The Devaluation of Music

[Mullardman]

The development of 'popular' (which I define loosely as early 20th century jazz, rock etc) was so meteoric right up through the early 70's and I think we are lucky to have heard it. The divisersity of amazing music that came from this period is really just astounding. It makes me feel sorry for the ones trying to make it today because to be original is just getting more difficult by the day.

Agree.

I find more of value (to me) by digging deeper into that 1940-1970 period than via any other route.

My ears are not closed to 'new' music, but the first thing it has to do is to grab my attention and move me. Very little does.

I really struggle with the idea that 'sampling' is somehow 'creative'. OK., it's in some sense an extension of the normal process of 'influence/synthesis' etc., but 'creative'? Really?

Mull

 

[gassor]

I really struggle with the idea that 'sampling' is somehow 'creative'. OK., it's in some sense an extension of the normal process of 'influence/synthesis' etc., but 'creative'? Really?

Mull

This is creative you old foggie.

And the finished recording below.

Building Steam With A Grain Of Salt:

Jeremy Storch - "I Feel A New Shadow"
H.P. Riot - "I Need You"
Lexia - "I Worship You"
"from listening to records I just knew what to do.." from "Music Makers - Percussion"
a record from 1974 that was provided to schools as a public service by
Chevron/Standard Oil Company of California.
"what makes cancer tenacious..", Signs Of The Zodiac: Cancer - "Planetary
Motivations"

 

[Seanm]

The sampling road not taken, unfortunately:

Young Gods. Should be on the 80s thread actually, single best thing about that decade.

 

[fay spook]

Agree.

I find more of value (to me) by digging deeper into that 1940-1970 period than via any other route.

My ears are not closed to 'new' music, but the first thing it has to do is to grab my attention and move me. Very little does.

I really struggle with the idea that 'sampling' is somehow 'creative'. OK., it's in some sense an extension of the normal process of 'influence/synthesis' etc., but 'creative'? Really?

Mull

Sampling is a passive activity until someone starts doing it. The process itself can be creative, uncreative or anything. Listen to Pierre Shaeffer and you will hear very noble early sampling but these pieces are Musique Concrete rather than the pop I like to listen to. (I was "forced" to listen during my studies!!).

Tomorrow never knows has samples in terms of tape loops. The avant garde dragged into pop. Much as Japan with Ghosts brought Stockhausen into pop and make it more listenable for me. Listen to My Life in a Bush of Ghosts for some creative sampling.

Listen to the first Yello albums and the sounds there are musical but unrecognisable.

I make music electronically. I don't use sample packs (some synths I use have samples in them such as the Waldorf Microwave, these are synthetic sounds and not pretend violins) but I do record my own sounds and use them. A box of matches becomes a shaker, the striking becomes a snare, flicking the box becomes a clave. Roll marbles round a metal bowl and sample it. You can chop it up or envelope it (basically turning the volume up and down rhythmically).

I can, but it isn't necessary, list some very uncreative records from the period you mention. They might be enjoyable but they won't be original.

To sum up, you are wrong

 

[stephen bennett]

A
I really struggle with the idea that 'sampling' is somehow 'creative'. OK., it's in some sense an extension of the normal process of 'influence/synthesis' etc., but 'creative'? Really?

Mull

Sampling isn't just about taking other's music and reusing it. It's also used as a digital 'found sound' source, mangling everyday sounds into useful musical tools.

Listen to Gabriel 4—thats a creative use of sampling iIMHO.

Stephen

 

[Mullardman]

Sampling is a passive activity until someone starts doing it. The process itself can be creative, uncreative or anything. Listen to Pierre Shaeffer and you will hear very noble early sampling but these pieces are Musique Concrete rather than the pop I like to listen to. (I was "forced" to listen during my studies!!).

Tomorrow never knows has samples in terms of tape loops. The avant garde dragged into pop. Much as Japan with Ghosts brought Stockhausen into pop and make it more listenable for me. Listen to My Life in a Bush of Ghosts for some creative sampling.

Listen to the first Yello albums and the sounds there are musical but unrecognisable.

I make music electronically. I don't use sample packs (some synths I use have samples in them such as the Waldorf Microwave, these are synthetic sounds and not pretend violins) but I do record my own sounds and use them. A box of matches becomes a shaker, the striking becomes a snare, flicking the box becomes a clave. Roll marbles round a metal bowl and sample it. You can chop it up or envelope it (basically turning the volume up and down rhythmically).

I can, but it isn't necessary, list some very uncreative records from the period you mention. They might be enjoyable but they won't be original.

To sum up, you are wrong

OK, the sampling you describe sounds OK by me. I can 'dig' that as a method, although it's unlikely the results would do much for me because I'm an old stick in the mud with little interest in electronic music. But the more obvious use of whole chunks of a previous hit simply because the 'artist' can't come up with anything new really does strike me as more plagiarism than sampling.

Mull

 

[Mullardman]

This is creative you old foggie.

And the finished recording below.

Building Steam With A Grain Of Salt:

Jeremy Storch - "I Feel A New Shadow"
H.P. Riot - "I Need You"
Lexia - "I Worship You"
"from listening to records I just knew what to do.." from "Music Makers - Percussion"
a record from 1974 that was provided to schools as a public service by
Chevron/Standard Oil Company of California.
"what makes cancer tenacious..", Signs Of The Zodiac: Cancer - "Planetary
Motivations"

It's 'fogie'.

And that stuff may well be technically 'creative', because some bloke has used some pretty freely available tech to cobble together a load of sounds
into something which some might hear as a 'new' work. But to me it just sounds like all the other electronically produced dross. I remain totally unmoved by it and uninterested in it

Mull

 

[Tony L]

OK, the sampling you describe sounds OK by me. I can 'dig' that as a method, although it's unlikely the results would do much for me because I'm an old stick in the mud with little interest in electronic music. But the more obvious use of whole chunks of a previous hit simply because the 'artist' can't come up with anything new really does strike me as more plagiarism than sampling.

I'd argue sampling in say rap was a lot more honest than say the 60s beat or white blues bands that you love so much ripping off classic black US blues riffs or whole songs and passing them off as their own/something new! Either way one can argue something fresh is being built on top and music has always moved forward by building on what went before. Sampling is but another tool in the arsenal and should be used. New pop music should always irritate it's elders too!

 

[Mullardman]

I'd argue sampling in say rap was a lot more honest than say the 60s beat or white blues bands that you love so much ripping off classic black US blues riffs or whole songs and passing them off as their own/something new!

There you go again with your unsubstantiated claims.

I have spent a lot of time trying to educate people as to the 'ripping off' of the whole US black scene by 'white blues' etc., bands. Where have you heard me proclaiming the 'love' you allege? Apart from the Beatles, who I believe you also acknowledge, I spend little time listening to the 60s Brit lot. That said I would argue that to some extent the white 'beat' and 'blues' bands from the UK both revitalised and energised a lot of black US pop,
(have you actually heard the original version of 'Twist and Shout'?), but also woke white America up to the black music within their midst.

I've taken the music I was pointed to by white UK artists and used it as a starting point for an exploration of black music I was denied access to 60 years ago. I make no apology for that.

Either way one can argue something fresh is being built on top and music has always moved forward by building on what went before. Sampling is but another tool in the arsenal and should be used.

But I am arguing that sampling. per se, is not leading to anything fresh. Certainly not on the basis of the examples posted here. People have been churning out electronic stuff since the 1920s and very, very little of it has anything to offer me. Mostly because almost by definition it lacks humanity. Any idiot can put a bum ba da bing rhythm together given a bit of basic kit. Chucking a few sweeps and pings over it is hardly genius.

New pop music should always irritate it's elders too!

I don't think it's compulsory, but I have no problem with the principle. But then I'm not irritated by it, I'm just unmoved by it.

Mull

 

[Hazelberry]

But I am arguing that sampling. per se, is not leading to anything fresh. Certainly not on the basis of the examples posted here. People have been churning out electronic stuff since the 1920s and very, very little of it has anything to offer me. Mostly because almost by definition it lacks humanity. Any idiot can put a bum ba da bing rhythm together given a bit of basic kit. Chucking a few sweeps and pings over it is hardly genius.

Mull

This strikes me as a most curious, rigid, and egocentric opinion.

How is a sample in principle any different to the scales and chords and phrases and beats - the building blocks of music - that have already been used, sometimes for centuries?

As you said in #47, a definition of creativity is the melding together of various (often known) elements to make or express something new. In music, some listeners will enjoy some results, but none is ever going to be for everyone. It might help you to give those you disagree with the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Mullardman]

This strikes me as a most curious, rigid, and egocentric opinion.

Well in the sense that it is my opinion, it is bound to be egocentric. I don't think it's rigid, because I'm always open to any new music which 'moves' me. Sadly, little or no sampled or electronic music does so.

How is a sample in principle any different to the scales and chords and phrases and beats - the building blocks of music - that have already been used, sometimes for centuries?

It isn't, in principle. It's the results that are lacking (IME) There's one above posted by Gassor which is full of pretentious stuff about sampling this or that, but which amounts essentially to a rhythm, repeated almost Ad Nauseam, with a couple of sweeps etc., stuck over it. It is , IME saimply facile, boring, tedious and uninspiring. It says nothing and goes nowhere.

As you said in #47, a definition of creativity is the melding together of various (often known) elements to make or express something new. In music, some listeners will enjoy some results, but none is ever going to be for everyone.

I did? OK. I'll have to look back. But yes, I agree that not all music suits all listeners. That is however, not what I am saying.

It might help you to give those you disagree with the benefit of the doubt.

I've never denied them the benefit of the doubt. I do not, and cannot stop them listening to stuff they like, any more than they can do the same to me.

I'm simply questioning the merit of sampling, particularly in the context of the examples posted in this thread.

I sincerely believe that, although I can barely play a note, I could get a bit of kit and churn out similar tedium.

'Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...'For about 10 minutes.. followed by the infinitely more exciting...

'Bum..ting Bum..Ting Bum..Ting Bum..Ting.;'

Then a few disembodied voices going..

'Neeeee, Naaaaw Neeeee Naaaaw'

Until the beat returns.. probably a bit faster..

'Chick a bum, bum bum
Chick a bum, bum bum
Chick a bum, bum bum
Chick a bum, bum bum'

Then we might go 'off on one' for a bit

'Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...
Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...
Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...
Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...'

Hypnotic.. eh?

OK.. let's get this party started!

Left to Right. 'Ping Ping Ping Ping'

Right to Left 'Pong Pong Pong Pong

Bass:

'Boom Bitty Boom Bitty Boom Bitty Boom Bitty'

Etc., etc., etc.

Really?

 

[Hazelberry]

I sincerely believe that, although I can barely play a note, I could get a bit of kit and churn out similar tedium.

'Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...'For about 10 minutes.. followed by the infinitely more exciting...

'Bum..ting Bum..Ting Bum..Ting Bum..Ting.;'

Then a few disembodied voices going..

'Neeeee, Naaaaw Neeeee Naaaaw'

Until the beat returns.. probably a bit faster..

'Chick a bum, bum bum
Chick a bum, bum bum
Chick a bum, bum bum
Chick a bum, bum bum'

Then we might go 'off on one' for a bit

'Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...
Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...
Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...
Bum...Bum...Bum... Bum...'

Hypnotic.. eh?

OK.. let's get this party started!

Left to Right. 'Ping Ping Ping Ping'

Right to Left 'Pong Pong Pong Pong

Bass:

'Boom Bitty Boom Bitty Boom Bitty Boom Bitty'

Etc., etc., etc.

Really?

Why not? Do it! Really! Anything! Seriously. You might surprise yourself. Bring something yet unheard to the world - or even just to you. I think you'd even enjoy yourself. Somehow, I feel it would be a welcome change.

 

[Tony L]

I don't think it's rigid, because I'm always open to any new music which 'moves' me. Sadly, little or no sampled or electronic music does so.

In fairness Mull you come over here as a person with spectacularly narrow taste that apparently stopped exploring any new music forms 30+years ago! Over the past couple of days you've slammed the whole '80s as a decade, a decade which had many musical movements that remain hugely influential to this day, and here you slam not only all sampling but all electronic music and it would appear minimalism too! I guess Glass, Reich, Riley, Adams etc all fall too far outside your 60-70s blues/soul/rock comfort zone too?

 

[Martin D]

Take that all you narrow minded muso's

 

[richardg]

I think that article is scratching around for ideas. I think the devaluation is more simple. It is entirely due to the digital revolution and nothing to do with progress in music culture that people are arguing about upthread, and nothing much to do with the other non-internet reasons cited in the article. For example, music in schools is to blame? Piffle. Maybe in the US, where this article comes from, but I doubt it. Music in schools in Hull is miles ahead of what it was when I was a kid. I have 2 kids going through school now and I am amazed at how lucky they are. But they can't really be arsed with it because they have their heads stuck in their tablets playing games, like all their friends.

If you think there is nothing new in music culture then you have got old between your ears. Not so say that you are wrong, but when you are a teenager and have little reference, much regurgitated stuff sounds new. So, if the kids gave a shit, bands and the industry could easily convince them that new music was indeed new and exciting.When I look back to the stuff in the 80s that I thought was new and amazing I now know quite a lot was regurgitated and quite a lot was innovative. At the time I could not distinguish. For example, many acts broke into the mainstream because of a cover. Boy George, Marc Almond for example. Stodgy stuff, looking back. Loads others, Gary Numan, Martin Fry, David Sylvian, were just Bowie clones. Stranglers and Dr feelgood sounded really edgy when I was a kid. I mostly hear the blues and a bit of balladeering thrown in there now.

So, for me, the internet is entirely responsible for sucking the magic out of the industry. There are 3 obvious issues:

1. Music is now too accessible because of the internet
2. Music is too cheap because of the internet
3. Other activities on the internet distract people from listening to music like we did before the internet.

And that's about it.

 

[SteveS1]

Items 2 and 3 are the issue. The greater availability/accessibility is a good thing. The fact that pricing models don't work or sharing and copying is so easy is a different matter but those other two points are certainly right on the money.

On the other hand I can remember being unable to get stuff and paying well over the odds too.

 

[MVV]

I think that the stuff we think of as creative is made by things being associated that haven't been associated before. I find that as I get older it is rarer that I come across a new association. Also the things being associated in pop/rock tend to be drawn from a very narrow field or it wouldn't sound like pop or rock. In other words other than deliberate novelty it has all been done before. Which is probably why I tend to prefer interesting lyrics in music.

 

[richardg]

Items 2 and 3 are the issue. The greater availability/accessibility is a good thing. The fact that pricing models don't work or sharing and copying is so easy is a different matter but those other two points are certainly right on the money.

On the other hand I can remember being unable to get stuff and paying well over the odds too.

I'm OK to have you only agree with two thirds my argument. But allow me to try get you to agree with all three. The more there is and the less you have to do to access it, the less romantic it gets. What happened to the excitement of going to town and buying your record? And what about the fact that every single band anywhere is making broadcast quality stuff. The amount of new bands on facebook asking me to like them means I miss them all, as I cant be bothered to check it all out.

 

[Seeker_UK]

So, for me, the internet is entirely responsible for sucking the magic out of the industry. There are 3 obvious issues:

1. Music is now too accessible because of the internet
2. Music is too cheap because of the internet
3. Other activities on the internet distract people from listening to music like we did before the internet.

There should be no 'industry' It is a 'blip' in a 2000+ year history of music that started mid-60s has been in decline since the mid-00s.

But let's address your 3 points anyway:

1. The Internet has increased the chances of hearing new music. Moreso than listening to Peel or taking mates' recommendations. It also offers more opportunities to 'try before you buy'.

2. Music should be affordable. The old model of £15 for a CD and £12 for an LP is not going to fly nowadays as people prioritise spending on 'phones etc.There is money to be made if you're a composer / performer but not in direct sales; money comes from live performances (I've made more money that way), merchandising, streaming and, IME, licensing of music.

3. I think that was always the case but I agree it's a bit easier on the Internet. That said, it's easier to switch the PC on and play some tunes than faff about setting up the TT and letting it all warm up before a listening session.

 

[SteveS1]

I'm OK to have you only agree with two thirds my argument. But allow me to try get you to agree with all three. The more there is and the less you have to do to access it, the less romantic it gets. What happened to the excitement of going to town and buying your record? And what about the fact that every single band anywhere is making broadcast quality stuff. The amount of new bands on facebook asking me to like them means I miss them all, as I cant be bothered to check it all out.

Sounds more like a good argument against information overload, I agree with that. But I go back a little bit and taking expensive (to me) records back particularly common late 70s early 80s and paying £12.99 or whatever it was for a CD didn't do it for me. To some extent the music or record industry got what was coming, they lifted music fan's legs for years. So I have some sympathy for artists in this model but not many others.