The foundation of the track is that chord progression, which wasn't even in the original sample. So yeah it's obviously heavily relying on the sample but Steve saying that it is basically the same track is just nonsense.
For real. I thought there was gonna be a bass part back there or something he had filtered out. Instead there's 1) someone lalala-ing the Star Wars theme and 2) some bells...which Richard then rearranged into part of his own melody! I do think maybe people should be paid for their sampled works, depending on the law. But that's what the courts are for, not RUclips comment sections.
at this point, we're all fifth generation content thieves. anyone inspired by anything else is a thief. that twat thinks he's truly invented something new, in a vacuum, and stated so without an ounce of self-awareness
Very underwhelmed by the similarities, I wonder if Steve is being dishonest or if he's just not very musically perceptive at all. Pretty bad look either way, not sure why he thought that comment was a good idea!
Bleeps and Bloops did a hardware only cover of the song and there is so much more to that track than just that short sample. It's easy to recreate it now, but think about the work involved when Richard made it 30 years ago on equipment that wasn't as user friendly as today. Evil at Play is basically just a short ambient track you would hear for maybe ten seconds in a movie or tv show, there's no real structure to it. Richard turned that short sample into a full song that is way more complex than the source.
Origin Unknown - Valley of the Shadows is another song that heavily relied on samples from a sample CD. Undisputed classic, no one questions the work put into it And when you dig even deeper, you'll find some iconic video game soundtracks, like the Silent Hill soundtracks, were built upon sample CDs from the ground up, with expertise of the PRODUCER guiding them into a full work. Because that's ultimately what a producer is, you aren't always composing. If you were just composing, you'd just be a composer
Apart from the fact he was likely a teenager at the time, that's basically how samples were used at that time. It was only after a few high profile rap artist were sued it became more of an issue and people started trying to hide the source of the samples. The 80s were different.
While I agree with you, an argument can be made that Richard has had decades of time to compensate the original artist retroactively in one way or another after making enough money from the record. Not taking any sides here, just pointing that out.
@@NicoNice24 and that begs the question of whether the original artist has a legal basis for a claim that would be successful. Probably a debate for the record companies 🤔
@@hiddentechno8266It doesnt beg the question at all. Its not a legal precedent waiting to be set then challenged. Its an already well established fact that if you sample others work, in part or whole, you have to compensate either through obtaining a license or paying royalties.
@@chriszanf if only it was that simple. The issue is whether it's been transformed enough to be seen as different which is how most samples these days are used. And that's a subjective question.
the only reason its viewed like this these days is because money is at stake, which makes me think its more of a problem with our system than the act. I think using something someone else came up with and improving it is how we make things better in many ways
@@michaels8607 ah, sorry man, I've written that comment just after starting watching the video. I've jumped on conclusion you were all dissing the uploader. I feel stupid.
I absolutely love these videos. I was never a huge listener to Aphex Twin, but I'll happily watch amy video like this and learn more of the trade and craft! Respect to the original artists, and I agree with you about the positive aspects of sampling! Maybe its because I've been doing this as a hobby since the 90s on my old Atari ST! Love your work and effort sir!
@@DeafbyDesign Not even close to Mars. Williams was obviously influenced by Holst and Mahler and a million other composers just like we are, but that's a big difference from stealing.
A track can still be based around a core sample and yet be transformative enough as demonstrated by Xtal and countless others to stand up in their own right.
If you easily can tell where the sample is from then its clearly not transformative enough, either produce your own or clear it with the copyright owner, you really don't have to mental gymnastic over this, i'm tired of this world where people pretend doing the right thing is not their concern because "everyone's doing it"
@@redwithblackstripes even if you can tell where a sample is from, if you're recontextualising it then it's a valid transformation. as for how credits and money works, that's a different story. BTW someone was able to tell where the samples in this song were from...does that make it any worse? no, xtal is still one of the most beautiful songs ever created after all these years.
"Our tune?" It's literally just two notes. Should he have cleared the sample? Legally, yes. Morally I think it such a good example why copyright is stupid.
I think (within reason) people should be able to creatively sample whatever they want and make it their own. But the more we push the argument that the thing sampled is some really basic "two note" thing then we have to wonder why they sampled it in the first place if that's really the case. It wasn't sampled because its just two notes but because its whatever it is as a whole, all the parts included.
My guess based on his age and background (and mine) would be from 70's/80's R/C Car Controllers - they had XTAL written on them, sometimes twice :)@@EstuaryMists
@@mickthetic True but wasn't he just playing a zappa song? Wasn't re-arranged or oriented differently just lennon playing his song with him and giving himself credit lol
Nothing wrong in my book, the sample is used in a creative way and there are othere elements contributing to the final delivery. The ripoff argument tastes of salt
@@erikgustafson7365 In this case, the sample is such an important part of the track, I think it's right that they get something. Though 50% sounds a bit too much too me. Though the vocal part is recognisable, Xtal in it's entirety goes way beyond the original. I'd be more than happy to accept 20% if someone could take a sample from one of my many forgettable tracks and turn it into an all time clasic!
@@erikgustafson7365 rich is a far nicer bloke than i am i reckon. unless the guy from the youtube comment found an ambulance chaser and went after him, which doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility given the odious narcissism and sense of entitlement on display in said youtube comment.
Non-issue. This is just standard sampling, nothing even close to crossing some theoretical line, and arguably doing a lot more than other sampling we accept as totally legitimate. Xtal isn't a substitute for Evil At Play. The context is changed, it means something different, it is something different.
I thought Aphex Twin used a entire full enormous track, BUT IT'S JUST A LA´LA´LA! JESUS CHRIST STEVE! WHAT WERE THE CHANCES OF YOU BEING LISTENED TO AROUND THE WORLD WITH A LALALA TRACK? I bet AT didn't get rich because of this track.
as someone who is both a traditional musician (eg playing instruments in bands) and an electronic producer I always feel conflicted about this. 40% of the music i heard in my teens had the amen in it (in fact i am listening to it now) and the drummer (Gregory Coleman) died homeless .i can't help but feel that is wrong no matter how many great tunes it gave us
Unfortunately, even if all amen samples were cleared it would not help Gregory Coleman. Only the song writers and mechanical rights owners get compensation for sample clearance.
Didn't we have this conversation 30 years ago and the consensus among music makers was that sampling is same as building on tradition. Only greed won and here we are. People afraid to progress...like afraid to speak...modern times where moral=money and truth is a lie.
tbh we had this conversation more than a hundred years ago when collage was accepted as a valid form of visual art! taking a fragment of something and making something totally new out of it is not a new thing, all this talk of "stealing" is such a weird capitalist isolationist way to live. no human is an island, shared culture is not ownable, intellectual property is a concept created to make rich corporations richer, etc etc etc
Except when you start creating things, you become very aware that art cannot exist in a vacuum and creative endeavours require some form of compensation in order that you can continue to pursue your creative process. So art also has a definable monetary value, and creators deserve to be paid to compensate them for their work and allow them to eat so they may continue to create. This is separate from any capitalist or "greedy record label" machinations.
@@ChristopherWoods "Deserve"? Why? Isn't art creation a gratuitous process? To eat? Haha, this reminds me of Feldman's quote: "If you are to become a painter, first thing you should master is the ability to starve". Since we agreed on "art cannot exist in a vacuum", then sampling (appropriation) is the first natural thing, that comes to mind, because you need to borrow from the culture, as you can't create something out of a vacuum. You try to draw the line between "how much money is enough" and "starving", but is it really possible? The problem here lies in a completely different plane - ethics - which can't be detached from art and the artistic process. A person of ethics would never want to steal anything, just the opposite - to give or to create. It doesn't matter how, by sampling chords or playing them on a piano. This issue was never a problem in visual art, but in music it's still confusing for so many people. To put it simply - it's the way we all live. We duplicate things constantly, but duplicate in our own way - sometimes recontextualising, transforming, adding - which leads to constant cultural development.
Fun fact 2: it's pulled from the christmas-xmas switch, which comes from X being the Greek letter Chi, and often substituted for places where "Christ" is written. It shouldn't be used to be replaced "crys" in crystal, but language is gonna language.
@@Beeks81 Was aware of xtal = crystal, but didn't know the origin. Also recently learned that LaTeX is pronounced lay-tech for the same reason, the X is intended to be a Greek X/chi.
doesn't matter if its popular or not. or do you think artists should 'earn' their copyright thunderdome style? the strong can sample what they want. that said, xtal seems to me like among the less predatory examples of sampling.
Honestly, this vid changed my life. I admired Xtal - and still do - for decades. I'm not gonna think any less of RDJ now. Well, maybe just a bit. That said - I 100% think now, that Xtal should in fact be classified AT MOST as a cover or remix of Evil at Play. I have no idea how Richard could've not done it. Being a genius doesn't mean your nice.
@@da-p6814 die antwoord did the same thing to a song off the same aforementioned AFX album. i hate what they did to it, but im not about to get in huff about it because thats just art development. everyone has been stealing from the artists before them since the dawn of time.
Hey just an update to this, Steve Jeffries, Donald Grieg and Mary Carewe all have publishing 50% credits on Xtal. I think it’s strange to see so many people saying things like “they should be grateful to Aphex Twin, or they’re just jealous”. If you’re a producer you would know the frustration of discovering that a piece of your art had 100’s of millions of streams without your permission, you would be furious as well. I’m not blaming Aphex Twin, as this was the way sampling worked before, but we aren’t in the 80’s anymore. Artists scrape by and having 50% on a record as big as Xtal could be the difference of being able to do your craft for longer or have to give up. This is not a little bit of money, it’s about $450,000 dollars in steaming royalties, not even including record sales. So ease off, respect the original artists, and also recognize the genius, both can exists simultaneously 💗
yes it would be natural to be furious that someone else took something you made that was mediocre, and made pure gold out of it. that would be frustrating.
very true, it became a thing because the genius used it and made a banger out of it, otherwise it would've stayed an underrated piece and we should appreciate AFX's creativity too, the cr78 & 808 sounds are so addictive on the entire album.
to be honest they should all own a percentage of the masters since thats the whole point of sound recording copyright. they didnt write the music in Xtal since Aphex completely changed that. they created the sound recording which he sampled. Unfortunately reality is cruel and I doubt Aphex even has master percentages to split. It’s nice to hear they got something in the end. Steve is wrong to think the record is basically his but at the same time it still wouldn’t exist without the people who made that sample and they deserve a piece of the pie for that.
when the song was made, sampling wasn't a settled legal science yet. pioneering is like that. so Aphex essentially got me-too'd. but as popular as Aphex is, he is still a niche artist, and this album is even more niche compared to windowlicker. he probably makes most of his money from gigging and the occasional film royalty. so jeffries and the rest probably get a really really small amount of money from this track. hope it was worth it to burn that bridge. they could have been cool about it and have some doors open to them professionally. aphex isn't earning a million dollars per song or he'd be a billionaire. that's not a reality.
Richard was/is such a troll, a complete madman, pioneer and sonic explorer. Technology was so much more exciting when things were less “figured out” idk how else to explain it.
Steve Jeffries also says in that same comment : “which is why we have now been given 50% of the writing”. So a settlement was ultimately reached and a very generous one given by Richard I would say.
i'd have never even given a thought to adding reverb to any kind of low end sound without boosting the highs on it; if any. it's crazy because richard, as you say, is probably the greatest electronic producer that we've had, yet he breaks these "mandatory" rules that we follow so strictly today. i think we all as producers just need to allow our minds to flow naturally with what we feel the most, regardless to peoples opinions. my own tracks that i dislike the most somehow have the most views/plays i've ever got. just shows how each individual ear hears certain sounds differently from the other.
The greatest artists are so skilled in their medium, they can bend the rules and make it actually work, even elevate what they started off with. It’s truly a beautiful thing. I didn’t word that well but I think you know what I mean 🤙
Algorithm put you in my feed after i started uploading my old music and rediscovering my love of aphex twin. Nice video but more in love with your setup haha
These videos are soooooo good, dead interesting and informative with nice little tips here and there. And the tune selection is great for someone as old as me.who loved them the first time around. Great job👍
Beautiful song with criminal amount of reverb that works! Amazing recreation as always. I will now feel a tinge of sadness about the disputed sample though. I didn’t know
there's a difference between 'the morality of sampling' and 'who gets paid after a song is made using samples'. Work has been based on other work in every artform ever, literally no one thinks 'sampling', 'paying homage', 'putting text into use', etc is immoral.
@@TheGalantMAN well, I don't dispute that someone thinks that when presented with the evidence, but it's an incredibly fringe position to take these days.
copyright is theft. Simples. You stole all the elements of your work from the public domain and copyrighted it. The problem is so ingrained in our society that the very premise of this video is backwards.
there is a long history of referencing in art that predates the legal history of intellectual property. An element of existing sound is just as valid a basis for music as a patch on a keyboard or the abstract concept of a note. Who gets the money afterward is a thornier question, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle here.
So let me get this: some music and some more music, both gorgeous, and different while also similar. So I think a few folk maybe need to sit down, quieten, and think of that extra beauty.
Selected Ambient Works 85-92 is so knackered in terms of audiophile quality (that's fine, I like the cassette-crunch-feel), it's a breath of fresh air listening to this rework, just imagining what it's like to hear it in full, crisp quality.
Aphex Twin once said this about copyright: "...having music for free is a good thing, because I don't think music should be a commodity. I've changed my opinion to and fro over the years, but I really do think there shouldn't be any copyright on art." But then, when Kanye West sampled Avril 14th, Richard was angry that he did not get any credits or payment.
There's a bit more to the Kanye story then that, Aphex was offering to help Ye out by offering him a slowed version of the sample, Ye and his team got on the defensive and denied Aphex had anything to do with the sample.
There's a difference between not believing copyright should be a thing and getting annoyed someone didn't give you a credit. One is legal, the other is politeness.
I had no idea Aphex Twin was so good. I only rememered a couple of songs from years ago, its really inspiring as well. Been messing around with a couple of tiny samples from a song I love and having so much fun, been ages since I messed around wirh samples.
It's always great news when Gyu drops a new video! Also, I think that the sampled audio is such a little ditty that nobody would care about, they should be really happy that somebody still remembers it via Xtal. But still, royalties should be payed to whoever deserves them, no doubt about it. Retroactively if needed.
The sampled pad is really amazing. I always thought that the bell melody was intentional. Now I see it’s an accident, which makes it more impressive to me. Richard is a genius.
also lets be real, anyone using the basis of "copyright laws" as whats morally good or bad is a fool. copyright has never been and never will be to protect small artists. it is just for corporations to leverage. there's a lot more to be said about it from an artistic perspective but using laws for a guideline as to what is moral is a very bad line of thinking.
Exactly right - extensions to the copyright periods were entirely so corporations could milk their back catalogues for longer instead of having to do work.
Xtal being so much better than the original track shows that sampling is art. I didn't know it was sampled and now I don't care. The actual question we should ask is if copyright is moral, even considering the system we live under.
I didn't actually notice Xtal had vocals in for years, in that melody, they are buried so much you can hear a faint voice adding some harmonic content but no one's going 'oh, you know the one that goes 'la la la' they probably would mouth the synth part. That's really background stuff. What's he talking about.../just/ adding the synth, the beats, well that's the whole piece, and the vocals are like saying you invented icing sugar, therefore no one can claim the right to making a really great cake if they use it, given its such a minor part. at the beginning of watching this i was thinking there was going to be a really cool, even more ambient track that was basically Xtal without drums that i didn't know about...Imagine my disappointment to hear the sound of some weird 'lol creepy children' thing that sounded like fucking around in a studio lasting 1mins.
Except the bells at the end. Not remotely the same sound. Am puzzled because he is so spot on in his other videos and acknowledges when something is even slightly out.
I think you nailed it. This is exemplary old school sampling craft. It wouldn't go down this way today, but those days were different. And Steve Jeffries knows it.
This song is beyond beautiful. Such a dreamy metropolis state of being. Peace in the middle of business, if you will. When everyone else is impatient but you are the anomaly. You are the one in a Zen state whilst everyone else is rushing and impatient.
I think it's crappy behaviour to not give credit where it's due but Steve Jeffries is living in cloud cuckoo land if he honestly thinks these two tracks are the same, aside from the drums.
Interesting discussion! Sampling can definitely be a grey area. It's great when artists transform existing sounds into something totally new and creative. Sometimes those lines get blurry though. 😊
Yawn. The debate about sampling has been going on for decades. Most HipHop is built on a collage of samples. Almost all jazz is based on previous songs. Reinterpreting or representing is all part of music making.
White people love to say they "don't agree with" sampling because they think it only applies to hip hop. If they had any idea how many rock hits from the '90s ALSO had sampled drum breaks, I feel like many of them would regard it differently.
@@florida_sucks Perhaps overstated, but a great many jazz compositions are reinterpretations of existing music, often considered standards, in the same way that the Amen break is the foundation of most drum-and-bass music, and a large chunk of classic hiphop, industrial, and techno.
To me, and I truly love the expression that sampling comes with, this is a remix and not a piece of music on it's own. To me the track should be listed within the credits and as the track has made money, part of those royalties should go to the copyright owner. If it went to court, they would certainly see it that way if they didn't award full royalties. Sampling should be used to create from another persons ideas, and to me this doesn't add enough.
Richard's use of resampling to create that iconic pitched vocal stab is what makes the track for me, the progression just has a longing sound to it that could never be replicated without that human touch, and ironically, if Richard hadn't used the vocal top layer as well, I don't think anyone would have ever noticed it was lifted from Evil at Play. If Steve thinks that Xtal is 'musically the same as what they created', then he must think a lot of himself because it's genius! Someone please challenge him to get in the studio and create a track half as good as Xtal sampling one of Richard's other tracks, we'll see how that goes 😛
Possibly my favorite Aphex track! The first AT album I sought out, after I heard it when my mates woke me up after coming back from a rave in a wood near the house, and put it on! They'd been tripping, entranced by these giant nests of ants that were everywhere up there! SAW Blew my half-asleep mind at 6am. Loved it ever since. Part of what makes music great are the memories it kicks up. Great video, thanks!
Xtal is one of my favourite tunes. I listen to it regularly. This is the first time I've heard the original sample and I doubt I'll listen to it ever again 🤷♂️
Fair play, first time ever hearing the XTAL track, so thank you for bringing such a well crafted tune to my ears. Love the vocal sample, such a catchy hook, I'm gona look up the original "Evil at Play" track it was sampled from, just to satisfy my own appetite of music nerdiness. Also love what you do here on your channel. Please keep them coming......................... and I'll be returning!😉 Peace
Your video is just wonderful. I feel like I can actually listen to Xtal. Makes me appreciate it even more. Hope one day yt videos will have greater depth and audio quality. Hail Richard James.
He has a right to say it & feel however he does but it's also sad he doesn't see the beauty in sampling & that his song made waves through to a wider audience (also idk what chords he's talking about, not the same chord progression, there isn't a chord progression in the original)
Aphex Twin can microsample something evil and dark and convert it into something very ethereal and soothing, it's like a diametrically opposite track compared to the original :D
The fact that it's one of aphex twin's best tracks and also feels completely different to all his other stuff just shows how essential the sample is. Apart from the sonic richness it brings, it's the hook of the track. I think it's right that the original artists got compensated in this case. Xtal relies on their work so heavily.
Sampling always comes down to the question: is the sample use transformative of the original work? Theres so many tracks from the early says of dance music where it really wasnt, and some where chunks of other tracks were lifted without (much) change that did create transformative works. Beyonce's "Crazy In Love" is basically a straight rip from the Chi-lites ("Are You My Woman?") whereas FSoLs Papua New Guinea is a patchwork quilt of recognisable chunks of other tracks that is something new. People that dont really do much to a sample or that if it was removed from the track, it would fall on its arse, should just give it up. A lot of the time its just laziness in place of some basic sound design and trying to innovate.
recontextualizing things has been an aspect of artistic expression long before digital sampling.. Manly highly esteemed artists have done it and sure you could call it "lazy" from a certain perspective but if people enjoy the vibe of the work i don't think how much time and effort went into something is really relevant.. Criticizing something for being "low effort" is a lazy form of criticism 😄
I have never heard evil at play, and Xtal imprinted on me as soon as I heard it never gotten emough of it, been nearly 20 and it´s the only song in my life so far that I could listen to forever
Inherent in the meaning of the word 'sampling' in music is the fact that someone has reused parts of a sound recording. Richard sampled Evil At Play and turned it into a bigger hit than the original. NOT copied but sampled. Please don't try to cancel sampling. Correct me if I'm wrong but did I hear the original artist got renumeration too? Hopefully enuf to afford some copium
Well done. I have re-created this track many times, since I have mid 90s gear - Akai S3200, R-8, Dx7, it is super easy if you know what samples RDJ used. However, what makes this track great is his absolute ignorance of "rules" - tons of reverb on low end, saturation, fighting frequencies and yet it all works perfectly. Eq curve of this song is insane, high end with those CR cymbals .... I also have tape machine (again ,from the early years) and while Satin is the best tape plugin by far (beats all RC20 etc), you just cant get the tape sound digitally. I dont mean "sound" rather, compression, squish in the dynamic range and tons of imperfections. Pad and chords are crucial for the ambience of this song, you demonstrated well how inversion can change it drastically. Also, super fun fact - we are using analogue synths to recreate those wobbly BOC pads, and Rich did it with the most digital synth ever - granted he had analogue filter but still. That kick with reverb lolol gets me every time.
that reharmonization was nice! brought out a very different aspect of the vocals. complaining about sample clearance is so passe. in the future its just an Homage, a compliment. It is to be grateful people use your stuff. i respect that they dont like the idea though haha. but its "lack consciousness" the ogee sample is pretty twee!!
Just came here to say I had no idea which song was which, but now I’ve followed you and would like to get more into music. Wow. Also I’d say I agree, Aphex took the song places, it doesn’t exist without the first one, but I don’t personally think a line was crossed morally.
@@erikgustafson7365 no it’s not work, if the profit isn’t going to the artist but some greedy company I don’t care.. just like buying an old record on Discogs that isn’t available anywhere else isn’t going to the artist or anyone so might as well get it for free as download if you can… if the artists family owns the profits I’d have to think about that one more
Awesome vid, one of my all time fave Aphex Twin ambient tracks and I love how you have broken this down to get as close as possible to the original. This is NOT a criticism, so please don't take it as one, but it is worth pointing out the PAD notes need some minor tweaking to match the original. Bar 1 - A three note chord comprising middle C with an F above and another F an octave below, followed by; Bar 2 - a three note chord comprising Bb with Eb above and another Eb an octave below, then; Bar 3 - a three note chord comprising Bb with D above and another Bb an octave below, and finally; Bar 4 - Bar 3 above is sustained throughout bar 4 but there is another D added in (an octave below) to round everything out.
I'm not a musician but know the track well. It reminds me of the kind of thing you make, you know like a drawing, late at night or some moment where you experiment and put it to one side, as he says not thinking it would be seen. That's always the work that stands out. But it takes a kind of instinct to do, spot that.
The foundation of the track is that chord progression, which wasn't even in the original sample. So yeah it's obviously heavily relying on the sample but Steve saying that it is basically the same track is just nonsense.
For real. I thought there was gonna be a bass part back there or something he had filtered out. Instead there's 1) someone lalala-ing the Star Wars theme and 2) some bells...which Richard then rearranged into part of his own melody!
I do think maybe people should be paid for their sampled works, depending on the law. But that's what the courts are for, not RUclips comment sections.
at this point, we're all fifth generation content thieves. anyone inspired by anything else is a thief. that twat thinks he's truly invented something new, in a vacuum, and stated so without an ounce of self-awareness
Very underwhelmed by the similarities, I wonder if Steve is being dishonest or if he's just not very musically perceptive at all. Pretty bad look either way, not sure why he thought that comment was a good idea!
Exactly the original sounds nothing like Aphex's tune.
u guys clearly have no knowledge about anything in this topic yet u voice really strong opinions. crazy how low humans have become
Bleeps and Bloops did a hardware only cover of the song and there is so much more to that track than just that short sample. It's easy to recreate it now, but think about the work involved when Richard made it 30 years ago on equipment that wasn't as user friendly as today. Evil at Play is basically just a short ambient track you would hear for maybe ten seconds in a movie or tv show, there's no real structure to it. Richard turned that short sample into a full song that is way more complex than the source.
Very well put
Origin Unknown - Valley of the Shadows is another song that heavily relied on samples from a sample CD. Undisputed classic, no one questions the work put into it
And when you dig even deeper, you'll find some iconic video game soundtracks, like the Silent Hill soundtracks, were built upon sample CDs from the ground up, with expertise of the PRODUCER guiding them into a full work. Because that's ultimately what a producer is, you aren't always composing. If you were just composing, you'd just be a composer
Richard literally would have had to code any “synth” in the 90’s. He’s a God , just like Bjork said.
@@whenitrains2777 He had to build many of them as they didn't even exist. The rebuild was also extensive.
0:12 bros gonna be so mad when he listens to hiphop 😭
nothing wrong with sampling but going through the process to get the rights is professional and considerate esepcially if its obvious.
Or folk music!
Or plunderphonics
Apart from the fact he was likely a teenager at the time, that's basically how samples were used at that time. It was only after a few high profile rap artist were sued it became more of an issue and people started trying to hide the source of the samples. The 80s were different.
While I agree with you, an argument can be made that Richard has had decades of time to compensate the original artist retroactively in one way or another after making enough money from the record. Not taking any sides here, just pointing that out.
@@NicoNice24 and that begs the question of whether the original artist has a legal basis for a claim that would be successful. Probably a debate for the record companies 🤔
@@hiddentechno8266It doesnt beg the question at all. Its not a legal precedent waiting to be set then challenged. Its an already well established fact that if you sample others work, in part or whole, you have to compensate either through obtaining a license or paying royalties.
@@chriszanf if only it was that simple. The issue is whether it's been transformed enough to be seen as different which is how most samples these days are used. And that's a subjective question.
@@hiddentechno8266 if it’s recognisable then it should technically be cleared, I’m not sure there is much grey area here. Xtal is very obvious
No line was crossed, creativity was marinated with More creativity of the highest order. Different Times.
lovely comment
the only reason its viewed like this these days is because money is at stake, which makes me think its more of a problem with our system than the act. I think using something someone else came up with and improving it is how we make things better in many ways
I think the only issue would be if Richard sold the track to an advertisement or movie, then the sample should get credit.
Diffwrent times? Queen and Ice Vanilla, Queen won.
that guy is just mad that Xtal is 1000x better than Evil at play
Thank you for saying it out loud 😆
Yeah the Brits are pretty much all like this guy. Except the good ones.
thank you
@@B1SCOOP YOU have FACTS on that?Please show us those documents or the interview...thanks...
@@michaels8607 ah, sorry man, I've written that comment just after starting watching the video. I've jumped on conclusion you were all dissing the uploader. I feel stupid.
0:12 protect Daft Punk from this man at all costs
I absolutely love these videos. I was never a huge listener to Aphex Twin, but I'll happily watch amy video like this and learn more of the trade and craft! Respect to the original artists, and I agree with you about the positive aspects of sampling! Maybe its because I've been doing this as a hobby since the 90s on my old Atari ST! Love your work and effort sir!
And Evil at Play is basically someone singing the Star Wars theme tune over a pad ..
😂🎉 Truth
👽🙏 XTRM
came here to say the same. Not much originality in the melody of Evil at Play.
Star wars Theme was also stolen from Gustav Holts - Mars
Everything is a Remix.
@@DeafbyDesign Not even close to Mars. Williams was obviously influenced by Holst and Mahler and a million other composers just like we are, but that's a big difference from stealing.
A track can still be based around a core sample and yet be transformative enough as demonstrated by Xtal and countless others to stand up in their own right.
If you easily can tell where the sample is from then its clearly not transformative enough, either produce your own or clear it with the copyright owner, you really don't have to mental gymnastic over this, i'm tired of this world where people pretend doing the right thing is not their concern because "everyone's doing it"
@@redwithblackstripes even if you can tell where a sample is from, if you're recontextualising it then it's a valid transformation. as for how credits and money works, that's a different story. BTW someone was able to tell where the samples in this song were from...does that make it any worse? no, xtal is still one of the most beautiful songs ever created after all these years.
@@redwithblackstripes What a horrendously shit argument.
"Our tune?" It's literally just two notes.
Should he have cleared the sample? Legally, yes. Morally I think it such a good example why copyright is stupid.
Not to mention the incredibly deep lyrics of "la la la la la la la..."
I think (within reason) people should be able to creatively sample whatever they want and make it their own. But the more we push the argument that the thing sampled is some really basic "two note" thing then we have to wonder why they sampled it in the first place if that's really the case. It wasn't sampled because its just two notes but because its whatever it is as a whole, all the parts included.
Copyright is not stupid. You're making a generalization out of an edge case.
Agreed
@@j3ffn4v4rr0 No. This is merely an example of it, not proof.
many folks say it's pronounced as "crystal"
It is. Just like Xmas.
It is. The crystal lock function on the Lexicon PrimeTime II delay is labelled XTAL. Who knows, this may be where he got the title from.
My guess based on his age and background (and mine) would be from 70's/80's R/C Car Controllers - they had XTAL written on them, sometimes twice :)@@EstuaryMists
@@EstuaryMists Xtal is a standard shorthand for crystal in electronics.
@@aeiouxs it's this, 100% (i am of a similar age and background).
“All the good music has already been written by people with wigs and stuff.” -Frank Zappa.
But then he also bitched about John Lennon crediting a jam session based on a Zappa song to himself so..
@@micktheticrules for thee not for meeeee 😂
MK ultra plant
@@mickthetic True but wasn't he just playing a zappa song? Wasn't re-arranged or oriented differently just lennon playing his song with him and giving himself credit lol
Frank weren't wrong woz ee?
Nothing wrong in my book, the sample is used in a creative way and there are othere elements contributing to the final delivery. The ripoff argument tastes of salt
Great video!
AFAIK the copyright dispute was settled about 2 years ago and the original artists got 50% credit for the song.
source?
wow. I looked it up. you're right. that's cool.
50% that they earn from aphex twins' work. Copyright is absurd
@@erikgustafson7365 In this case, the sample is such an important part of the track, I think it's right that they get something. Though 50% sounds a bit too much too me. Though the vocal part is recognisable, Xtal in it's entirety goes way beyond the original.
I'd be more than happy to accept 20% if someone could take a sample from one of my many forgettable tracks and turn it into an all time clasic!
@@erikgustafson7365 rich is a far nicer bloke than i am i reckon. unless the guy from the youtube comment found an ambulance chaser and went after him, which doesn't sound out of the realm of possibility given the odious narcissism and sense of entitlement on display in said youtube comment.
Vocal melody is also basically humming the star wars theme melody haha. You nailed it on that bongo sample
I am so confused. I don't hear the Star Wars track whatsoever.
@@hynkie When you listen to Evil At Play and think of the opening bars of the Star Wars theme - it's right there. Not so obvious on Xtal, though..
XTAL is my morning alarm, nice to get so much indepth info on a tune I am now very familiar with!
A track with a unique iconic vibe. Good choice!
Mine too and somehow I since then wake up less stressed and with More motivation. Xtal is magical.
I think I’d drift into an even deeper blissful slumber if XTAL started playing next to me lol
great way to hate a song forever
It would ruin the song for me
Non-issue. This is just standard sampling, nothing even close to crossing some theoretical line, and arguably doing a lot more than other sampling we accept as totally legitimate.
Xtal isn't a substitute for Evil At Play. The context is changed, it means something different, it is something different.
Copyright is simply theft from the public domain.
I thought Aphex Twin used a entire full enormous track, BUT IT'S JUST A LA´LA´LA!
JESUS CHRIST STEVE! WHAT WERE THE CHANCES OF YOU BEING LISTENED TO AROUND THE WORLD WITH A LALALA TRACK?
I bet AT didn't get rich because of this track.
Apparently he started making money with his Didgeridoo single
I've got the patent and trademark on LALALA and I'm suing everyone.
@@LTPottenger "THE MISERABLE IS A GENIUS" .
pls don't get the patent for HAHAHAHA!
You've completely missed the point.
as someone who is both a traditional musician (eg playing instruments in bands) and an electronic producer I always feel conflicted about this. 40% of the music i heard in my teens had the amen in it (in fact i am listening to it now) and the drummer (Gregory Coleman) died homeless .i can't help but feel that is wrong no matter how many great tunes it gave us
Unfortunately, even if all amen samples were cleared it would not help Gregory Coleman. Only the song writers and mechanical rights owners get compensation for sample clearance.
All musicians should get a real job.
@@user82938 Are you saying this to get a reaction?
There a was go fund me in response years later, it's not enough but at least something was put out.
@@user82938 like what?
Didn't we have this conversation 30 years ago and the consensus among music makers was that sampling is same as building on tradition. Only greed won and here we are. People afraid to progress...like afraid to speak...modern times where moral=money and truth is a lie.
tbh we had this conversation more than a hundred years ago when collage was accepted as a valid form of visual art! taking a fragment of something and making something totally new out of it is not a new thing, all this talk of "stealing" is such a weird capitalist isolationist way to live. no human is an island, shared culture is not ownable, intellectual property is a concept created to make rich corporations richer, etc etc etc
Except when you start creating things, you become very aware that art cannot exist in a vacuum and creative endeavours require some form of compensation in order that you can continue to pursue your creative process. So art also has a definable monetary value, and creators deserve to be paid to compensate them for their work and allow them to eat so they may continue to create. This is separate from any capitalist or "greedy record label" machinations.
At the same time if your getting paid off my work more than me with 0 credit you are scum
@@ChristopherWoods "Deserve"? Why? Isn't art creation a gratuitous process? To eat? Haha, this reminds me of Feldman's quote: "If you are to become a painter, first thing you should master is the ability to starve".
Since we agreed on "art cannot exist in a vacuum", then sampling (appropriation) is the first natural thing, that comes to mind, because you need to borrow from the culture, as you can't create something out of a vacuum.
You try to draw the line between "how much money is enough" and "starving", but is it really possible? The problem here lies in a completely different plane - ethics - which can't be detached from art and the artistic process. A person of ethics would never want to steal anything, just the opposite - to give or to create. It doesn't matter how, by sampling chords or playing them on a piano.
This issue was never a problem in visual art, but in music it's still confusing for so many people.
To put it simply - it's the way we all live. We duplicate things constantly, but duplicate in our own way - sometimes recontextualising, transforming, adding - which leads to constant cultural development.
fun fact, xtal is the designator for a crystal oscillator
Fun fact 2: it's pulled from the christmas-xmas switch, which comes from X being the Greek letter Chi, and often substituted for places where "Christ" is written. It shouldn't be used to be replaced "crys" in crystal, but language is gonna language.
@@Beeks81 Was aware of xtal = crystal, but didn't know the origin. Also recently learned that LaTeX is pronounced lay-tech for the same reason, the X is intended to be a Greek X/chi.
@@Beeks81so wait, have I been pronouncing the name of the song incorrectly this whole time???
@@mikecassell8953 You could be mispronouncing it right now! Look out!
It's a person singing the Star Wars theme over a basic chord progression. Richard gave it life.
"aphex twin stole my song!"
-someone whos song was about to be forgotten about forever.
doesn't matter if its popular or not. or do you think artists should 'earn' their copyright thunderdome style? the strong can sample what they want.
that said, xtal seems to me like among the less predatory examples of sampling.
that's a terrible argument. really slippery slope
Honestly, this vid changed my life. I admired Xtal - and still do - for decades. I'm not gonna think any less of RDJ now. Well, maybe just a bit.
That said - I 100% think now, that Xtal should in fact be classified AT MOST as a cover or remix of Evil at Play. I have no idea how Richard could've not done it. Being a genius doesn't mean your nice.
@@da-p6814 die antwoord did the same thing to a song off the same aforementioned AFX album. i hate what they did to it, but im not about to get in huff about it because thats just art development. everyone has been stealing from the artists before them since the dawn of time.
@@AllieHorban it’s not an argument against sampling, it’s an argument for due credit. you’re conflating the two.
Hey just an update to this, Steve Jeffries, Donald Grieg and Mary Carewe all have publishing 50% credits on Xtal. I think it’s strange to see so many people saying things like “they should be grateful to Aphex Twin, or they’re just jealous”. If you’re a producer you would know the frustration of discovering that a piece of your art had 100’s of millions of streams without your permission, you would be furious as well. I’m not blaming Aphex Twin, as this was the way sampling worked before, but we aren’t in the 80’s anymore. Artists scrape by and having 50% on a record as big as Xtal could be the difference of being able to do your craft for longer or have to give up. This is not a little bit of money, it’s about $450,000 dollars in steaming royalties, not even including record sales. So ease off, respect the original artists, and also recognize the genius, both can exists simultaneously 💗
yes it would be natural to be furious that someone else took something you made that was mediocre, and made pure gold out of it. that would be frustrating.
very true, it became a thing because the genius used it and made a banger out of it, otherwise it would've stayed an underrated piece and we should appreciate AFX's creativity too, the cr78 & 808 sounds are so addictive on the entire album.
More context always appreciated thank you
to be honest they should all own a percentage of the masters since thats the whole point of sound recording copyright. they didnt write the music in Xtal since Aphex completely changed that. they created the sound recording which he sampled. Unfortunately reality is cruel and I doubt Aphex even has master percentages to split. It’s nice to hear they got something in the end. Steve is wrong to think the record is basically his but at the same time it still wouldn’t exist without the people who made that sample and they deserve a piece of the pie for that.
when the song was made, sampling wasn't a settled legal science yet. pioneering is like that. so Aphex essentially got me-too'd. but as popular as Aphex is, he is still a niche artist, and this album is even more niche compared to windowlicker. he probably makes most of his money from gigging and the occasional film royalty. so jeffries and the rest probably get a really really small amount of money from this track. hope it was worth it to burn that bridge. they could have been cool about it and have some doors open to them professionally. aphex isn't earning a million dollars per song or he'd be a billionaire. that's not a reality.
Richard was/is such a troll, a complete madman, pioneer and sonic explorer. Technology was so much more exciting when things were less “figured out” idk how else to explain it.
Often at the time when something is understood it is more concrete, defined and finished. Saw it plenty of times in psych, rock, drum'n'bass etc
Steve Jeffries also says in that same comment : “which is why we have now been given 50% of the writing”. So a settlement was ultimately reached and a very generous one given by Richard I would say.
It's pretty standard to give a writing credit to someone if you lifted a sample without permission.
Another inspirational Ableton tutorial. Every one of the videos you have been making recently are my favourite ever tracks, please keep them coming!
i'd have never even given a thought to adding reverb to any kind of low end sound without boosting the highs on it; if any. it's crazy because richard, as you say, is probably the greatest electronic producer that we've had, yet he breaks these "mandatory" rules that we follow so strictly today. i think we all as producers just need to allow our minds to flow naturally with what we feel the most, regardless to peoples opinions. my own tracks that i dislike the most somehow have the most views/plays i've ever got. just shows how each individual ear hears certain sounds differently from the other.
The greatest artists are so skilled in their medium, they can bend the rules and make it actually work, even elevate what they started off with. It’s truly a beautiful thing. I didn’t word that well but I think you know what I mean 🤙
Algorithm put you in my feed after i started uploading my old music and rediscovering my love of aphex twin. Nice video but more in love with your setup haha
That Reverb! Totally dreamy. Didn't know Apache was in there. Excellent video.
These videos are soooooo good, dead interesting and informative with nice little tips here and there. And the tune selection is great for someone as old as me.who loved them the first time around. Great job👍
Beautiful song with criminal amount of reverb that works! Amazing recreation as always. I will now feel a tinge of sadness about the disputed sample though. I didn’t know
there's a difference between 'the morality of sampling' and 'who gets paid after a song is made using samples'. Work has been based on other work in every artform ever, literally no one thinks 'sampling', 'paying homage', 'putting text into use', etc is immoral.
Not quite literally, I've discussed with somebody that thinks that
@@TheGalantMAN well, I don't dispute that someone thinks that when presented with the evidence, but it's an incredibly fringe position to take these days.
copyright is theft. Simples. You stole all the elements of your work from the public domain and copyrighted it.
The problem is so ingrained in our society that the very premise of this video is backwards.
there is a long history of referencing in art that predates the legal history of intellectual property. An element of existing sound is just as valid a basis for music as a patch on a keyboard or the abstract concept of a note. Who gets the money afterward is a thornier question, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle here.
The improvised chords you made at 8:15 was really neat, as you mentioned, such a different feel it gives
So let me get this: some music and some more music, both gorgeous, and different while also similar.
So I think a few folk maybe need to sit down, quieten, and think of that extra beauty.
The vocal is actually from a library music CD, I had it in the 90s
This inspires me to actually upgrade from free website music makers to a proper and professional software
Selected Ambient Works 85-92 is so knackered in terms of audiophile quality (that's fine, I like the cassette-crunch-feel), it's a breath of fresh air listening to this rework, just imagining what it's like to hear it in full, crisp quality.
I recently picked it up on CD and its much more textured and spacey than on any streaming service, maybe try the CD, on headphones....
?? you can't be serious it sounds great.
Looking forward to the vinyl box set that's coming!
GREAT JOB RICHARD !
Aphex Twin once said this about copyright: "...having music for free is a good thing, because I don't think music should be a commodity. I've changed my opinion to and fro over the years, but I really do think there shouldn't be any copyright on art." But then, when Kanye West sampled Avril 14th, Richard was angry that he did not get any credits or payment.
There's a bit more to the Kanye story then that, Aphex was offering to help Ye out by offering him a slowed version of the sample, Ye and his team got on the defensive and denied Aphex had anything to do with the sample.
There's a difference between not believing copyright should be a thing and getting annoyed someone didn't give you a credit. One is legal, the other is politeness.
Got a cookie of his own dough...
More than anything, Aphex was more annoyed with Kanye's team shitty attitude to him when he offered to help them.
Can't believe RJ wanted anything to do with West, guy is a clown show.
I had no idea Aphex Twin was so good. I only rememered a couple of songs from years ago, its really inspiring as well. Been messing around with a couple of tiny samples from a song I love and having so much fun, been ages since I messed around wirh samples.
It's always great news when Gyu drops a new video! Also, I think that the sampled audio is such a little ditty that nobody would care about, they should be really happy that somebody still remembers it via Xtal. But still, royalties should be payed to whoever deserves them, no doubt about it. Retroactively if needed.
The sampled pad is really amazing. I always thought that the bell melody was intentional. Now I see it’s an accident, which makes it more impressive to me. Richard is a genius.
also lets be real, anyone using the basis of "copyright laws" as whats morally good or bad is a fool. copyright has never been and never will be to protect small artists. it is just for corporations to leverage. there's a lot more to be said about it from an artistic perspective but using laws for a guideline as to what is moral is a very bad line of thinking.
Exactly right - extensions to the copyright periods were entirely so corporations could milk their back catalogues for longer instead of having to do work.
Ten out of ten.
what a lovely video. thank you so much. i wish this kind of content had existed 20 years ago when i first got into synths and music.
Amazing breakdown, keep up with the content!!!
Xtal being so much better than the original track shows that sampling is art. I didn't know it was sampled and now I don't care.
The actual question we should ask is if copyright is moral, even considering the system we live under.
I didn't actually notice Xtal had vocals in for years, in that melody, they are buried so much you can hear a faint voice adding some harmonic content but no one's going 'oh, you know the one that goes 'la la la' they probably would mouth the synth part. That's really background stuff. What's he talking about.../just/ adding the synth, the beats, well that's the whole piece, and the vocals are like saying you invented icing sugar, therefore no one can claim the right to making a really great cake if they use it, given its such a minor part.
at the beginning of watching this i was thinking there was going to be a really cool, even more ambient track that was basically Xtal without drums that i didn't know about...Imagine my disappointment to hear the sound of some weird 'lol creepy children' thing that sounded like fucking around in a studio lasting 1mins.
Thanks!
this is like inventing a wheel then getting mad that Bugatti isn't compensating you
It's absolutely nothing like that at all lmao
@@urmumsbaps The wheel inventor would then claim the rights to every car by theory. This reality is only pertinent to one song
I am really impressed about you abillity to disect a song like that spot on.
Except the bells at the end. Not remotely the same sound. Am puzzled because he is so spot on in his other videos and acknowledges when something is even slightly out.
They should pay Aphex Twin royalties for all the attention and plays they otherwise would never have got
I think you nailed it. This is exemplary old school sampling craft. It wouldn't go down this way today, but those days were different. And Steve Jeffries knows it.
I feel like the main keyboard part has always made the sound of the track. The part that was not sampled (at around 12 min in the video).
aphex is a musical genius, this is one of my fav yt videos thank u man
I needed that laugh...thank you.
@@citrusspanner what’s funny?
@stickfeed3288 lmfao!!
xtal is a work of art, who cares how it was made it's a milestone
This song is beyond beautiful. Such a dreamy metropolis state of being. Peace in the middle of business, if you will. When everyone else is impatient but you are the anomaly. You are the one in a Zen state whilst everyone else is rushing and impatient.
I think it's crappy behaviour to not give credit where it's due but Steve Jeffries is living in cloud cuckoo land if he honestly thinks these two tracks are the same, aside from the drums.
Sure, but I'd probably exaggerate if I was sampled with no credit or money.
@@dalek604 and had 30 years to stew over it.
I’m gobsmacked - your breakdown of this is incredible 🎉thanks for this - I got such nostalgia watching this
The R8 MKII has 808 sounds build in so that's probably what he used for the kick
he used 808 expansion card
Oh yeah you're right it's not an MKII@@christophhofer303
nice breakdown and great use of the rocket surgery gag!
3 Dead, 7 Injured
Interesting discussion! Sampling can definitely be a grey area. It's great when artists transform existing sounds into something totally new and creative. Sometimes those lines get blurry though. 😊
Yawn. The debate about sampling has been going on for decades. Most HipHop is built on a collage of samples. Almost all jazz is based on previous songs. Reinterpreting or representing is all part of music making.
White people love to say they "don't agree with" sampling because they think it only applies to hip hop. If they had any idea how many rock hits from the '90s ALSO had sampled drum breaks, I feel like many of them would regard it differently.
Amen 😂
"almost all jazz" that's a bold and objectively incorrect statement but go off
@@florida_sucks Perhaps overstated, but a great many jazz compositions are reinterpretations of existing music, often considered standards, in the same way that the Amen break is the foundation of most drum-and-bass music, and a large chunk of classic hiphop, industrial, and techno.
Indeed nothing is original.. Even OG classical composers ripped each other off..
pretty cool, man. always loved that song, so nice to see a deep dive on it o7
To me, and I truly love the expression that sampling comes with, this is a remix and not a piece of music on it's own. To me the track should be listed within the credits and as the track has made money, part of those royalties should go to the copyright owner. If it went to court, they would certainly see it that way if they didn't award full royalties. Sampling should be used to create from another persons ideas, and to me this doesn't add enough.
Yes, if this went to court there'd be a very legitimate claim to royalties
Wouldnt that mean making money off of aphex twins' work?
Yes, because his work basically consists of adding a drum sequence over someone else's work.@@erikgustafson7365
@@erikgustafson7365 No because a settlement would reflect the perceived level of value of the imported track within the container work.
Richard's use of resampling to create that iconic pitched vocal stab is what makes the track for me, the progression just has a longing sound to it that could never be replicated without that human touch, and ironically, if Richard hadn't used the vocal top layer as well, I don't think anyone would have ever noticed it was lifted from Evil at Play. If Steve thinks that Xtal is 'musically the same as what they created', then he must think a lot of himself because it's genius! Someone please challenge him to get in the studio and create a track half as good as Xtal sampling one of Richard's other tracks, we'll see how that goes 😛
he took a couple vocal chops and looped them and yet he "stole the entire song"? i think hes part of the problem
Possibly my favorite Aphex track! The first AT album I sought out, after I heard it when my mates woke me up after coming back from a rave in a wood near the house, and put it on! They'd been tripping, entranced by these giant nests of ants that were everywhere up there! SAW Blew my half-asleep mind at 6am. Loved it ever since. Part of what makes music great are the memories it kicks up. Great video, thanks!
apparently, it's pronounced "crystal" not "xtal".
Xtal is one of my favourite tunes. I listen to it regularly. This is the first time I've heard the original sample and I doubt I'll listen to it ever again 🤷♂️
Fair play, first time ever hearing the XTAL track, so thank you for bringing such a well crafted tune to my ears.
Love the vocal sample, such a catchy hook, I'm gona look up the original "Evil at Play" track it was sampled from, just to satisfy my own appetite of music nerdiness.
Also love what you do here on your channel. Please keep them coming.........................
and I'll be returning!😉
Peace
Your video is just wonderful. I feel like I can actually listen to Xtal. Makes me appreciate it even more. Hope one day yt videos will have greater depth and audio quality. Hail Richard James.
this is really solid! sampling is art.
So is creating music from nothing. Where would sampling be without recorded music made by real musicians?
@@HDSPKSRecords-gi1ob how do you create music from nothing?
@@HDSPKSRecords-gi1ob What's your point? Plenty of great music has been made without sampling.
yes, it is..ruclips.net/video/5AqHSvR9bqs/видео.htmlsi=4mGVtq-kO10Q18pn
Amazing that I'm just finding you now!! Much respect!! You have a new sub
He has a right to say it & feel however he does but it's also sad he doesn't see the beauty in sampling & that his song made waves through to a wider audience (also idk what chords he's talking about, not the same chord progression, there isn't a chord progression in the original)
also, nice recreation of xtal. thats pretty cool that you took the time and had the motivation to do that.
might be an immoral amount of reverb but besides that it seems justified
Amazing video man. Subbed
Aphex Twin can microsample something evil and dark and convert it into something very ethereal and soothing, it's like a diametrically opposite track compared to the original :D
The fact that it's one of aphex twin's best tracks and also feels completely different to all his other stuff just shows how essential the sample is. Apart from the sonic richness it brings, it's the hook of the track. I think it's right that the original artists got compensated in this case. Xtal relies on their work so heavily.
If i was that guy I'd cry tears of happiness because Aphex Twin sampled my song
“It probably doesn't need that much reverb” you say about a perfect song haha
Sampling always comes down to the question: is the sample use transformative of the original work?
Theres so many tracks from the early says of dance music where it really wasnt, and some where chunks of other tracks were lifted without (much) change that did create transformative works.
Beyonce's "Crazy In Love" is basically a straight rip from the Chi-lites ("Are You My Woman?") whereas FSoLs Papua New Guinea is a patchwork quilt of recognisable chunks of other tracks that is something new.
People that dont really do much to a sample or that if it was removed from the track, it would fall on its arse, should just give it up. A lot of the time its just laziness in place of some basic sound design and trying to innovate.
recontextualizing things has been an aspect of artistic expression long before digital sampling.. Manly highly esteemed artists have done it and sure you could call it "lazy" from a certain perspective but if people enjoy the vibe of the work i don't think how much time and effort went into something is really relevant.. Criticizing something for being "low effort" is a lazy form of criticism 😄
I have never heard evil at play, and Xtal imprinted on me as soon as I heard it never gotten emough of it, been nearly 20 and it´s the only song in my life so far that I could listen to forever
I wish he would sample my music. I would be thrilled.
If he did he should pay you, he's not straped for cash.
Love your channel BTW.
Inherent in the meaning of the word 'sampling' in music is the fact that someone has reused parts of a sound recording. Richard sampled Evil At Play and turned it into a bigger hit than the original. NOT copied but sampled. Please don't try to cancel sampling.
Correct me if I'm wrong but did I hear the original artist got renumeration too? Hopefully enuf to afford some copium
Hi G, great vid as usual 😀.. I noticed your sm58 didnt have a pop shield 😉
Sampling other artists is only an issue when money gets involved.
Well done. I have re-created this track many times, since I have mid 90s gear - Akai S3200, R-8, Dx7, it is super easy if you know what samples RDJ used. However, what makes this track great is his absolute ignorance of "rules" - tons of reverb on low end, saturation, fighting frequencies and yet it all works perfectly. Eq curve of this song is insane, high end with those CR cymbals .... I also have tape machine (again ,from the early years) and while Satin is the best tape plugin by far (beats all RC20 etc), you just cant get the tape sound digitally. I dont mean "sound" rather, compression, squish in the dynamic range and tons of imperfections. Pad and chords are crucial for the ambience of this song, you demonstrated well how inversion can change it drastically. Also, super fun fact - we are using analogue synths to recreate those wobbly BOC pads, and Rich did it with the most digital synth ever - granted he had analogue filter but still. That kick with reverb lolol gets me every time.
what is an "analogue filter" on a dx7?
@@ImmaDoWhatIWant not on DX7, obviously. He was running most of his digital synths through external analogue filter.
that reharmonization was nice! brought out a very different aspect of the vocals. complaining about sample clearance is so passe. in the future its just an Homage, a compliment. It is to be grateful people use your stuff. i respect that they dont like the idea though haha. but its "lack consciousness"
the ogee sample is pretty twee!!
Legally its called fair use. Something that greedy capitalists think they are above
Just came here to say I had no idea which song was which, but now I’ve followed you and would like to get more into music. Wow. Also I’d say I agree, Aphex took the song places, it doesn’t exist without the first one, but I don’t personally think a line was crossed morally.
They should be honoured he sampled their track.
Great breakdown, and I liked your alternative chords!
I think everyone should be compensated for their work.
what if they're dead?
good thing we don't care
@@gianaccetta8571so owning is work all of a sudden?
@@erikgustafson7365 no it’s not work, if the profit isn’t going to the artist but some greedy company I don’t care.. just like buying an old record on Discogs that isn’t available anywhere else isn’t going to the artist or anyone so might as well get it for free as download if you can… if the artists family owns the profits I’d have to think about that one more
@@CarlRenceryou are subhuman
Awesome vid, one of my all time fave Aphex Twin ambient tracks and I love how you have broken this down to get as close as possible to the original.
This is NOT a criticism, so please don't take it as one, but it is worth pointing out the PAD notes need some minor tweaking to match the original.
Bar 1 - A three note chord comprising middle C with an F above and another F an octave below, followed by;
Bar 2 - a three note chord comprising Bb with Eb above and another Eb an octave below, then;
Bar 3 - a three note chord comprising Bb with D above and another Bb an octave below, and finally;
Bar 4 - Bar 3 above is sustained throughout bar 4 but there is another D added in (an octave below) to round everything out.
Rocket surgery you say, that's mixing your metaphors which is a whole new kettle of ball games!
I'm not a musician but know the track well. It reminds me of the kind of thing you make, you know like a drawing, late at night or some moment where you experiment and put it to one side, as he says not thinking it would be seen. That's always the work that stands out. But it takes a kind of instinct to do, spot that.
At the end of the day would anyone have known the original if it wasnt for the genius of Aphex Twin?
That's a side issue. You don't know who made all the parts in your car, it all gets credited to Honda etc., but those people still get paid.
Some would yes, it was library music. After all, it was published, it wasn't written by robots, someone made it.
@@dalek604and now they are making money out of aphex twins' work
I’ve been hearing this track for decades, and it still gives me the old brain massage. 🤤🤤🤤🤤