Could someone please explain anti-loop snobbery?

[munchkin]

This debate seems to whittle down to whether the composer made the music alone or whether there was any input from other musicians.

By definition music has always been a collaboration between musicians. The use of audio samples and midi loops follows in this tradition.

1. Session musicians were used extensively by musicians in the past. Motown and Atlantic used session musicians. The Beatles, Stones, Beach Boys used session musicians. The session musician often played the difficult passages for the musician who hired him/her.

2. Composers have always 'liberated' passages of music from other composers to create new music. No musical idea exists without a precedent. Nothing is innately original except in the manner in which it's used by the composer.

This is the essence of modernist art and using various sources to create something new is common practice in art. The reason 'ownership' has become contentious in music is because of the battle over copyright. We've been brainwashed to regard music as a commodity and the battle is over how to define this 'property' instead of focusing on creativity.

3. Sampling has been used extensively by the founders of electronica. It's just that with the digital age this process has become much easier and available to almost every musician. It has even contributed to the decrease in demand for the session musician.

There is nothing innately 'uncreative' or 'cheating' about using a sample of any length in a new composition. The fact that musicians have done so creatively for decades inspite of the growing battle over copyright demonstrates that it's an essential and creative element of out musical repertoire.

Carry on sampling!

[jens]

So, have Harry Growth and his Pimple-f**king friends commited the grave musical sin of creative dishonesty by having a total stranger write a large part of a song?

I'd say yes. I believe that they have. If their guitarist can't play an acoustic then they need to either dump the idea, or find a new guitarist

what a poor theory - following your guidelines would mean to limit the own creativity for the sake of snobbery...


If I think I need a trumpet in one of my tunes I ask a friend cause I can't play it myself. The track is hopefully better with the trumpet than without or else my idea was bad. But then it also would have been bad if I played the trumpet myself.

[Stupid American Pig]

I think that sampling has its creative and appropriate uses, and its abusers. this day in age, if you cant find a good drummer, then why should you put up with a crappy one? use loops or BFD.

However, if you cant write a good tune and you use someone elses composition and add a few layers of production on it, you are a remixer, not a musician...

[Jafo]

This debate seems to whittle down to whether the composer made the music alone or whether there was any input from other musicians.

Except for the debate about repetition.

[munchkin]

This debate seems to whittle down to whether the composer made the music alone or whether there was any input from other musicians.

Except for the debate about repetition.

Sorry I missed that. What are you referring to?

Do you mean using the same drum loop over and over and over and over and over and over again?

If so, it's as valid as playing the same guitar or brass riff throughout a song. Doesn't it depend on the end result? Repetition can be as much of a creative result as it can be boring and predictable. Depends on the context.

[ouroboros]

Doesn't it depend on the end result?

This would seem to be the most important issue to me. (consider me an teleologist)

How you get that result (musically) is not as important to many people.

Good drummers can drum poorly
Bad drummers can drum goodly
Bad loops can be used goodly
Good loops can be used poorly

[emdot_ambient]

I haven't really used loops in any of my serious music but I won't say it'll never happen.

To me, unless you're seriously splicing and dicing, mutilating and FXing, using loops is just boring from a compositional stand point. It doesn't interest me.

Then again, I'm not currently composing rhythmically based--or at least not drum based--songs. When I have done this in the past, I couldn't imagine giving up hands on control of the beat. I can see where serious loop mangling could produce unexpected results, or results I would never have considered producing manually . . . but I haven't gotten there yet.

Bottom line: if you're creative about it--fine. If you're lazy about it--people will know.

[Amberience]

Don't worry about it. Xoxos gives you contempt if you're below the age of recieving a free bus pass.

what absolute bollocks!

Hehe.. delusional much...

[munchkin]

Doesn't it depend on the end result?

This would seem to be the most important issue to me. (consider me an teleologist)

How you get that result (musically) is not as important to many people.

Good drummers can drum poorly
Bad drummers can drum goodly
Bad loops can be used goodly
Good loops can be used poorly

I agree that this is at the root of this debate. Historically the end result has been the most important issue. Musicians practice to polish a performance. It's also true that musicians 'jam' but this requires skill and that skill is the end result of practice.

Reading about how the Beatles created 'Sgt. Pepper' for example or how The Beach Boys created 'Good Vibrations' it's immediately obvious that none of this music would've existed without the input of session musicians. I'm not just talking about session musicians playing the compositions of the musicians who hired them but contributing to the actual compositions themselves.

For example the bass on some of Beach Boys songs was played by a session musician and not the bass player. Session musicians would often help arrange orchestration but were never credited for it. This was common practice in the 50's, 60's and 70's.

Would anyone in the audio community describe the Beatles or The Beach Boys as cheaters? Never! That would be sacrelige. They are put on a pedestal for their compositional innovations and inventiveness in production. But the real story is some what different.

I'm not suggesting that the Beatle weren't inventive - they just had a little (read: 'a lot of') help from their friends. Like we all need sometimes...

[intel]

balderdash

I havent heard the word Balderdash used seriously in a sentance in a very long time.

nor poppycock...

well I hope that didn't negate my message, at any rate.

[Ackelito]

I'm not suggesting that the Beatle weren't inventive - they just had a little (read: 'a lot of') help from their friends. Like we all need sometimes...

and they did a song about it

"With a Little Help From My Friends"

[munchkin]

I'm not suggesting that the Beatle weren't inventive - they just had a little (read: 'a lot of') help from their friends. Like we all need sometimes...

and they did a song about it

"With a Little Help From My Friends"

Altogether now...

"I get by with a little help from my friends."

Repeat til fade...

Repetition alert!

[emdot_ambient]

I'm not just talking about session musicians playing the compositions of the musicians who hired them but contributing to the actual compositions themselves.

Note the emphasis on HIRED and CONTRIBUTING. Neither the Beatles nor the Beach Boys took previous recordings of session musicians and used loops of their work to create a song. They payed session musicians to creatively collaborate with them in producing a new and orignal work. It's quite two different things.

I have nothing against creative loopers. Cutting/pasting a bunch of non-processed loops together CAN be creative, interesting and effective . . . but personally I'd find it dead boring to do.

You mention musicians into "jamming." Traditionally that was a completely different creative impulse than we've seen lately, where the ending sound was all that mattered. Anyone interested in that kind of musical gymnastics is most likely going to find loopers to be blasphemers. I'm only talking about traditional jamming in music, like in jazz and classic rock. In these musical forms, musical technique--skill--is the real focus of the music. It was all about "Wow, did you hear how he blew that horn?" or "Holy SH*T that guy was, like, wailing on that guitar solo!" That's a whole different priority than what we've known over the past few DJ-dominated decades.

[shamann]

Except for the debate about repetition.

Actually, looking back over the thread, you're really the only one making that argument. And it's flawed from the beginning. There's a long tradition of using repetition and ostinato techniques in music, as much if not more so than structural progression.

If you are attempting to reflect the notion of stasis/eternity in music, or developing ritual motifs based on trance mechanisms, or creating vocal rounds, and so on, repetition is essential. To say that tension and release is the only point of music is to say that progressive narrative is the only point of art. But you do so at the cost of excluding uncountable applications of art beyond the individualist concerns of the Austro-Germanic tradition. Your point is just one of many, maybe it's time to consider your position valid but not infallible.

[munchkin]

I'm not just talking about session musicians playing the compositions of the musicians who hired them but contributing to the actual compositions themselves.

Note the emphasis on HIRED and CONTRIBUTING. Neither the Beatles nor the Beach Boys took previous recordings of session musicians and used loops of their work to create a song. They payed session musicians to creatively collaborate with them in producing a new and orignal work. It's quite two different things.

I have nothing against creative loopers. Cutting/pasting a bunch of non-processed loops together CAN be creative, interesting and effective . . . but personally I'd find it dead boring to do.

You mention musicians into "jamming." Traditionally that was a completely different creative impulse than we've seen lately, where the ending sound was all that mattered. Anyone interested in that kind of musical gymnastics is most likely going to find loopers to be blasphemers. I'm only talking about traditional jamming in music, like in jazz and classic rock. In these musical forms, musical technique--skill--is the real focus of the music. It was all about "Wow, did you hear how he blew that horn?" or "Holy SH*T that guy was, like, wailing on that guitar solo!" That's a whole different priority than what we've known over the past few DJ-dominated decades.

1. We buy samples just like other musicians buy session players.

2. Session players often regurgitated riffs they had used in another session for their customers.

3. Session musicians were paid by the hour. They contributed original input to the session while the artist/s who hired them were paid by the units sold and retained all royalties. Session musicians were not paid any royalties. Royalties are paid for each samples unless the original contract that came with the samples excludes royalty payment. Sounds like a much better deal than the session musician got.

4. The Beatles and The Beach Boys recorded session musicians and used those recordings in other songs.

5. Electronic musicians 'jam' at every opportunity. Using samples and synthesis. Check it out sometime.