Hip-Hop: Scruples for Samples (Part 2)

In the last segment, we established that producers who sample are justified in sampling as long they can manipulate the sample into something different. Now the question is, are producers really doing that? Are they being thorough about it?

In an interview, DJ 'Scribe,' founder of the DJ Collective, and the I Love Vinyl New York dance party tradition, tells journalist William "Upski" Wimsatt (Bomb the Suburbs) what he enjoys about being a hip-hop producer:

"...the creative part of hip-hop production is to take music from different genres...and fuse them into a new piece of music, a new whole - something distinct from the sum of its parts - something with a soul all on its own." (Wimsatt, 2001)

As a pianist, composer, and up-and-coming hip-hop artist, I've become increasingly concerned about how hip-hop producers seem to ignore the idea of their music being 'distinct from the sum of its parts;' that samples are not being chopped, mixed, rearranged, and experimented with enough to sound like a truly new song. I just feel that stretching one's creative boundaries through sampling is more than just adding a new drum beat or changing the key of the sample. A lot of samples today can be easily recognized from the original song with a little digital crate digging. The internet makes it easy to track down the source of a sample. (i.e.: YouTube)

A lot of hip-hop heads (myself included) are still wishing and reminiscing about how great hip-hop was in the 90's, both from a lyrical and musical standpoint (I touched on this issue in my post about why hip-hop is not dead). Strangely enough, many examples that I have found of easily recognizable samples were from 90's hip hop albums.* That doesn't go to say that hip-hop songs of today don't have the same problem, but it suggests that the music people are craving may NOT be as inventive as we believe it to be.

What can be most conflicting about this issue for me is that many examples that I can think of are some really nice-sounding beats; the music from the original song sounds so good that it almost makes me want to forget that the sample has not been manipulated very much.

*I have many specific examples in mind, but I think this is one of those times in which it would be better for you to find examples on your own; many of you probably already have certain cases in mind.

Have we been doing enough to push our own musical creativity in hip-hop?

YOU to be the judge.

Quote Source:

Wimsatt, William 'Upski,' Bomb the Suburbs, Softskull Press, 2001

Hip-Hop: Scruples for Samples (Part 1)

Are producers truly making new music, or are they just stealing?

It's been a tradition since the early days of hip-hop; taking different pieces of music and putting them together to make a new song. Sampling stems partially from the ideals of Africa Bambaataa, one of hip-hop's original pioneers of the 1970's, and founder of the hip-hop movement known as Zulu Nation. Determined to stop violence amongst rival gangs in the Bronx, he mixed music from different communities during his dj party sets, uniting people and cultures all over the city. He is described by journalist Jeff Chang (whom I referenced in my previous post) as "break-centered." In other words, he would use his favorite part of a song, and mix it with portions of other songs. He "...pulled out what was precious and tossed the rest." Today, hip-hop continues to be very break-centered, sampling different records from different walks of life, worldwide.

Unfortunately, the ethical issues that come into play with sampling are nearly as old as the tradition itself. In the late 80's, the group De La Soul was sued for using a sample from the turtles for their debut album "3 Feet High and Rising." In a 2010 blog post from Benz & a Backpack Timbaland is said to have been accused of sampling music from Egyptian artist Hossam Ramzy without permission for Jay-Z's "Big Pimpin'." In both cases, the sampled material sounded too similar to the original material. These are just a few instances that compromise the morality of hip-hop.

One of my favorite artists, Count Bass D has a t-shirt that summarizes the production aspect of sampling ethics in one sentence:

"Sampling ain't biting*, as long as you flip it fresh."

*Biting: to copy or mimic

Put in layman's terms, if you can take a sample and change it, mix it, and chop it to the point where it is unrecognizable, where it becomes a new sound, it's acceptable.

Consider this. All musicians, hip-hop or not, gain inspiration from the music of others. In order to compose, one must be familiar with music on a certain level. It is hard to create a full composition without having some musical knowledge, and inspiration from music that already exists; it is your foundation for composition. With your knowledge of music, you imagine how you might change and evolve a sound you have already heard. You experiment in your mind and with your instrument based on your foundation. After you are satisfied, a song is born.

Now, imagine a person who uses samples for hip-hop music. They have a foundation just like any other musician. They are able to experiment, try out new ways of implementing that foundation by mixing, cutting, etc. The difference is that having a sample allows one to directly reference the original record; to reference their foundation. So inspiration from samples can be molded into any new form of music via turntables physically, just as musical knowledge and inspiration from a song you remember in your head can be molded and shaped mentally.

End of Part 1

Part 2 coming soon!

Hip Hop is NOT Dead. Never Truly Was.

Putting an age-old argument to rest

Some of you may have read that title and thought 'are we honestly still arguing about this in 2012? I thought that was over.'

I thought the same thing until I saw comments on youtube about it.

On numerous occasions, I have YouTube'd old rap videos from the 90's, and many comments posted are pretty similar.

To those who YouTube old school hip-hop vids from time to time, tell me if this sounds familiar:

Man, I miss the 90's. M.C.'s were real back then. Not like today's artists. They're garbage! "R.I.P. to the real shiznit."

I'm sick and tired of people telling each other that hip-hop is dead. I believe that when people say a culture is dead, what they mean is, it's not popular anymore; it's old. 

Here's a question: When a culture or trend becomes "old," is it safe to assume that it's dead?

Fact is, people have been saying that hip-hop is dead for years, even BEFORE the 1990's(!!!)

That's right. Hip-hop journalist Jeff Chang cites the late 1970's as "The First Death of Hip-Hop." During this time in the Bronx, NY (the birthplace of hip-hop), kids who had grown up on hip-hop of the early 70's had become tired of it. These kids were finishing high-school, saying that they had out grown hip-hop, and that they didn't need it anymore...it was a kids' game. 

Despite this, hip hop was just getting started, and lived on throughout the 70's and 80's. 1988 is still considered one of the BEST years in hip hop, and marked as the beginning of hip-hop's 'Golden Age.'

Fast forward to 1994 and, once again, people are skeptical about hip-hop truly being alive. Common's 'I Used to Love Her' is a prime example of this. In the song, he personifies hip-hop as a girl he used to know and love. This girl changed throughout the years, and eventually became unrecognizable and undesirable, due to her cross-over into the commercial world. While Common doesn't literally say that hip-hop is dead, he DOES suggest that the hip-hop he had once loved had been lost; that it's as GOOD as dead.

In other words, the time period in hip hop that so many of us hip-hop heads seem to be craving today was being forsaken by people DURING that period. A common complaint I have heard about hip-hop throughout my life is that rap has become too gangsta, too negative, or just isn't well thought out in terms of lyricism. Others say hip hop is dead because people are only in it now for money, and not for the sake of making something new, creative, and thought-provoking...and I am certainly NOT the first blogger to mention the lack-of-creativity argument.

Remember this, folks: Hip-hop is an open door; an open door to creative instrumentalism, creative poetry, creative dance, creative art. People are going to do with hip-hop what they please. Some will do it for the fun of it, some will do it for commercial success. Every one of us has a choice of how we use hip-hop, if at all. No matter how many people claim that it's dead, there is enough evidence to prove that there are people who still approach hip-hop with a certain ethic: be honest, be yourself, and push for what you believe in. That's hip-hop's original philosophy; THAT'S what keeps it alive There are many rappers today who still push for those ethics. Perhaps not so much on the radio, but all you have to do is do some digging on the internet. (I'll be coming at you with some examples of that in future posts).

Those who are passionate enough about hip hop, will find a way to keep it alive. There's always gonna be some posers, sucka mc's, wack d.j.'s, etc. As long as there is at least one person with the fervor to do right in hip hop and by hip hop, it's alive.

Bottom line: STOP LYING ABOUT HIP HOP BEING DEAD!

Peace.

Hey,

This blog is dedicated to discussing music, and analyzing existing viewpoints about music in hopes of getting a conversation going. As an up and coming artist, I want to share my own views as well as hear the views of others to develop an understanding amongst music lovers...that's everybody(!) Any song or topic that inspires me will likely be talked about on this blog. I will be posting my own music as well at some point.

I'm a hip-hop and jazz artist, so there will be a lot of talk in regards to those genres, but I don't want to rule out any other category because I listen to everything.

Enjoy!