amen,break,drumbeat,sampling The ubiquitous "Amen Break" explained
posted by maudlin
3 years 6 months ago • 6766 viewstags: amen, break, drumbeat, sampling
Comments 
playlists with this video Cool by Deano
• Music Production by benjee
• Videosift Art Academy by Eklek
• Great Docs by dystopianfuturetoday
who voted for this video maudlin
- timefactor
- def
- Krupo
- plastiquemonkey
- fastfret79
- ypsilon
- mt256
- shiftless
- ospprod
- FancyL
- dotdude
- fuzzylumpkins76
- joemawlma
- conan
- sanderbos
- blessedbrew
- Tallguy
- ant
- dag
- darkrowan
- bitdragon
- Nebosuke
- therealblankman
- blistering
- bellman
- sfjocko
- sillma
- coreburn
- Ivegotthebends
- simlee009
- gropius
- kevin143
- James Roe
- dennisj
- SpicyFruit
- Deano
- greyaenigma
- Sonodoc
- tooley
- iamnotsatan
- benjee
- pho3n1x
- fissionchips
- oblio70
- arvana
- brendotroy
- Dr_Q
- Mysling
- djsunkid
- firedoggod
- sorted
- nyenyec
- calvados
- Fiver2
- bizinichi
- michie
- reed
- bluecliff
- choggie
- randeepsamra
- Cronyx
- siftbot
x22 - reiwan
- rubadub
- thegrimsleeper
who has this post bookmarked boblobblaw
- chilaxe
- jonny
- Cronyx
- bizinichi
- firedoggod
- benjee
The Ubiquitous "Amen Break" Explained Related Videos
|
Top 15 Sifters of All Time 7. ant
(35791 votes)13. mlx
(21769 votes)Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
Newest Appreciated Comments
| 
Stumble This
As an even further aside, theres a really fun mix that ?uestlove of The Roots did on BBC 1 not too long ago, entirely composed of the songs sampled for the backing to famous rap songs (usually 70's funk songs with clean breaks or some interesting flair). search 'questlove bbc The Lesson: Sample Montage'
1. it's a mega-snoozer, and
2. the information it contains couldn't be more obvious
What, drum beats aren't completely unique? YOU'RE KIDDING!
What, rap (among other styles) steals music samples? YOU'RE KIDDING!
What, people imitate instead of innovate? YOU'RE KIDDING!
Basically, this is all one big, "no sh*t, Sherlock." There's nothing new under the sun. And I want the last 18 minutes back.
"Saddam Hussein wants to keep advertisers from using his picture in unflattering contexts. Clint Eastwood doesn't want tabloids to write about him. Rudolf Valentino's heirs want to control his film biography. The Girl Scouts don't want their image soiled by association with certain activities. George Lucas wants to keep Strategic Defense Initiative fans from calling it "Star Wars." Pepsico doesn't want singers to use the word "Pepsi" in their songs. Guy Lombardo wants an exclusive property right to ads that show big bands playing on New Year's Eve. Uri Geller thinks he should be paid for ads showing psychics bending metal through telekinesis. Paul Prudhomme, that household name, thinks the same about ads featuring corpulent bearded chefs. And scads of copyright holders see purple when their creations are made fun of.
Something very dangerous is going on here. Private property, including intellectual property, is essential to our way of life. It provides an incentive for investment and innovation; it stimulates the flourishing of our culture; it protects the moral entitlements of people to the fruits of their labors. But reducing too much to private property can be bad medicine. Private land, for instance, is far more useful if separated from other private land by public streets, roads and highways. Public parks, utility rights-of-way and sewers reduce the amount of land in private hands, but vastly enhance the value of the property that remains.
So too it is with intellectual property. Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture.
The panel's opinion is a classic case of overprotection. Concerned about what it sees as a wrong done to Vanna White, the panel majority erects a property right of remarkable and dangerous breadth: Under the majority's opinion, it's now a tort for advertisers to remind the public of a celebrity. Not to use a celebrity's name, voice, signature or likeness; not to imply the celebrity endorses a product; but simply to evoke the celebrity's image in the public's mind. This Orwellian notion withdraws far more from the public domain than prudence and common sense allow. It conflicts with the Copyright Act and the Copyright Clause. It raises serious First Amendment problems. It's bad law, and it deserves a long, hard second look."
-- Judge Alex Kozinski