Daft Punk Technologic Midi File

Sampling and remix culture is the future, right? Not if you ask a lot of music lovers at the moment. The guest for the CDM Random Rant of the Week is our friend Liz. It’s an issue I suspect has troubled some readers here, especially as music technology is equated to the sample/remix culture (especially if you believe Wired Magazine and we’re in the age of mash-ups.) Sure, tracks sampling other tracks is nothing new, but the legal battles over hip-hop aside, is there a backlash brewing? Do people want to hear something original, after all? And can Kanye, erm, speak truth to power with both the President of the United States and mysterious French electro duos?

-PK Do[es] anybody make real shit anymore? Bow in the presence of greatness Cause right now thou has forsaken us You should be honored by my lateness That I would even show up to this fake shit So go ahead, go nuts, go ape-shit Especially on my best stand, on my Bape shit Act like you can’t tell who made this.

Daft Punk Technologic Mp Song Mp3 Download. Daft Punk Technologic Peaches No Logic Remix Mp3 Download Daft Punk Technologic Peaches No Logic Remix.mp3. Touch It Remix Mp3. Starboy Feat Daft Punk The Weeknd Mp3 To Midi Mp3 Download Starboy Feat Daft Punk The Weeknd Mp3 To Midi.mp3. Major music portal for saving remix packs, remix stems, remix kits, multitracks, remix contests from around the Internet.

Kanye West, “Stronger,” ft. Substantial elements of Daft Punk’s “Harder Better Faster Stronger” Before I clicked on the link I’m about to share with you, I was a hardcore, devil-fist-throwing Daft Punk mega-fan. After the link jump at the end, I had to reluctantly join the melancholy ranks of jaded music fans who’ve seen through the hype to the source, eventually admitting that what I had admired was blatant plagiarism. The success of Daft Punk’s ground-breaking single “Around the World” cemented my once-marginal interest in the then-peripheral disco/electro-house scene. Adding to that was the time I spent in France taking in the provincial culture while attending French raves and parties France-style (and loving the music video featuring robots as protagonists). In the scene circa ’98-’99 in major French cities, you’d hear a Daft Punk track or a French facsimile about every fourth track, and where it was appropriate, the place would go sweaty-wild with glee. Hipster fashion boutiques, shoe stores, and taco joints alike were a-bump with the Daft Punk spinoff Stardust’s hit “Music Sounds Better with You.” At every turn, it seemed as if DP’s tracks staked an uncontested cross-genre claim in the minds of many.

My unconditional love persisted well into the 2000s when DP dropped not only an extended music video / Anime feature ( Interstella 5555), and then followed up their success with Homework. They introduced “Robot Rock” as a single that infiltrated many robotic / electro / rock playlists across the country. Not content to rest on their laurels they joined Lollapalooza this year, setting off diverse to dance-extended versions of their hit, “One More Time” on live sequence mode. And as if they weren’t already mega-stars in their own right, they’re now being exposed to an entirely new segment of the popular-music-listening populace: hip hop fans. Kanye West’s “” track features a slowed down, rearranged version of “.” But the funny thing is that Kanye is sampling a sample! The groovy riff from “Harder” is lifted straight from ‘s 1979 funk track “.” Sure, Daft Punk gives Birdsong a co-writing credit in the liner notes, but it’s a bit of a letdown.

I don’t know how to phrase this. It’s like, you attribute a certain technical and musical ability to one artist and then realize they don’t have that technical and musical ability, they are just pretending they do. I don’t use samples in my own work because it feels like cheating, in a way. If I create a groove and the dancefloor goes wild, I would feel better about it than if it was lifted from another track.

My boyfriend is just getting started with making his own music, but he chooses to sample guitar riffs and hooks from rock songs of the 70s and 80s and make them into dance tracks, and even though I’ve warned him about sample clearance, he says he’ll never release anything so it’s ok. I think closely studying tracks that you really like is an excellent exercise in learning about song structures and composition, but lifting hooks and calling them your own is cheating. If you really like a groove, figure out why you like it and do your own version of it. This is just my opinion and I know lots of people who create and admire music would be up in arms at the idea of telling people not to use samples in their work.

So if you’re ready to face the truth and retract a bit of Daft Punk’s technical and musical genius-aura, behold the Daft Punk sample sources: [Palms Out Sounds] Ed.: So, CDMers, what do you think? Has sampling dampened your enthusiasm for some electronic music, Daft or otherwise? Or do you say, bring on the remix-mash-sample-share-ups and license everything for open-source music? And can we get the sense of originality back in music? (Or did it ever leave?) We let Liz get her rant out; now’s your turn. Robot rock was a complete rip off as well. What you do have to give them is that they actually improved most of the tracks on that link.

And that they actually dug up the great hook. Crate digging is an artform in itself. That's why I like daft punks sampling a lot more than Kanye's. I mean, everyone can make a hit if they just have to slow down an track which has already proven to be a hit. It's like the millions of versions of sweet dreams out there.

It's a great track, and be a hit no matter what you do with it. DJ Shadow once explained it very nice: When I sample a track, I try to take the good bits and leave the bad ones. Cause if I make a track out of all the good bits of all the tracks out there, it's got to be a good track (it's not really a quote, but that's what he meant) That's not the same as taking a mega hit and rebrand it. This site will not degrade to 'first-post'-ing — Jaymis First and foremost, I think it's an issue of misrepresentation. If they were billed as 'Dj/ReMix Artists Daft Punk' in interviews and other places of public scrunity, I think that there would be less of a backlash. I think the backlash comes from a sense of ethics.

Electronic Music has always been more or less a DIY genre and I think that's lead to a sense of collective pride for the listener that they were actually connecting with the artist in a way that you can't from a studio produced, consumer product sort of way. There, you expect this sort of thing. Here, the faith we have in our culture was taken advantage of; we feel fooled and betrayed.

Also I agree that it probably pangs the Djs and Musicians a bit more. Guys with a copy of Acid who blatantly stich whole segments of songs together and pass them off as their own work should be the laughing stock of the club scene. But they're the ones laughing, all the way to the bank.

That offends our sense of ethics as well. They brought what we stand against in a space suited trojan horse, and we were all stabbed in the back whilst we danced unaware. This is a non-issue.

And old news, actually, that Sample Wednesday link is from months ago, isn't it? It made the rounds of the blogosphere and then vanished into the 'ah, interesting, but meh' file. I get a bit cranky when a bunch of Year Zero musical purists get on a legless high horse about sampling. Of course Daft Punk use samples. If you couldn't hear that they were samples originally, you need to get out more. Secondly, part of what gets me upset is that this anti-sampling attitude is essentially rockist.

It's like those 'No Synthesizers!' Stickers that dinosaur bands would put on their albums in the 70s. It's a misplaced quest for authority, couched as a search for authenticity. Apparently, as long as Daft Punk were writing every note themselves and 'sampling' their own performances in the studio to make loops, that was OK, but once their hooks are revealed to be sampled off old, obscure tracks, that somehow invalidates the fact that Discovery is a kick-ass album that's still head and shoulders above anything currently on the market, years after its release? I say these kinds of fans want 'authority' in the guise of authenticity — they don't want to be caught out listening to something uncool, they want to be assured by the Powers that Be that it is indeed True and Righteous. When in fact most pop is all tinsel and artifice and all our idols are not as working-class as they make themselves out to be (John Mellor, the diplomat's son, anyone?).

To expect 'authenticity' from a couple of guys in robot masks who may not even be the people we think they are underneath!! Is a bit of a stretch. And furthermore — they'd be plagiarists if they ripped off the complete song structure, lyrics, and melody, but they didn't. Their albums show an advanced, almost classical, sense of composition, texture, counterpoint and harmony. Whether the songs are structured around samples or not is irrelevant; the fact that they created a new work that transcends its components is highly relevant. That to me is the definition of 'composition,' and that should put to bed any questions about who wrote what!

My take on this is one more mainstream beat-up – seriously, it's like Dylan criticising all music that's recorded electronically, or the mainstream news jupming all over an art film because it has nudity! Bottom line is this – the guys in Daft Punk were (and possibly still are) DJs who produce. At the end of the day, DJ production is about churning out new tracks that work on a dancefloor. Creativity is important, but only in as much as the crowd isn't going to repond to something they've heard a thousand times before. If you can take the opening 16 from an obscure 70s track and turn it into a dancefloor stormer then bang, you've succeeded! Now this culture has infiltrated the mainstream music industry, which has it's own traditional set of memes concerning 'plagiarism' (however hypocritical they may be – have you listened to Jet, Killers, Oasis, etc. Basically it comes down to a question of purpose – if Daft Punk were out there claiming to be great original thinkers, then sure, ridicule that.

But I'm pretty sure I've never heard them make that claim (for all that unimaginative music writers might assume it). The music is about enterntainment, and that is something that Daft Punk deliver in spades. As a secondary, and purely financial point, the fact that most (if not all) of these samples would have been cleared has probably meant a considerable fiancial windfall for the original artists (few of whom I imagine are making a great deal of money from the music otherwise). A simple test: 1. Spons Electrical Estimating Pdf Download. Find an obscure sample. Use it in a track of your own. Is the result even a tiny bit as insanely kickass as even the most average Daft Punk track?

If it is, then good for you, you're at least as good as DP and your new found lack of respect for them as artists is entirely justified. If not, well keep at it, maybe one day you'll cheat as well as them. In the mean time I'll be rocking out to their sampling genius as they are freaking FINALLY touring Australia. Dudes sure, sampling is an art form I totally buy that and I agree that the old argument around it is a bit boring.

Have you checked out the samples that DP uses? It reminds me of P Diddly. They just grab the hook and loop it.

Listen to robot rock and then listen to Release the Beast by Breakwater. Anyway, props for the digging skills i guess? And i probably wouldn't have found the original tracks on my own (and they rule!) so I guess that's a net positive? But it does feel like a bit of a Malcolm McLaren-esque ruse. Robot Rock indeed.

Oh, but look at the pretty lights! Well, I knew the Edwin Birdsong Track even before Daft Punk sampled it and it's a classic case of 'Intro-Sampling' that I hate. I know crate-digging is an art (and something I spend quite alot of time on myself), however in my book taking a 4bar-loop and adding some drums is not enough. You need to work the samples, really get creative or else it's just an 'edit' (not even a remix), but not a new track. And by the way, isn't the beat from that Kanye-Song from Swizz Beats? Thought I read that somewhere And Kyran: DJ Shadow is not the best producer himself. Check some of the (inofficial) 'sampled by DJ Shadow'-Collections (I know of two) and you might be surprised.

Sometimes not very far off Daft Punk and P. 'Midnight in a perfect world' for example is a 80%-ripoff of some Gorgio Moroder Track. HipHop meanwhile stinks, as does DiscoHouse. Too much lazy cannibalism of old hits. I don't think it was so bad on homework, but from discovery on was when they made it the biggest and every other song has been a freaking sampled loop. And I recall an interview precisely at that time, in which they were going on about how discovery was more focused around playing music and their relationship with the instruments.

That's low, guys. I agree 110% with the author on this one, and I know people will go really long ways to rationalize a defense for their idols, but you have to admit that you just can't say anything about these people's skills because that line is just too blurred. I don't think they sound so hot, anyway. For me, it's a question of which direction the musician comes at it from.

Consider the DJ who has a particular beat in mind, the first inkling of a hook, a general idea of the song he wants to make. He then goes combing through his vinyl collection for something that fits that idea.

It's HIS idea, he's just piecing the pieces together. Now consider the DJ who has no clue how to make a good song. He flips through his records, hears a hook that he likes, then decides to make that the basis of his 'new' song. Maybe he adds a four-to-the-floor beat to it from his supa-fly collection of drum loops in Fruity Loops, maybe a 'fresh' female vocalist rapping in one part, etc, etc. It's the Emperor's New Clothes.

That's Daft Punk, and a hell of allot of other DJs out there. F**king lame. Supasharpshooter: no, the sample in the kanye song is the a piece from 'faster harder' which uses the 8bars from the intro from 'cola bottle shake baby', so there is enough 'cola bottle' in 'stronger.' Btw, there are loads of great samples later in the song, but DP didn't even bother. They could have done a great cutup, but Tyler: I thought for a long time that kanye atleast wrote great lyrics but recently learned that his lyrics are often co-written by other people (rhymefest for example), and the 'jesus walks'-beat is really kick-ass, but I am not sure he did it himself. Well, this definitely isn't in the news category; that wasn't the intention.

But I think it is something that's on people's minds, on a personal level if the very groove that makes you love a song is just recycled, then yeah, there's some excitement missing. So I was interested in Liz's response a) because it was personal, her own feelings about her connection to the music and b) because we're now getting very meta with Kanye sampling a song that samples a song with lyrics about him sampling the sampling samplers samples. Very reflexive. We may do a series of these Random Rants, just to let out those conversations we'd likely have at a pub. So, carry on comments are as always intelligent and thought-provoking! (Hmm now if I just had a nice, cold beer) •. Ok gotta re-check the song then, alltho i hate the song since its about KANYE WEST doing the dirty work.

Ppl should check what else West has been doing, really nasty ripping. DP isnt the bad guy here. Daft Punk did a excellent samplespotting on Discovery-album.

Even 'Music Sound Better With You' uses aprx 2 seconds from Chaka Chan's 'Fate' and stretches it to a full 6 mins anthem. Without sampling we would not have hiphop, house and half of the electronic music. Why sampling suddenly is 'BAD' and 'NON-CREATIVE'? Have you all lived in a chimney for these 20 years? You really should do some catchup on like for an example.

I simply dont like Daft Punk. Never got into their stuff and always found a lot of things about them cheesy and unappealing.

This is coming from someone who has been a massive (massive) fan of Chemical Brothers since 1995. Add to that Underworld and im one of the slowly aging demographies that know what it is to love the 'Stadium Electronica' band concept in a way that seems to be dying off amongst disposable/posable electro heroes. Problem is when you have Chemical Brothers making these amazing albums out of an insane amount of equipment, enormous amounts of clever samples and a brilliant engineering and mastering quality, you might find it harder to accept the Daft Punk 'license it en mass' style. Another problem when you have Underworld continuing to play so openly and honestly with a rare transparency to what they are doing on stage and in the studio (plus no shame to let the odd unmute mistake by Rick happen in their set) then its harder to accept the amount of bulls**t Daft Punk lie about their methods in the studio and the sheer facade of their live show. Look at the shiny lights!

Smoke and mirrors! I accept DP have genius, but its wasted IMHO. I dont mind if people worship them, but i stand by my own rights to despise the careers they have built on bulls**t and obscurity. I could go on for hours about the crap they spout in music production magazines (often contradicting the last interview) but it rewards me little to be so negative. I think these comments sum it up: 'As you hear these tracks you'll either decide Daft Punk isn't as genius as you thought they were or that they're twice as amazing.'

– from the Palms Out Sounds post 'Still, I could sample these tracks all day long, and it wouldn't sound like 5% of Daft Punk' – from Music Thing's post ) Surely you were living in denial if you thought every note off of their albums was completely original. You have to agree that they've done *much* more than just 'rip off' these grooves. Listening to these tracks and considering where they ended up, the transformation took some talent. I think it's pretentious to deny artistic credit to someone just because the work came from somewhere else. What if they had hired session musicians and reperformed these grooves? If they can spend less time re-creating stuff and more time infusing it with their own style, I'm all for the latter. Of course, credit should be given where it's due •.

Why is coming up with a hook all your own so important? Personally i find that if if you do find a good hook, its probably been used before. So if you take one that you hear, just a couple of seconds of a song, and use if for your own purposes so what? The artistry comes out in their immpecable and unique sound and their utterly devine sense of timeing. I've never heard a daft punk song that repeated a loop one time too many. Ive never heard a daft punk sound release too long, attack too short or sound anything less than perfect.

And i mean its not like they don't understand this. Just listen to Teachers. With that bassline how could anyone question that Dr.

Dre was in the house? Whether he they or anyone we know made it. The point is nothing is original, you can't escape your forbearers and in the end its all just sound anyway. I have to take issue with the idea that 'crate digging is an artform in itself'. Imagine if we brought that idea to scientific research or to product development! I think many people today misinterpret cultural literacy and 'doing your homework' as original work. It is merely the foundation upon which original work can begin.

New creative works, like scientific theories, have always built upon work from the past. We update them with new knowledge and place them in the context of current culture. In this way the work becomes new and transcends the old. Smart authors make us keenly aware of thier relationship to what has come before •. Agreed Lucid Media. I feel like this need for orginality(i.e. Not doing your homework cause you know, i make real music MY music) is almost what is undermining actual originality.

If you refuse to think about other music when making it, or just blindly attempt to be original you will inevitably end up making something that is either 1) horrible or 2) a very basic rip off version of something you havnt heard. Usually a little bit of both. But if one samples you are directly interacting with your peers, with other music so originality is forced. No matter how much daft punk make like the flow of a song they sampled or the what may come afdter or before the 4 bar block they choose to sample they know they cant recreate it, cant sample it too and dont. They make it their own because it almost forces them too. Certainly their are people who don't understand this. Ive heard recent electro mixes taking older house songs and jsut running them through a distortion effect.

Thats not what i'm talking about. Thats what you guys should be getting up in arms about. 4 bars does not a song make. Many people here are making the argument that most people couldn't, given the same samples, make songs as good as DP.

That's questionable, but for the cases where they're right, it's due to production, which is 80% science and 20% art (probably allot of different opinions on those numbers, but). It's noise-reduction, compression, cross-fades, etc. It's dependent on how much money you can spend on your gear.

Does that make them good musicians? No, just good producers. And I'm not even mentioning the role the mastering plays (which they don't do).

Sampling was what electronic music was all about (think of all the tracks out there that sampled James Brown!). There's a real charm about the music of that era, where rights weren't really an issue and the tracks circulated freely. I'm thinking that we're just having a crack at this issue from a more modern, uptight perspective. It's like looking back at the movie Dumbo, realizing that the little bugger got shit-faced in a kids film and getting pissed about it. Indie 103.1's 'Jonsey's Jukebox' had a little thing about how sampling, remixes, and mash-ups are getting discouraged because of the issue on rights.

I used to be a DJ from late middle school and since become scared to death of getting sued for posting mixes/remixes. On the other hand, the modern me is scared of people like Timbaland, who might rip me off and not give me any credit ). I'll try to say this without sounding like a hippie. I think as long as the musicians keep the sticks out of their asses and remembered to say 'please' and 'thanks', we could see some really killer tracks pop up out've the woodwork.

Btw, DP rocks. I squeezed out a little mix of them a while a go: •. There's a difference between painting and collage – we all understand this. It's cool to have both, but if all anyone ever does is sample other music, everything gets stale. Like the water on a deep space mission after it's been peed in 3000 times, do you really think it still tastes good?

Something fresh needs to enter the system. As a thought experiment, imagine what this music would be like if those funk and disco musicians in the 70s has never recorded. And by extension, what are we leaving to sample for the electronic music of 20 years from now? Plundering the past leaves nothing for the future.

I wasn't going to weigh in too heavy on this, but seems to me like the 'sample anger' is misdirected here. Whether you like it or not, you have to admit that at least it is being done the professional way by giving credit where credit is due. The real issue I have with sampling is when it is done yet the artists are too high and mighty to go about the proper way of doing business, i.e. Timbaland and his multi-ripoff of the Tempest tune ) For me personally, sampling isn't my bag because I know I'm not very good at it. I do get inspired by existing material, as most musicians do, but while I may find it a bit disappointing that Daft Punk didn't pen all those great hooks themselves, I'm also 100% honest with myself in saying that there is absolutely no way I could do what they do as well as they do it. Lets get back to basics. Why is making music that contains nothing previously recorded important?

Should manufactured sample disc be put in this catagory?(i personally feel this is worse than using a sample from another song) What is gained(or lost) by only recording your own notes? And lets extend this to sound. Are they okay? Or is that plagarism too? What level of originality is enough to satisfy the purists? What about all our manufactured gear that basicly guides us through our music making process, forcing us to stay within its confines?

Should MAX/MSP be the only thing used to make music? Or is using all their prebuilt patches plagarism too? I know it may seem a little pedantic but where does one draw the line? For the record, I don't use compositional (as opposed to single hit or patched non-loop instrumental) samples.

However, this rant and frequently-voiced argument fails, and will always fail, when placed in the context of thematic evolution and music history. This argument can apply to nearly any kind of art. In short, there is nothing new, only incremental developments on existing themes — even picasso's revolutionary work spawned from a deliberately divergent approach to contemporary methods. There is no point in wasting any brain cycles on those who are successful in doing so.

Artists recontextualize and rethink the themes and methods in their lives. Daft Punk certainly aren't geniuses, but their stuff is catchy and successful for a good reason. They take catchy hooks and recontextualize them with elements appealing to contemporary club audiences (ranging from better percussion to themes of futurism).

As much as I love being a haterI really doI just think that deep down this attitude stems from jealousy and resentment that the efforts many of us put into what we think is 'original' music, composed with our own allegedly-'original' ideas, isn't as successful. But thanks for the rantgood reading!

I was surprised to hear some of those sampled songs. Some of the samples ended up being the best part of daft punk songs. But i don't particularly like any of the original songs, so i wonder if the samples are only so good in context. Personally, i've found the process of going from 8 bars of music to an entire songs to be a lot more challenging than coming up with a few catchy measures.

So, i'm not that disappointed. Actually, after reading this post, i kind of want to listen daft punk right now. *takes a step back* Yeah okay, i probably should of phrased that way more intelligently. What i really meant was that they give you what you want just when you need it.

Human after all certainly has many times where they seemed to have forgotten how to do this, seemingly to make some robotic point or some shit. I mean listen to emotion. But around the world?

Rolling and scratching? They seem to have an uncanny knack at introducing something new at the perfect time. Some people certainly don't see the same thing sounding diffenret as something new exciting like i do but thats obviously very objective. Honestly i could listen to that riff from robot rock all day, but yes, if you call daft punk Legendary musicians you are missing the point.

The point is to run around dancing in fluro shirts. I think (the point has been made above somewhere), that the authenticity of pure-sample based music really depends on the craftmansship of how you incorporate/work with samples. Of course you can mix two 16 bars samples together and call it a new song, that would have worked in the 80s/90s but today you can do that in 5 minutes with the right applications. Music has always been about progression – musically (think stockhausen, hah (i know that is debatable)) as well as highly technically.

Therefore the authenticity of an artist, especially nowadays is highly dependant on his – as i said- craftmansship regarding the technical abilities to create/compose music. The development of the piano, for example, opened up for a whole new style of intonation, composition and playability of an instrument.

And in the end it is nothing else than a technical innovation which differs from previous instruments in these respects. So you can also debate over the 'authenticity' of a piano-compostion since the piano introduced a sort of abstraction of how you create a song compared to how you did it with other instruments that have been widely used before that. Creating a song/compostion entirely of samples is -technically- nothing else than such an abstraction. I totally disagree that you are working on waveform level with samples rather than some sort of 'note-level', because you are (usually) combining samples tonally and rhythmically.

Which is exactly what you do on a different abstraction when you compose something for a piano. However, a composition won't have a musicial quality if you just mix some samples together. Obviously 'putting together' chords like F, Em, A7, Dm on your guitar won't be quite authentic either, since a zillion bands and the beatles used that chord progression as well. And i seriously think that digging is an art form, because essentially you are looking for 'chords' in your composition that fit in. Autechre, venetian snares, etc have always been heavily into sampling and I think they created new, valuable compositions while relying completely on material of others. And well, it's because of their craftmansship. I use a lot of samples and i don't make any difference between what i sampled from old records and what i played myself or what i have programmed.

In the end those building-blocks are equal in the compostion – regardless of their origin. For those who are interested, my current ep which took almost 3 years to complete: 2 cents //karhu •. Lost, I sense that you're a bit fed-up. And I agree with what you're implying. Electronic music, has, from it's very beginnings been about re-appropriating the old into new contexts.

Some of the first electronic music, music concrete, consisted solely of manipulating samples. Furthermore, many of the instruments that created the first dance electronic music were not designed for that purpose in the first place, like the tb-303. Electronic music has always straddled the thin line between appreciation and appropriation.

Bottom line, there really are few tools or methods, as Lost points out, that are completely original, or, as he says, 'enough for the purists.' I did lose some respect for dp when I found out most of their music was samples, but it's still good music. I kind of feel the same way about dp as I do about modern art that is just paint spattered on a canvass or just a simple line.

If it was all so simple, why didn't someone else do it first? As a musician, it's also kind of hard to separate from the jealousy factor and objectively talk about this. 'I think (the point has been made above somewhere), that the authenticity of pure-sample based music really depends on the craftmansship of how you incorporate/work with samples.' I agree to a point, but would take things one step past 'craftmanship' towards 'context.'

What is the function of the sample? How, as a recognizable figure placed in a new context, does it communicate the collage artists intentions?

Keep in mind, however, that I am personally interested in reflexive works and the creation of 'meaning' as opposed to pure form or composition (in music and in other forms of creative work). I don't believe that postmodernism gives anyone a free ride! Well, I'm still glad we brought this up — we're getting lots of responses I didn't expect. I've had days where I think my inner dialog has been on both sides of this debate. I've never lost respect for the amazing things that happened with sampling in hip-hop, but that came out of a specific context, and it had a really particular craft and meaning to it.

As far as electronica's ongoing use of sampling, some days I'm all about it. Other days, I just kind of long for a sense of listening to what's coming out of a musician's head and fingers directly. Anyway, I don't think you need a definitive answer to this question.

I think you have to answer it for yourself, and how you feel about it personally. If sampling is getting you closer to your musical ideas and giving you a deeper feeling of what you're sampling, go for it. If you need to get that lick into your fingers and pick it up that way, then do that. @Bored Bullshit dude. Their material continues to be by far some of the most dense and intricate of anything being produced in hip-hop today.

Combining ironic disdain for pop culture while at the same time reveling in the couture of it, with higher minded forms of abstract experimentalism. The result is both enjoyable at a visceral and intellectual level. I took a listen to your stuff man. Before you go slighting someone else's taste in music you better be damn sure your shit is a whole hell of a lot better. You would be lucky to ever reach half of their level of skill.

And you sound like a 12 year old brat who just got his first broadband connection. You get the hell out of here with your trollish attitude. If you have to criticize Kayne West or whomever, do it constructively and back up your argument. I may disagree with what the original article had to say about Daft Punk, but I can't deny that the poster did a good job of backing up her ideas with solid points. Acting like a illiterate fool on a sophisticated blog like CDM pisses us 'Hipster' (I call it well-educated) types off. You have a shitty attitude and it really pisses me off. Best to back off, shut up, and perhaps take your music a bit more serious.

Maybe then you wouldn't look so god damned silly. Just a quick response to Liz quoting metrosonus — the idea that DIY digital music is somehow 'purer' than sample-based music is where you start to hear the bones of electronic music calcify as it becomes a paranoid old man clawing for its memories of a golden 1979, clutching its Suzanne Ciani 8-track tapes to its sclerotic heart. Maybe Daft Punk didn't write the music in the samples. But they sure as hell arranged them in a way that I would consider neoclassical; even neo-baroque. You could take all the melody lines on Discovery and do an arrangement for orchestra and it'd still sound as good. You also have to consider the fact that these are two guys from France – a country with a small, but absurdly influential electronic music scene compared to its size – and they come at it with a peculiarly Gallic angle. The history of sampling goes back to Pierre Henry's musique concrete experiments, so one can say that the French rather pioneered the artform, and French philosophers' commentaries on the notion of authorship – Foucault comes to mind – provide the intellectual underpinnings for questioning the whole rockist 'we wrote this song in a garage with our bare hands' idea.

Authorship implies ownership, and thus is just another way for the Man to keep down the People, to put it in a severely bowdlerized fashion. Sampling deftly liberated music from Kopyrite Kontrol, often with a sense of fun about it, and nowadays we're trying to strike a balance where sampled artists get royalties due.

Then there's the important fact that Thomas Bangalter's father wrote the 70s disco hit 'D.I.S.C.O' for the duo Ottawan. They didn't just spring up overnight; they're part of a dance music legacy. Food for thought. Thanks for reading, and thanks to those who appreciated my earlier comments.

Is everyone whose comment is some variation on 'who cares about originality' or 'there's no such thing as originality anyway' a regular reader of this site, or did you flock here via a link from another blog? As far as I can tell, it's called 'CREATE digital music', not 'COPY digital music' (This is not aimed at anyone making well thought out pro-sampling arguments.

And yes, I'm exhibiting a double standard for playing the 'name of the blog' card and then lapping up the analog synth articles.) •. Besides all of the nice history lessons re Pierre Henry and his wonderful tape manipulation ideas: Another relevant example of contextual sampling is the Justice remix of Simian's 'We Are Your Friends.' I've played both tracks as a DJ, and the dancers speak louder than a postmodern legitimacy argument: they prefer the bubbly, club-tuned Justice version. I'm sure that most of the dancers don't even know it's a remix, and just assume that it's 'Justice' singing the hook. This tends to happen with me quite a bit, where I'll end up liking a remix or a cover version more than the original. So there's definitely an art to finding a gem and chipping away the cruft. Wow liz, you've just discounted the artistic validity of practically all hip-hop music with these statements.

Taking old loops is lame? How old of an argument is this? I expect better from this blog. And frankly, you should've been able to figure out that the bulk of those tracks had samples all over themeven if you didn't know the original source. There was nothing remotely groundbreaking about 'around the world.' Daft punk's best material remains their first couple of EP's for Soma from 1994-1996 (half of which ended up on Homework). 'rollin and scratchin' for instance totally destroyed dancefloors long before they signed to a major label, and nary a sample in sight.

It was all downhill after that. I've been working on becoming a true composing artist for around 8 or so years. I've learned to use many pieces of software you've probably heard of and some I'm sure you haven't. In the beginning my work was all sample based because that was what was available to me at the time. But the more I've grown in my knowledge the less I've been interested in using any form of hook sampling.

Don't get me wrong. There is a valid use for sampling.

Say you get a drum loop and you absolutely love the kick. Fine use that kick. In my mind its essentially like integrating a new bass drum into your kit. Yes you sampled something. But it's a note. Hook sampling though is horrible, and while a great many artist I love have and will continue to do that; I love them for what they have done to the loop. Their art lies in how they have treated the sample or incorporated it among the other elements.

I was very pleased when I heard the original 'cola bottle baby' because it helped me understand what parts were daft and what parts weren't. The song Harder Better Faster Stronger, and it's sequel Technologic sum up perfectly what a perfectionists artists work is.

All art is interpretation and what we do with our brushes defines who we are as artists. I once listened to discovery on acid and let me tell you. Mind blowing. Especially HFBS for me towards the end of the track I felt like I was literally hearing somebody melting into a synth. You know what I'm talking about. The Kanye West Track 'Stronger' though is the worst absolute aspect of sampling. It's p.diddy sampling at its worst.

Completely unoriginal, I'm ashamed for dance culture that Daft Punk had anything to do with the track. They did something. Even if it was just being in the video. Whats even worse though is that its a crappy song.

No 'Jesus Walks' is that piece of crap. Probably chiming in a bit too late here, but oh well I don't really have a problem with sampling, even the rip the whole song straight and rapping over it tactic. Not sarcastically, I truly believe that it's not the same thing anymore. Rapper's Delight?

The groove is just straight ripped off, but it's still a great classic song. So is Good Times. What bothers me more personally, is that many people (including some in this thread) will try to say that the remix. The song doing the sampling is somehow better) Occasionally–but rarely–this is true. Not to say it's worse, but rather just that the 'remix' is different. A lot of the time this difference is mainly knob tweaking and production. In effect it's the same music, it's just been given a different era's 'sound'.

I try to be receptive when I listen to music, so I'm much more tolerant of varying production. (than my friends who aren't into music as much. Do you know anyone who just won't let mid 90's alt rock die? I mean, jeez, they're just fetishizing the sound at this point.) It depresses me a bit that the public at large will like or dislike songs largely on the basis of production.

However, I completely understand any DJ out there who plays Daft Punk over the original disco tracks. It's your job to play what the people want to hear, and you can't blame Daft Punk for giving the people what they want. You can only really blame the people. But remember, the music of today, sampled or not, is just fashion. It'll be passe in 20 years, when most everyone will like the remix better. This is totally ridiculous.

I have conservatory training and musical skills and definitely have the ability to never sample anything, but to me sampling is really cool and an extreme sign of the times. There is something awesome about taking a record you like and placing part of it in a totally new context for a new audience.

Haters are quick to look to 'serious' musicial genres like concert music or jazz as a reason why sampling is not art, but the 'classical' canon employs tons and tons of quoting (sometimes composers even lifted complete sections from other composers), and jazz history is filled with the idea of contrafacting tunes to be able to use someone else's song without paying for it. What is different between those and sampling? Where is the line? Either way, those Daft Punk records are incredible and they are great live.

Apologies for pimping my own shit here, but its extremely relevant to the issue: this is a mix series i'm working on that tackles the issue of sampling and musical 'ownership' directly. Each mix is essentially a remix of the previous one, so if listened to in order you can hear what was at first an entire song or obvious sample devolve into smaller and smaller fragments. The end result is that the sounds (melodies? Drum hits?) becomes blurred to the point where ownership itself is questionable.

Is it fun to listen to? Is it mine now? And in reference to the original post: there's just too much historical precedent now to even question whether sampling is art.

Its also pervasive enough within musical culture that the concept of sampling needs to simply be acceptedlike synthesizers, or rapping. Its artistically valid, end of discussionwhether one likes it or agrees with it is besides the point.

Influence is everywhere in music and is just more literal (and easier to litigate) when its a direct audio sample. Bands like interpol and jet should be strung up for plagiarism long before dangermouse or girl talk. There's nothing like a genuinely quality internet discussion. Honestly, I think this whole thread speaks volumes about the CDM readership. I wanted to respond to comments specifically, so I started copying and pasting the names and quotes I wanted to address.

Then I saw references to 'rants', 'not wanting to rant', so on and so forth. This points to something bigger (imo. Continue reading if you bothered to read this far down the page). Liz, what I think is going on here is that you might have offended some people's musical sensabilities and/or creative processes. No biggie, these things happen. But what I think is the bigger issue here is people trying to validate or invalidate people's creative efforts as 'art'. Sometimes I wish we never even came up with the word 'art' at all.

These conversations come from what amounts to the intelligencia equivalent to cutting off someone's balls off. It's not even that 'my VST is better than your sample,' it's that there's this kind of implied superiority of 'mine vs. As pointed out here by: dan s. Thank you for saying this so succinctly.

There's a classic rock guitarist out there RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW, saying the same things about you that you are saying about sampling. Furthermore, you would be using the same defences for your 'pure' electronic as these dirty 'samplers' would about their music in the face of 'classical rock' critique. Then, even more ironically, is this infinite recursion.

The jazz people will say that about the rockers, the classical kids about the jazz kids. So on and so on.

Then, Liz, you go on to say: But you know what? This is just the same 'step forward' that can become a 'step back' in the same sense. Once the price drops below 6 bennies, every kid in the world could get one and pirate their copy of MAX. Then it's 'old' and 'tired' and it 'was soooooo 2008 aaaanyways' and blah blah blah. So for my next point I'll move onto my next quote by: karhu THANK YOU! A million times, thank you.

I feel the whole DJ Shadow argument can somehow be dismantled a little too easily. This is why I will always reference these dudes for the argument. Consider Squarepusher: are those songs going to be as fucking ILL without those amens? Without those james brown 'you bad man' breaks?

And ONTOP of that, he's IDMing your goddamn face off with mad cuts and edits. Triplets at the speed of light and stutters for days. Can anyone do that? Because they heard him do it in '98. But it always just settles down to what's new and exciting, and what isn't. There's a kind of special joy we recieve from hearing a song that's good.

It's that magical combination of originality within the confines of formula and rules that makes it the beautifully coordinated balancing act of beauty. If it's too 'original', it's just weird for weird's sake, and has probably been done by some motherfucker 20 years ago anyways. If it sticks to the rules too hard, it's been done before and isn't inspiring in the least. But where the PROBLEM lies (imo) is that people have this weird idea that their personal ideas on that balance make the goddamn bible for musical evaluation.

For example, I think that 'The Percolator' is one of the top 100 songs of all time (note it's simplicity but lack of 'unimaginative', 'hook' or 'extended' sampling). But you know what? That's my top 100. I know why someone would say that I'm 100% wrong. But they can fuck off, seriously. But also, I'm also mature enough to recognize the subjectivity of experience, and realize that in their mind, I'm fucking off. And you know what?

In fact, it's one of those spices of life that make life worth living. Finally: Peter Kirn Rock on, man. I hate to sound like a hippy, but it's definetly a 'whatever' kinda thing. Just do it, and if it's worth a damn it'll get respect if it deserves it(in some way or another).

These kinds of attitudes require a certain level of maturity that might not be seen in the majority of people. So in conclusion, I don't care if it's passe to write a long post or not. It is what it is, and certain people will gravitate to it and (hopefully) validate it's expression (just like music if you're getting my grand finale here). But 'making the cut' artistically through a discerning audience makes for a more enriching and satisfying artistic victory than making an easy 'win' with narrowly-adhered-to rules. Accordingly, we're going to need people who only listen to power noise and call us pussies for liking percussion and melody of any kind. We're going to need people who are just so hardcore Britney Spears fans that it makes us puke. They define one of the many spectrums (complexity vs.

Non-complexity, poppy vs. Unpalateable, etc) of music that most importantly make us value the connections we have with people who share the same tastes with us. Because, otherwise those connections wouldn't mean anything. Without these definitions we wouldn't have a CDM community.::tear:: Which is why comments likes these: by Endif are just small commented quips that lack length in order maintain the ever popular jaded viewpoint and more importantly to avoid criticism. And I'll fuck off with you!

Because what do I know, anyways? (Hate to use you as the example, much love regardless) =p •. I think there's no debate here Music is music sampling or no sampling. As long as you give credit where credit is due it's good.

Sometimes you sample because you just love a track and want to give it another direction. I don't use samples in my music except for kicks and drums, but I think musicians should respect the way another musician work and not think that they do real music because they work a way or another. It's all about freedom and the art of composing or the art of sampling or remixing, at the end it's all artforms that shouldn't be against one another •. I don't know, on one hand, kinda like what sharpshooter said, kanye west's song sounds like a slightly nicer sample reworking, they added a lot of synths, a progression, a sucky breakbeat and a ridiculous rap hook about Prince and Apollonia over that vocoder. On the other hand though daft punk seem to only have added a harder kick drum and that vocoded vocal part on top of cola bottle, but that was pretty unique, that vocoded voice / guitar solo is really great, and the real recognizable hook, hence all the fuss now that it got sampled. I don't know really, but it sounds like daft punk were a bit lazy with their samplers, but that record would have worked with pretty much any funky 4 bar loop, while kanye's, although better put together, doesn't really go anywhere without the 'stronger' vocals and reference.

Long story short, if you're looking to Daft Punk to inspire you with their talent, you're simply looking in the wrong place. If I'm a drummer, then I'm inspired by Neil Peart (for all that Meg White is hot!); if I'm a bass player, I'm inspired by Les Claypool or Tony Levin (for all that Krist Novoselic laid down some truly memorable basslines with Nirvana); and if I'm a dance music producer wanting to be inspired by some original and proficient work, then I'm looking to Squarepusher or (as Dave Dri pointed out) Underworld.

Just because you don't marvel at how a track was produced, doesn't mean it doesn't hit in the solar plexus and get you on the dancefloor! When I saw the post a few months ago outlining what samples Daft Punk used, I almost balked at going to see them live. And what a mistake that would have been. Easily one of the most entertaining shows I've been to in years.

At least as far as club music goes. Just pure fun. End of story. It reminded my why I liked going out to clubs in the first place.

So many club tracks these days are either derivative, skull-pounding electro house crap or simplistic 4-on-the-floor-with-a-dub-delay, skull-pounding prog house crap. You rarely even hear drum fills anymore! Obviously there's the vibert's and dick james' of the world. But day in day out I hear the same shitty tracks from the same shitty djs. I was reading a book a few months back. Can't recall the name now but the gist is of it was that music in the 20th century is largely about taking something from the past that is no longer relevant and innovating just a little bit to make it new and fresh while putting your own bit of style into it.

Every artist is informed and inspired by those that precedeed him/her and the environment in which they live. Is it worse to make that inspiration obvious? Or is it better to be sneaky about it and try to claim you're 'completely original.' When it comes to music, it's worse when an artist has obviously sampled or copied something but then replays it and claims it for themselves.

It's obvious where it came form, but they give no credit and pay no royalties. When Daft Punk's album first came out, it was an inspired, sampled collage of old 70's funk and disco tracks that had no longer had relevance to dancefloors of today. They put their spin on it and made something fresh and exciting. I don't think it's as bad as say. Puff daddy looping the police.

They DO add and subtract from the grooves, layer and modify. It does take skill to know what to leave in and what to take out. Watch the movie 'Scratch' where they interview DJ Shadow down in the basement of his favourite record store. Can you honestly tell me you could sit there bust out something like 'Endtroducing' out of half a million dusty records? How many Beatles tracks were inspired by older songs? Many of them came out of trying to copy other people. Why is that more acceptable than sampling?

If you were to take the songs Daft Punk used and give them to 20 people, you'd get 20 totally different songs. There are a lot of really obvious sample possibilities in those songs but not all of their samples are very obvious. It's quite interesting to see what they didn't sample! If you missed the intro part of I love You More. Would you know it has anything to do with Digital Love?

A lot of their songs sound nothing at all like the originals. You'd rather listen to Jerry Goldsmith's – The Rec Room instead of Around the World? Hint: one sounds like complete ass. Daft Punk's music is supposed to be fun. You're supposed to DANCE TO IT.

If I want to listen to serious music I'll go hunt down Philip Glass or John Cage. It has been always like this, and they proved what they can do a long long time ago.

Everybodie who use a computer program to make music use sample more or less long but it's always and i say always a spectral wave form. Even a cick is a sample. I meen it's like that, and nobody do it better than them.

And as peter said it's just supposed to be fun. And why should you try to create this wave form when the best ones already exists???!?!? Copie it paste it cut it make it technologic. It's that easy. MUSIC IS JUST ENTERTAINMENT.!!! Actually, I have no problem with sampling in any form.

As Guy Debord said, 'plagiarism is necessary, progress implies it.' Any of you who think you know a lot about sampling would do well to check out his stuff. That being said, I give up on Daft Punk. The issue for me is some indistinct line they have crossed. They have done unoriginal ripoffs too many times for their hits.

I dont know at which point they crossed the line but they did. Once, twice or a few times is okay, but every hit they have now is a rehash. Actually, I would still pay to see the show, since at least they play synths live over the loops, and hell, I perform with Ableton Live, so I can't point fingers too much. Maybe the problem is with Daft Punk's fans. Maybe that's the rub, why they refuse to show their faces. The fans have turned them into this cult of genius that isnt thereThey remain faceless, collecting checks and playing with their gear, which I am sure is still a lot of fun for them Yeah, I think that's it. It all went wrong when the fans started to trump them as some sort of rock gods.

They're competent samplers. And when Timbaland rips that off and makes huuuuge profit with your idea, you'll be like 'cool, he was just having fun' 🙂 •. The rush for Daft Punk tickets was so great a few days ago here in Australia that the partner 'youth dance culture' website offering an inside scoop on pre-sales had a server crash.

Canon Ir3300 Hdd Software Download on this page. It will be interesting to see how quickly all the shows sell out, as the announcement has sent fans into a dizzy. Oddly enough, most tickets have sold out for Chemical Brothers who arent coming until next March! Whilst most club sized events struggle to get people to leave their homes, the big ticket shows are inciting panic to obtain tickets. The middle ground seems a little bit lost, adding weight to the value of marketing and the odd 'Daft Punk coffee table'. I definitely see those criticizing daft punk for their liberal use of sampling, this late in the game, as being very naive to the dance music scene and its history. And while there are numerous talented and innovative acts out there, it just goes to show how many people new to the genre still think, for instance, that a DJ is playing all his own music and worthy of way more adolation than they often deserve. Aside from helping to bring electronic to the commercial success, and having the taste to pick some great hooks for their songs, Daft Punk aren't exactly great songwriters.

Not like Underworld, Groove Armada, Chemical Brother, Orbital (RIP). But that doesn't stop them from being AWESOME live. They're like a rock band the way they bring energy to their sets.

In the end, there are great electronic music pioneers, and there are those with simply great taste in music and the ability to operate Ableton Live. Lets be clear here Sampling w/out licensing = PLAGIARISM Sampling legally, artistically, creatively is perfectly fine. Think of it this way: If I buy some clipart images and use them as in a larger, beautiful piece of art that millions of people seewill anyone care that I didn't make it from scratch? Am I not an artist because there's clipart in my work?

Do I have no talent? Am I a liar and cheat with no respect for classical artistry? The clipart may have been able to stand on it's own, but if it's used as a seed for something greater, you can't call me a 'no talent' rip-off artist.

I worked hard on my piece of art and if many people appreciate it, that's perfectly fine. I dont have to put a giant red disclaimer saying 'THIS ART HAS IMAGES WHICH WERE PAID FOR' Same is true for music. If the samples are licensed and DP gives credit in the fine print, then who cares? They used those hooks to create something greater and made millions of people happy in the process. Those that STEAL samples and hide that fact are no-talent ass clowns. Do it right, or don't do it all. The Kanye song doesn't sample the Cola Bottle Baby part though, just the completely original vocals.

Anyway, a lot is to be said for arrangement. Harder Better Faster Stronger is a BETTER SONG than Cola Bottle Baby. Besides, most critics of sampling have never attempted sampling. It's actually tougher to make an old piece of music work in a way it was never intended than it is to just record new stuff. Most of Discovery is original, anyways.

There's a lot of misinformation about sampling, but what it comes down to is: Do you like listening to Daft Punk or not? Learning that they sampled Edward Birdsong, do you prefer Birdsong to DP?

If not, then Daft Punk are still worth listening to. Ok retards DAFT PUNK paid in full to use SAMPLES of the old songsits not called rip offs.its like making a remixand titling it differently Kanye west even includes DAFT PUNK in the credits of his fucking albumomg ITS CALLED SAMPLE i mean cmon get a life.

And harder better faster stronger is barely a copy of the cola bottle baby song because it only includes parts of it in there song.most of it is the own beat they made. For fucks sake. Im tired of seeing people writing that DAFT PUNK and/or kanye west are rip offs because what they are doing is legitimate unlike some people *COUGH* avril lavigne.

So plz.understandits called sample. And its paid for.dont get angry respect it (sample is very much like remix.but creating a whole new song out of the tune used in the old track.PFFT JEESE LOUISE •. Stop saying West sampled a sample,he f*cking didnt you morons! Its illegal to take a sample of a song that so blatantly takes elements of another song without listing BOTH songs creaters in the credits for the final article.HBFS lists Birdsong as one of the writers because they sampled Cola Bottle Babynow keep up on this next part and maybe youll stop spouting horse sh*t about Stronger sampling a sample.

West clearly took a sample of the accapella of HBFS for his track so he had to list the creators of the song,which was listed in the liner notes of Discovery as Bangalter Homem-Christo and Birdsong. THATS why Birdsong is listed as one of the creators of Stronger, because the song West sampled had sampled another song, even though none of Cola Bottle Baby was actually sampled for Stronger. Understand, peabrains? • Pingback: () •. In any art form, the ONLY important thing is the communication of emotion. All this snobby crap about what counts as cheating and what counts as real or ripped off art is irrellivant.

Daft punk only use samples in about maybe 5 percent of their work. Everything else is studio made. The samples are NOT like P.diddy because he would just take the whole song and put it with a drum beat. And most importantly, I went and saw them at the LA Sports Arena. What I saw was Music and art effecting people in a way where everyone was Dancing and feeling good about human. In other words: making the world just a little bit better.

That is why I like Daft Punk. They achieved something I as an artist try to acheive.

Bring people together. WELCOME TO THE ERA OF POSTMODERNISM. I can't believe all this B.S. Learn about it. This is the what we live with. Every book is influenced by other books.

Every song, evey movie. Have you ever noticed that you are speaking, and realize your words are part of a famous song?? To a certain degree you are correct that using samples can be less talented. On the other hand. You cannot mandate that using samples is cheating. That is simply untrue. You can create something with samples that is much more skillfully done than the original.

I would say everything on Discovery is done like that. The fact that you cannot distinguish between Homework, Discovery, and Human After All shows that you were never a reall hardcore Daft Punk fan. It is also sad that most people only know Daft Punk because of Kanye West. However, if you did examine Human After All, you might be able to determine that something is a bit off. The album took two weeks to make. It is not up to calibur. Hint: I believe it is Daft Punk's commentary on Post Modernism.

They are working within post-modernism to comment on post-modernism. Yes it is Postmodern, but it is much much much more. Look, Listen, THINK FOR MORE THAN 5 F*CKING MINUTES. Kanye West in his lyrics, is not going AGAINST Daft Punk. But is actually making EXPLICIT what they have made IMPLICIT. DOES ANYBODY MAKE REAL SHIT ANYMORE?? ITS ALL BEEN DONE BEFORE.

Daft Punk has realized this. They have realized that a lot of this recursive modern art/music/literature/media is just 'robot rock'. My opinion of Human After All was originally 'this sucks'.

I still don't think the music is that great, by itself. But it is not just music. It carries a message. Listen to that messaage.

Jesus you people. Ok let me make oe thing clear about samples. A great majority of the times a sample DJ does not spend his nights listening to tracks and say, 'I'm gonna greedily take this to be rich.' Many times DJs and producers who sample might find a song and say, 'WOW, this lil part is really good, I wanna loop it or rearrange it.'

When it's unknown songs that get sampled or public domain, they sample those rare gems out of respect and out of the love they have for that certain track. So when you here a sample, it goes to show you what kind of music the artist, DJ, and/or Producer likes. What makes a sampled track more popular than the original is that hook, and how elements are added or how existing elements are rearrange. To me, samples are a nod and a thank you to the original musician. I know I'm waaaaaay lat with this comment, but still, I feel it's legit.

I knew that Daft Punk did a whole lot of sampling. But I thought it was just sampling a kick or a hat sequence to use as a side-chain or as an envelope automation, you know? Maybe they used individual chords from a song, or two or three notes and used it to make a fidgity sound (think basshunter sampling his voice in Dota). So I thought it was ok; it's like using a granular synth, sorta I heard their music and said: WOW, I didn't know what sorts of sounds I want to make, and now I do! I was stale and with out a heading, and Daft Punk had an original sound that inspired me. I thought that these guys were all unique, that the music I heard was the product of two french guys working in a tiny upstairs studio with second had and low grade gear.

But, it turns out that these are two dudes with a music library with as much forgotten and obscure tracks as mine, who take those tracks and mix and remake them. Basically, one step above Girl Talk, who I consider a joke.

My inspiration is one step above a joke? So their sound (which consists half consumer tracks produced in PRO studios and written by producers that frequently attended conservatories) are impossible to produce in a home studio for a college student? F*CK, and DAMN! Thats why I think that its such a bummer for so many fans meaning amateur/not famous producers musicians that looked up to them. Ok so now todays kids who have not lived what it meant, back then, to know your crates and know your cuts that will move crowds are screaming 'plagiarism!' In today's i-age with ipods and itunes and i-gnorance, Logic, Cubase, Protools, Ableton, Reason and 'you name it' sampling software/hardware, doing cuts with samples is a child's play categorizing music is far easier as much as it is to find tracks (legally or not).

There are programs that auto-suggest based on beats, style, performers and so on few remember having to go and work for a record publisher or a radio or any place where one could expand their musical knowledge. There was no information overload it was actually tough to find music and even to know about this or that singer, band especially 'imported' ones and to French, imported included all Music that wasn't published in France. Internet was in its stone age, The fastest computer was a Pentium MMX and the fastest connection was ISDN and expensive!

Altavista was still a search engine and MP3 was spreading like an underground wildfire on BBS and usenets. Those were though times and required DJs and even more those working with electronic music to really know their stuff! Nowadays everyone is a singer as long as they spit their rhymes in a U47 clone or they get fixed up with Autotune, everyone is a DJ with Ableton Live, everyone is a music composer as long as they can buy a mega sampling/midi workstation and a Multi GHz computer with several gigs of RAM and Terabyte of storage which are no longer in prohibitive price ranges! Dear Liz McLean Knight, I truly feel sorry for the fact that people with no knowledge can publish less than flattering (to put it mildly) articles such as this, which portrays a sad picture of your musical knowledge Apparently you felt 'betrayed' when you discovered your French electronic idols did not 'compose' the samples they were using. Well in the first place that is the concept behind music composed using samples and today's news flash is: Samples are as such because are you guessed it! 'Sampled' from someone else's original or non-original composition. Hopefully you learnt that since you posted this article which I'd rather remove if I was in your shoes.

Everyone make mistakes, but while some can't be erased, web articles still can! So your shock and delusion are to be attributed to your low level of awareness or should I say ignorance (in its pure non-derogatory literal meaning of 'lack of knowledge or information'?). What I seem to get here (and someone please correct me if I am wrong), seems to be similar to a young lady getting 'excited' at the idea of having children and then getting shocked when 'that thing' needs to go 'in there' and it has to do 'you-know-what' in order for a child to be born. A rather hilarious and frustrating night (if you ask me) for the poor groom having to face the unexpected shock of his young bride during their 'first honeymoon night'!;P Calling Daft Punk tunes composed using samples a plagiarism is as delusional as much as saying Warhol was a plagiarist for portraying a picture Marilyn by a just making some colored xerox copies of a famous shot of the American Diva.

Or maybe Roy Liechtenstein was a plagiarist for blowing up 'quadri-chromatic' (4-color process) prints of comic books! Or maybe again, the herd of classic music composer were all plagiarists since they were using similar compositions based on similar tempos? To anyone who thinks that's the case I'd advise to work on expanding their artistic sensibility as much as they can since they have a lot of work and research to do ahead of themselves!

🙂 It's rather unfortunate how 'modern kids' can so easily take value out of context and not even be concerned about it. I bet that for them a prehistoric community of men painting scenes of their life on the sides of their caves, will appear as a bunch of stupid apes, rather than inventive and creative people at the dawn of their civilization!

Not to mention that the overly qualified Mr West 'king of critics' here, loves fuels such despicable habit as he loves attract attention by creating these misconceptions and feed off such diatribes for its own personal gain what a sad excuse of a person, and he even has the nerves to call himself an artist how delusional! But one must be compassionate and tolerate those who are less fortunate for no fault of their own and possess no artistic sensibility. Stating that the earth is flat would't make it any less of an erroneous claim.

It's far easier to criticize than to understand or come up with original ideas ourselves! West should start looking at the hump on his own back before pointing fingers at others laughing at them because he mistakenly believe them to be hunchbacks. He and those who blindly follow rather than using their own brain, just show complete lack of objectivity and knowledge or at least proper comprehension of the topic at hand.

Or maybe is he jealous and green with envy about the fact that he can't come up with anything as original (as Daft Punk was for their times) so that the best he can do is mudsling and butcher what was actually a creative composition based on clever and crowd-moving samples? To the poster of the article: despite living in France in the end of the 90s you are proof that it means nothing to assist or even experiencing first hand and artistic event/phenomenon when there is no underlying artistic sensibility. You could have been staring at Leonardo while he was painting the Gioconda and still feel nothing back then or today it's just a painting of a lady he copied looking at her and smothering some oil paint on a piece of cloth! Plus it's not original because there have been so many depicting ladies and virgin mary in the same pose!

How sad of world this is becoming! I'd like to leave you with a great quote belonging to Pablo Picasso and I'd better not forget to mention that, or I'll be the next to be accused of plagiarism!LOL! There is a risk that such quote may make you even more mad (not my intention though), given your lack of ability to read between the lines, but it will hopefully open your eyes if you will apply and interpret it beyond its apparent literal meaning: 'Good artists copy; great artists steal!' I know that you will lack the sensibility to interpret and read in the proper way that great quote so I can't help it if it will upset you because of your own ignorance.

But there is always hope for you to wake up and realize, almost like Neo in the Matrix (to use a metaphor you may be having a easier time understanding) how things really are! 🙂 I wish you the best of luck and no matter what that uninspiring, dry, uninventive, sad excuse for a self-proclaimed artist named Kanye West, loves to tag as plagiarism, I'd have an advice he seem in need to receive: try to get a musical education, stop rapping (until you will learn to do so properly at least) and try to read more about all forms of art may I remind you that literature, painting and sculpture are also artistic expression you can benefit from as well as architecture? Expand your limited horizons you may end up becoming able to view things from a different perspective. So good luck to you and your new quest Mr.

West have you forgotten when you were doing the same sampling and pitch-shifting tricks? How about more originality and a little less holier-than-thou attitude? Hypocrisy has never looked good on anyone 😉 Peace! I'm sick of seeing people write 'Electronic artists ALL do it!' As an excuse for Daft Punk's BLATANT PLAGIARISM.

Because Kraftwerk never had to loop whole licks from other artists. Because The Art of Noise never sampled more than a second or two of anything. Because Skinny Puppy managed to sample only spoken lines from old movies, NOT WHOLE SONGS. Because there are plenty of REAL MUSICIANS in the electronic music field who composed their own licks and loops, or at least used a public domain loop bank, and because the bands that wrote that music in the first place ACTUALLY COMPOSED MUSIC. They played instruments, composed songs, arranged them, and understood music theory. DAFT PUNK DOES NONE OF THIS. All they do is loop someone else's music.

There's not even any real innovation; They just find the best lick and loop it. If I took Star Wars and looped the scene where Han shoots Greedo over and over, and then released it to theaters, would that be my movie? Or would it be a rip-off? Some of you disrespectful little snots don't know what it's like to work your ass off to create a new piece of music, and you have the NERVE to say Daft Punk 'improved' the originals? Again, Daft Punk didn't perform or create anything here.

All they did was take someone else's talent, labor, and performance, and loop it. That should not be admired. That should be derided, unless you want a future where nobody makes anything new, and you're doomed to listen to new artists looping Kanye's loop of Daft Punk's loop of Edwin Birdsong's original performance. Daft Punk are overrated losers who couldn't create music without someone else to steal it from. In 2001 (for the release of discovery), in a french newspaper interview, they pretended to have performed and sampled their own material We know that they obviously didn’t.

So they pretended to be performers, they are not! (and don’t get me started on the “sampling art form” as much an atform as a librarian who sorts his books in the right order) They also pretended and sold themselves as a genius duo of bedroom producers, doing everything alone. Well everybody know that thomas bangalter’s father is daniel bangalter (vangard), a very famous french producer of the disco era. So convenient and HE produced the daft punk’s album, and responsible for the awesome quality of their records. So they pretend a lot they pretend only. As long as dumb dumb is buying the damn cd. There no more phony than those guys •.

In 2001 (for the release of discovery), in a french newspaper interview, they pretended to have performed and sampled their own material We know that they obviously didn’t. So they pretended to be performers, they are not! (and don’t get me started on the “sampling art form” as much an atform as a librarian who sorts his books in the right order) They also pretended and sold themselves as a genius duo of bedroom producers, doing everything alone. Well everybody know that thomas bangalter’s father is daniel bangalter (vangard), a very famous french producer of the disco era. So convenient and HE produced the daft punk’s album, and responsible for the awesome quality of their records.

So they pretend a lot they pretend only. As long as dumb dumb is buying the damn cd.

There no more phony than those guys •. If it sounds good and it’s cleared with the sampled artist’s permission what’s the problem. If you follow the line of logic that taking a reproduced sound is theft you’ll find it impossible to draw the line.

Almost all pop music uses sampled sounds – where individual notes, and sometimes nuances of an instrument, like the slide of a violin section are laid out across a keyboard – the majority of piano sounds you hear are sampled at the individual note level – is that plagiarism? Is a drum roll from a drum kit plagiarism but not an individual cymbal crash?

Is a guitar riff that’s been reversed, chopped up, re-ordered, and re-pitched ok, but not the original riff? The logical result of treating the use of reproduced sound as theft is that Steinway could sue you for using their method of reproduction of a piano sound, as they created it. And if that sounds absurb, and you say there’s a line, tell me where it is. Daft Punk’s particular use of technology to create music creates music that people love, that wouldn’t exist in a world where purists decide what is artistically valid or not – I have no problem with sampled artists being rewarded for the use of their work, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that, unless you’re a DJ, what you produce using samples of other artists produces something new and different – I’d leave the validity of it artistically up to the audience. If it sounds good and it’s cleared with the sampled artist’s permission what’s the problem. If you follow the line of logic that taking a reproduced sound is theft you’ll find it impossible to draw the line. Almost all pop music uses sampled sounds – where individual notes, and sometimes nuances of an instrument, like the slide of a violin section are laid out across a keyboard – the majority of piano sounds you hear are sampled at the individual note level – is that plagiarism?

Is a drum roll from a drum kit plagiarism but not an individual cymbal crash? Is a guitar riff that’s been reversed, chopped up, re-ordered, and re-pitched ok, but not the original riff? The logical result of treating the use of reproduced sound as theft is that Steinway could sue you for using their method of reproduction of a piano sound, as they created it. And if that sounds absurb, and you say there’s a line, tell me where it is. Daft Punk’s particular use of technology to create music creates music that people love, that wouldn’t exist in a world where purists decide what is artistically valid or not – I have no problem with sampled artists being rewarded for the use of their work, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that, unless you’re a DJ, what you produce using samples of other artists produces something new and different – I’d leave the validity of it artistically up to the audience.

“Plagiarism” implies theft, taking without permission. Daft Punk’s sampling was not done illegally (and crediting Birdsong means they probably got permission from the label to use it). Taking a riff & remixing it into something new – and in this case, better – is not a sign of diminished skill or talent. It actually takes work to do that; it’s when artists do nothing but slap some lazy lyrics on top of an entire song (looking at you, Timbaland & Dr. Dre) that it becomes laziness instead of art.

Especially when the artist fails to credit the original. Classical composers have even done this with their contemporaries’ works; we don’t generally think of them as “cheating,” and it’s no different with modern musicians.

Whether it’s samples, or covers, or remixes, there’s no shame in paying tribute to previous artists by renewing or attempting to improve on something they’ve made.

I finally put the finishing touches on this. This arrangement is nothing short of a masterpiece, hence why it won Pentatonix a GRAMMY award for Best Arrangement Instrumental or A Cappella.

I used this as a base for my TTBB arrangement that I made for my all male group, The Parallel Fifths, which helped us win a CT Collegiate A Cappella Sing Off in November; that was our closer. I might get to uploading that as well.

While this song is already on this site, none of the other uploads had it quite accurately enough. My goal was to capture what makes this arrangement so brilliant! I have MANY more Pentatonix arrangements in my arsenal so if there is any song by them that you'd like to get your hands on, please let me know in the comments! Odds are I have it or I can make it.

I also arrange other songs for all kinds of a cappella groups. Make sure you follow me to keep up with my scores and favoriting is always appreciated! If you'd like to use any of my scores for performance, please let me know and give me credit.

(Also, let me know how it went!) Thanks! More to come. Ben Bram, the GRAMMY-award winning arranger and co-producer for Pentatonix, came across my transcriptions and Facebook messaged me, saying that they were 'the most accurate he's ever seen. I'm so honored to have such high praise from the original arranger.

Thanks again for letting us to share your arrangement. We have already published the score to the app, Letscappella. In addition to the score, we also provide backing tracks for users to learn the parts. It would be great if you would check it out.and give us any feedback so we can develop/make a better app. You may also upload your new arrangements to our platform if you wish to.

Here is the link for upload: Try the APP >>>[iPhone & iPad] Stay connected! Looking forward to hear from you soon! Joyce Facebook: Instagram.