you like vanilla ice or not.

"#5 - Weird Al actually DOES create his own version of other ppl's works. "
weird all sings dif lyrics over a completely stock copy of others music - the sm as rapping over phil colens 'take me home'.
either both or neither are valid art/original.




"#6 - just because someone becomes famous for doing something wrong doesn't make what they did right. This is plagiarism at its worst."
the only thing wrong w it was not getting permission...
and that has little to do with whether it was original art or not.
the art was not wrong... that song WAS art. DID impact. the end result WAS original IMO. He took it past where he found it and that is the only thing worth debating -whether I like vanilla ice or not.




"When that representation is snipped & placed into another work, it does not create a new work of art. "

yet you think weird al is creating new works of art?????????
"Weird Al actually DOES create his own... work"

to think that we originate anything is just foolish pride. everything is borrowed from somewhere. how you borrow it really doesn't matter to me so long as the end result isn't an exact copy.

The original post was about whether creating midi songs made someone a musician. The answer is no, if we are speaking about someone who PROGRAMS the midi instructions rather than manipulates a physical musical instrument.

We've had this kind of inflamed discussion about DJ's before too, with similar comments.

Whether someone is a musician or not, does not take away from the fact that MUSIC, is created in many, many ways now, particularly as technology has developed. Whether someone is a MUSICIAN or not, should not diminish their contributions to MUSIC, as artists, performers, composers or arrangers. Yes, it may take more time to MASTER a traditional instrument, than to to compose or arranged SONGS using modern tools, but EACH IS WORTHY of it's own respect and skill sets.

Someone may be one of the best musicians out there, and yet make no impact on the world, whereas someone else, who has a knack for arranging and composing relevant material may blow up world wide.

Why is one better or worse than another?

Take the ART example given. There are artists who are amazing, and yet only locally known, and you would have to go to an art gallery in his area, to even find out about his work. And then you have one of the most recognizeable album covers of all time, a simple collage, which was the Beatles "Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" which is known all over the world, and has made a huge impact on culture.

Everything should be appreciated on it's respective merits. We're trying to compare apples to oranges. It's like comparing Jimi Hendrix to Steve Vai. They both play guitars, but that's about the end of that similarity. Yet BOTH are admired and appreciated.

Music is a set of tonal vibrations organized in time, which creates a cohesive and unified composition.

I enjoy good sounding music NO MATTER HOW it is produced. GOOD SONGS MOVE MY SOUL, no matter HOW it is created. But I also have tremendous respect for a serious musician who has devoted YEARS AND DECADES to perfecting his craft, and I am moved by that also, recognizing the skill, and what went into it.

We can appreciate BOTH without demeaning either one.

.....................................

Um....Mike? Did you know that Weird Al actually has ppl PLAYING the songs on his recordings? They are NOT samples, but ppl like Leslie West & Rick Derringer actually playing the songs, even if they ARE "note for note." If you look at his CD's, or if you are familiar wth his works, you'll know that he IS a songwriter, as well, which gives me reason to respect him as opposed to those who cannot either write or play, yet give themselves kudos for nailing 2 pieces of wood together & painting them up to look like something else.

A player's performance of any given piece in a live setting shows his versatility, his own creative juices, & his own efforts to produce the sounds that you hear. Using sampled material in a recording uses absolutely none of those skills - thus, in my opinion, it does not constitute art.

And don't get me started on Warhol...please, for the benefit of us all...LOL

.....................................

.....................................

Chippy - everything you heard on "Heads Up" was sampled, with the exception of my voices & my acoustic guitar, but I played every note on the recording through my sampling keyboard. All the samples were stock except the flute, which I sampled personally. I did not have a computer play it for me, or anyone else, for that matter. I did it all, to the detriment of the song...LOL

Yes, I have used reverbs & echos & other effects, but I consider them to be tools of the trade. I do NOT consider sampled measures of music to be a tool of the music trade. These reduce music to a chilld's game, they make it possible to stack up the song in parts that are pre-prepared for you, & that ain't art or creativity in action, for me.