Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music to Your Ears' started by tintag27, Apr 14, 2021.
Sugar Pie DeSanto - Soulful Dress
I have sometimes wondered if kids who like what's now called R&B even know what it stands for. Not in a sneery way. I've just wondered.
We live in an age of 'sampling', 'mash-ups', 'reimaginings', 'channeling'...
in another age we would just say 'I stole this bit!'
'I got my sneakers workin', but they jus' don't work on you'
'...gonna get me a mojo hat'
It does pass the first test though, it makes me want to tap my toes, pick up a guitar and comp along.
That is a great album!
I have the Chess 50th anniversary Collection and it covers a lot of country from Muddy Waters and Howling Wolf, to Fontella Bass and The Ramsey Lewis Trio.
The recordings are so authentic it's like the band just got out of a van and set up their kit in your front room!
Funny, because in other age I can give you enough example showing that what you're saying is false.
I'm pretty sure it didn't bother you up a piece when it was Led Zeppelin and other Brits band ripping off without any credits which was indeed stealing, compared to propre sampling where you got to give credits and royalties, or you'll end up getting sued, kinda like these classic rock band ending up in legal settlement or in front of court.
Regarding in other age, there's plenty of example even in classic music, such as God Save the Queen and Lully with Haendel, or La Marseillaise being used in Tchaykovsy's 1812 the last being a perfect example of what would be a sample.
Regarding R&B, Hoochie Coochie Man - I'm a man - Mannish Boy is the perfect example of the same whatever you call it.
I can see why he went with “Tommy Tucker.” “Robert Higgenbotham” is the least R&B name ever.
Oh yeah, that's what it stood for before it became "Repetitive and Boring".
I'm so tired of this false equivalence.
Sure a bunch of bands 50 years ago ripped off blues songs. You can't really compare that with the lazy cut-and-paste that passes for modern "sampling".
False equivalence because you decided it was.
It's not just about blues song by the way
I'll keep jury and court rules as true evidence if you don't mind.
Not at all. Your comparison is a literal example of the logical fallacy "false equivalence", which is defined thusly:
You attempted to draw equivalence between musicians taking songwriting credit for songs they did not write, with music created by way of cutting and pasting recordings created by others. One has nothing to do with the other- indeed, as you pointed out, most "samples" these days are licensed.
OK, fine. What difference does that make?
"Jury and court rules" about what? And what difference does it make? Sure, some famous people got busted ripping off songs. This has nothing to do with the current fashion of music being created by cannibalizing actual recordings of other, generally superior artists to create dreck.
Interesting discussions of the evolution of the term:
My point has nothing to do with the creativity process, but the copyright process, since we'retalking about stealing, as it was mentionned in the op 3rd post.
Since stealing, is the illegitimate acquisition of a right, the equivalent is perfectly clear, two differents means, regarding one end.
You're making a confusion between means and end there. Sampling, or taking credit, and the purpose, illegitimate acquisition of a right.
Regarding the definition of stealing music, the meaning don't matter, since they're protected by copyright in either way of the harmonisation, and true essence of music, or the material itself, the recording.
As you mentionned, if samples are licensed, by nature they're not stealing. On the other hand taking songwriting credit for something you did not, is stealing, or IOW illegitimate acquisition of a right.
By the way sampling is not soly based on cutting and pasting, if you think so, it means that you missed the whole process.
But this has to do with the proper definition of stealing, since you seems to be close to definition I summed the legal definition of stealing in the beginning of my post.
You can dance around it all you want, but Led Zeppelin and the Beach Boys never took a razor blade and spliced Howlin' Wolf or Chuck Berry records into their master tapes.
I actually know quite a bit about the technical processes involved in both "sampling" and actual audio recording. Tell you what- cut up a bunch of other peoples' songs in your DAW and regurgitate it into a "beat", then book a day of studio time with musicians and cut a track of your own. Maybe then you'll see what I'm talking about. None of today's hit "producers" would have lasted 5 minutes at Motown or Atlantic.
I really, really dig R&B in its original forms. I like to play old school 50s and 60s R&B, and 60s and very early 70s soul and funk.
Most of it I play straight and some of it I play like trashy garage rock. With the latter, I work at playing it with precision. Old school R&B, soul, and funk was written to be played with precision: the beat is the beat, an eighth note is exactly an eighth note, etc. The songs fall apart if you don't play them that way, no matter how loose and trashy the tone and delivery.
"R&B" was (and still is, to a large degree) simply a euphemism for "race music." It's not literally and strictly "rhythm and blues," and never has been. It means, basically, any music that is largely marketed toward an African-American audience. It's not a genre, so to speak; it's an intended audience. It doesn't sound like what it used to sound like, just like rock-n-roll doesn't. It doesn't mean that the names don't apply.