I grew up with an (already old, and by the time we got rid of it years later, hilariously rusted-out and with tires containing more fix-a-flat than air) Scout and their announcement ad for the electric one hit a bullseye with me.
I don't really do new cars (too expensive) but damn... if I had enough cash to not give a fuck, they'd have been well on their way to selling me one just with that ad. Really well done.
Listening to the break down of the tracks, they barely takes any music playing ability so I imagine they could have easily made them from scratch instead of using samples.
Artists don’t sample because they’re unable to perform elements of a track.
They sample because they hear an element of one track and go “that’s awesome, I want to use that creatively but in a different way”.
To that end, most of the samples you’ll hear are pretty simple to reproduce. And sometimes artists don’t get the license to use the sample so they are forced to reproduce (this happens a lot more with vocal samples from what I’m aware)
I don't know. I think it would be pretty difficult to reproduce say the Amen Break. You would have to be a great drummer and be able to reproduce that particular sound it has.
Drum machines have been around for literally decades.
You could take a sample of real drums and then structure it in a step sequencer which, again, is technology that’s been around for decades.
Or if you’re already signed to a label (like Daft Punk were at the time) and neither yourself nor any studio engineers have a clue how to use your hardware (also highly unlikely) then you’d pay a session musician to come in and record an original sample.
In fact this last part happens all the time even for artists who are actual musicians but want collaboration as part of their creative process.
So there are plenty of options available to create original samples. More often than not, artists don’t sample because they don’t have other options, they sample because it’s a desired part of the creative process.
Not to argue the point, but in the article, he can't get the snare sound right so he needed to revert to a sample. I think you're underestimating the difficulty of recreating sounds. It would be impossible for instance, to recreate the amen break with a sequencer because nothing would be on a quantized beat and every single drum hit is different.
> Not to argue the point, but in the article, he can't get the snare sound right so he needed to revert to a sample.
That’s a different problem. He is trying to exactly recreate a sample but without using the sample.
You wouldnt do that in released music because if you didn’t have clearance to use that sample then you’d be still breaking copyright law if you were to recreate it exactly. So what you’d do is recreate the essence of that sample but without making it exactly the same.
Also you ignored my point that professional studios have access to more resources and professionals too.
> I think you're underestimating the difficulty of recreating sounds.
I never said it was easy ;)
> It would be impossible for instance, to recreate the amen break with a sequencer because nothing would be on a quantized beat and every single drum hit is different.
Sequencers don’t quantise beats. You’re thinking of trackers and they are a completely different beast.
You can have your samples aligned any which way you like in sequencers. And even if you were to user a drum machine, you can add padding to your samples. Some drum machines also support dequantisation where they deliberately trigger the samples off beat to give the drums a more natural sound.
To give an example of how sequencers don’t quantise: I was hopelessly bad at producing and some of my earliest efforts had little to no quantization at all (if you can forgive the made up word) and thus I required an engineer to come in an redo most of what I did but have those samples triggered on beat. So I’m very familiar with how easy or hard it is to get drums aligned and how quantisation works in a DAW.
I did get better at producing as time went on but never good enough to even consider making a career out of it.
Suburbia houses are usually right next to each other. Densely populated cities stack housing so you have to go down to get out. I've found that its much easier to meeting people in single family homes than five level flats. In any case, the US even in cities, is not set up for gatherings like it is in Europe where there are large spaces people go to socialize.
I live in suburbia and one of the neighbors periodically hosts coffee and pastries in their front yard. I also do happy hour at different houses. I never got this community feel living in SF for 10 years.
I'm pretty confident the idea of on-call would go away if the company had to pay for your time. But being salaried, they assume you work for them 24/7.
I get what you're saying, but this reasoning has always rubbed me the wrong way.
You will often hear scammers and con artists justify what they do by saying it's the only way they have to support their family. It's like, why is your family more important than any other family in the world? It's still a selfish act.
disagree. feeding your own family IS more important to you. it has to be, because that is your responsibility. you are not responsible for other families. not at the expense of your own.
the question is rather: why is unethical behavior the only way to feed your family?
in case of the suggestion to just quit after 9 months i would say that if there is no other way to get work, then what choice do they have? this is similar to lying about the intention to have children. some might consider lying unethical, but it is so important that it is in fact legally protected in some countries.
that's a very philosophical question, and i am happy to engage in a discussion if you like. let me start with that i believe that it is the very purpose of humanity to contribute to an ever advancing civilization. so yes, i do consider myself responsible for the wellbeing of society. in fact i am making that very choice right now, living with my family in a developing country so that i can make a meaningful contribution there and teach my children important values of life, instead of going back home where i could live on social benefits because caring for my children would prevent me from getting a job.
but at the end of the day i can't let my children starve to achieve that goal, nor am i responsible to feed all my neighbors who sometimes struggle to actually afford all their daily necessities. there has to be a balance somewhere. and as i said the balance is to not resort to unethical behavior. but that's not the same thing as giving other families a higher priority than my own which is what you are suggesting (you are not explicitly saying it, but the opposite reading of "why is your family more important than others?" is "why should other families be more important than yours?".)
i brought these children into the world, and my responsibility is towards them first. this does not mean that i ignore the needs of others, if i can help them. it also does not mean that i focus on giving my children an advantage over others, or that i protect them from their own mistakes. all i am doing is to make sure that they are healthy and learn, in school and in life. that is my priority because it is my responsibility alone. noone else is going to do that for me. i am the only one who can make sure that it happens. caring for society on the other hand is a group responsibility, not an individual one. i can and do contribute to that, but only as much as my primary responsibility of caring for my children allows.
Its easy to think you have too much money in your twenties. I used to save every other paycheck. But wait until you have a family and a mortgage. The money goes very quickly.
