Bias opinion
I can only speak for myself in reference to a topic of this nature. In the order of events, lets say that singing came 1st, musical instruments came 2nd, and then people started sampling with newer technology. Your 2 independants would be singing & playing musical instruments, because they do not rely on another sound to make them what they are. Instead of saying music is music, lets say sound is sound. I personally believe that people started sampling because they loved music so much but did not have a band, knew how to play a instrument, or had the resources to buy instruments needed to produce original music. They could always talk or sing, but this gave them a outlet for their voice. So what they did was recycle music that they liked, and put their own words to them. It is a emulation of a song, but the musical part is not a emulation of a musician. It's 4 or 8 bars recycled out of a song. If there is no original artist, there is no sampled song, because it completely relies on a real musician work, for it to exist. With current technology, we are now able to do more than just sample a musicians works, we can take instruments and emulate a musician. So even though composing on the computer is not the same as being a musician playing acoustic instruments, it is a emulation that is closer to the art oppose to traditional sampling techniques. There you can find your musical voice, oppose to finding a so called flavor that consists of songs already produced that you like. I've said this before to someone else, you can sample 4 or 8 bars off of every song that has been recorded. That does not make it yours. I'm not even going to try to figure out why people generalizing the term sample when you talk about someone taking 4bars of a song. It's not about the file type when people bring this issue up, but for some reason people go there in defense. If we can agree that a sample, and sampling can be different things, than we can reach the same page. Certain samples are good for the emulation of a musician such as sampling hits or notes. These are samples that consist of one sound, and can be arranged to make a pattern or tune, these type of samples do not rely on the source to make the song what it is. Sampling loops; this is basically sampling 4 or more bars of a song recycling it over and over and using it as the lead part of the music. It almost completely relies on the source sampled from to make it what it is. Being innovative at sampling can consists of many things but some few techniques are sampling between one hit and 4bars, using fx's to change or alter the sound, or anything else you can do to hid it from it's original face. I am all for sampling hits, notes, and sampling innovation, but sample for bars of someones composition doesn't make it yours and I would only do it if someone paid me to. My thought is this, why continue to use a technique that was developed out of a handicap, when technology has made it possible to emulate what samples are takin from, original composition. Technology has closed the gap between making your own music and being a musician. The bottom line is we need more originals out there, because that's where it all came from first, originals. It's not in traditional ways, but you can make it original. If you read this and think that I say no to sampling, then call me a hater and tell all your friends. If you understand the concept, give yourself a pat on the back, cause if you go further to test your own boundaries, it will make you better at whatever you do.
later
