So Amazing, So Illegal 492
Jamie gave me a nice writeup of a mashup where the writer shares some random youtube mashup video that you maybe have seen before called the Mother of all Funk Chords. It's a pretty amazing artistic achievement and probably worth at least a quick glance of your time. But the larger point should be taken seriously. He says "If your reaction to this crate of magic is 'Hm. I wonder how we'd go about suing someone who "did this" with our IP?' instead of, 'Holy crap, clearly, this is the freaking future of entertainment,' it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page. Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like."
Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page.
Can anyone explain what the hell this means?
Mashups (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't speak for most people, but I personally can't stand mashups. I don't find anything entertaining about it, there's maybe three I've heard out of all that have been good. It falls into the same group as artists like 50 cent taking "Crazy Train" and putting it into a song as background vocals or whoever did the same to "Riders on the storm."
In short, get off my lawn!
Re:But without copyright protections... (Score:4, Insightful)
nobody would ever produce music, art, or literature. Which is also why works need to be protected for a century or longer.
This is, of course, why no one ever produced any music, art, or literature before copyright protection was in place. *ahem*
~AA
Amazing (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow that made my morning, not usually a fan of mashups but that was truly inspired, like garage band on acid. Somewhere im sure there is a lawyer about to blow a gasket trying to wrap his head around a way to even approach something like this.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole write up was stupid. I think that he was implying that you're getting old and need to get with the times. The whole "this is your new Elvis" is a little sensationalist. This is no different than hip hop producers who've been mixing stuff for 30 years, it's just progressed over the years from mixing vinyl, using samplers, using computer, using computers to mash up songs, to mixing youtube videos now. It's not revolutionary, it's the natural progression.
Once in a while a transition in media is made quickly enough to where one person gets pegged as reinventing or revolutionizing the art. This is not that.
Hm (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but you need to be able to actually do things live. Mashups won't make you any money, unless, of course, you can sell them, which you can't do if they aren't IP-clean.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
not if one is a hipster doofus.
I'll confess it threw me for a minute, but I grinned once I put it together. It's a tad clever, if a bit awkward.
I think the guy is completely wrong about this being marketable - but hey, everybody is entitled to their own opinion and style. I think this is getting a lot of attention right now because it's novel and it obviously wasn't easy mixing it all together. But pull away from that and judge it purely as music - it isn't that great.
Re:Wow (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what's called a 'recording studio session'.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funk isn't something you admire while you're sitting alone in front of a computer, it's something you groove to with a scotch on the rocks in your hand while surrounded by a bunch of classy ladies who like to shake what their momma gave them. The band isn't there to perform something they conceived in a dark room, they're there to play the crowd, to react and interact with the people as they get excited, antsy, tired, etc.
If this is the future of music, then the future is bleak indeed.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is the future of music, then the future is bleak indeed.
That bleak future is here when American Idol has the highest ratings and even the ones who get disqualified within one week of the premiere get record deals. Have you taken a stroll through the CD store and seen the mainstream music? It's almost as bad as Nickleback.
The original content has to come from somewhere (Score:4, Insightful)
These mashups don't appear in a vacuum. They have to get their source content from somewhere. There will always be a market for original work, if only to feed the mashup machine. Now, I would personally find it sad if the original creators were relegated to being raw material for commercially-successful mashups, but hey, it's a free market, and if that's what the kids want...
I personally think Kitoboy's accomplishment here is more one of editing than one of actual creating. Still, an enormous amount of work went into it, if not creativity.
Call me a Luddite (Score:5, Insightful)
But the future of entertainment is not a 320x240 flash video with a "mashup" of random songs.
This Isn't New (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nice link, not (Score:3, Insightful)
all you need to do is click the colored words.
LOL, that's what I was thinking... I can't believe anyone even NOTICED how long the link was!
Try this one! [youtube.com]
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, someone help me out here... what's so bad about Nickelback? I like a few songs from them... not that many, I'll readily confess, but if you had seen the German version of American Idol you'd know teh evil that is mainstream music.
Re:Um, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Three words.... "Contemporary Christian music"
Re:Um, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
It may be better but what you emphasize actually proves my point. What is good and what is popular do not always align.
Oh, Great. Fan Fiction for Music. (Score:3, Insightful)
There was a niche just crying out to be filled, eh?
If this is the future of music, then the future is bleak indeed.
I share your sentiment, but am a bit more optimistic. There will always be geek pseudo-artists with more toys than talent, but just as PhotoShop didn't kill off photography, I'm guessing that this... this... whatever it is, won't kill off actual music.
Re:Um, what? (Score:0, Insightful)
They're popular. Indie fags can't stand that.
Re:Hm (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, he is successful because does live performances. A lot of them. Which is what I said.
Re:The original content has to come from somewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
I would disagree, you're implying the only value in a mashup is a sum of the creative value of the original pieces. When dealing with a mashup of well-known tracks, this is certainly true, but in this case, he is certainly not taking well-known riffs or tracks, just a huge bunch of anonymous samples and working them into something complete and awesome.
I have huge respect for the guy, I've been DJing for 15 years and done my fair share of mashups, and recently been getting into video editing. What he did is not only inspired and creative, but an enormous amount of work and an absolutely mind-blowing amount of vision to put these things together from their individual components to begin with.
Re:But without copyright protections... (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>why no one ever produced any music, art, or literature before copyright protection was in place
They did produce music, but they also had crap jobs. Johannes Bach was little more than a choir director for his local church - and he hated it with a passion. At least today, with protection of songwriters' creations, they can live better lifestyles.
I got news for you: Artists today still overwhelmingly need crap jobs to make ends meet.
But businessmen get to buy exclusive rights for the couple hundred bucks the artist needs to make rent that month; and then get rich on the IP they conned out of the creator! Yay?
Re:Um, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone who tells me what I should like, whether it is music or food or girls, loses credibility with me.
Shut up with that crap, it lost its shine in high school.
Don't like something? Don't buy it. If I show up and tell you about The Black Keys show I went to and you think they suck, feel free to not like me. Babble on about what you think 'real' artists do the feeling will undoubtably be mutual.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does every band have to "push the envelope" or develop something "experimental" in order to not be called worthless corporate drones. Perhaps Metallica are popular because they make good music? It doesn't matter if it isn't genre defining or something 100% original. Its fun to listen to and I have a blast every time I see one of their shows. Metallica is just one example I used because you mention it in your post, but the same goes for a lot of mainstream bands.
What I hate are music snobs that think anything "indie" is god's gift to music, and anything you can buy from a record store is trash. I've heard plenty of indie and local bands who are absolute crap, but people insist that they're "awesome and misunderstood by the mainstream."
Just for the record, I love all kinds of music, both indie, local, and mainstream. Just because a band is able to sell millions of records does not in and of itself make it crap.
Re:Um, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funk isn't something you admire while you're sitting alone in front of a computer, it's something you groove to with a scotch on the rocks in your hand while surrounded by a bunch of classy ladies who like to shake what their momma gave them. The band isn't there to perform something they conceived in a dark room, they're there to play the crowd, to react and interact with the people as they get excited, antsy, tired, etc.
I'm sorry to break your balloon, but not everyone likes to listen to music in small clubs. Even those who like Funk (which would include me, BTW). I understand the crowd-rapport thing, but that only works if the audience is <300 IMHO (well, it may work for the BAND, but it doesn't work for me as an audience member). But in the smaller venues, usually the music is 1) too loud for the acoustics in the room &/or their PA system, 2) crowded full of drunk idiots (and at one time or in some places, drunk and smoking idiots), and 3) was accompanied by expensive parking in bad part of town & cover charge. If that's your idea of the future of music, I don't want any part of it.
On the other hand, the last concert I went to was free, was at the local University music department, the sound system was right for the room and adjusted properly, and I got to sit really close without having to climb over drunk jerks (or vice versa) in the process. Parking wasn't cheap, but that's all the two venues had in common. It was for these guys. [tyvakyzy.com]. Not exactly Funk, I grant you. But somehow I don't think they are particularly threatened by the competition from YouTube mashups.
But I don't go out for music all that often, as it's rare that a group I actually want to see will be in a venue I would want to go to. I don't care for the big mainstream bands that would book huge concerts, but the smaller bands tend to end up in crappy clubs that you couldn't pay me to visit. So, mashups like the one in TFA provide at least, some entertainment value now and then. But I'm over 50 so maybe that explains my low tolerance for aggregations of 20-something dipshits.
Plus, I like a lot of electronica, which often sounds a lot better on my own tuned up home sound system than in public venues.
Re:Mashups (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, slashdot: wtf? if you're not willing to approach this as a musical achievement, approach it as a technical achievement. It's a music and video hack, if you will. I see fewer negative posts in the style of "why would someone even want to?" when somebody retrofits an arcade cabinet with MAME or puts Linux on a digital watch.
Re:Um, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just because a band is able to sell millions of records does not in and of itself make it crap.
I agree, however it is true that most mainstream music sucks these days. It doesn't suck because it's mainstream, it sucks because it sucks.
You used to be able to see Billboard charts on iTunes going back like 60 years or something. It was pretty eye-opening, because normally that's protected info - you need to subscribe to their service to see it (and that's expensive). They issue takedowns to web sites that post it.
Anyway, in the 1960's and 70's you'd literally have stuff like Led Zeppelin, the Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, etc. all over the top 40 charts. These were mainstream pop bands! It started changing in the 1980's, which is not coincidentally when radio moved to fixed formats (previously DJ's just played what they wanted on many stations) and when MTV started acting as gatekeeper to modern pop. Nowadays a band like the Rolling Stones would be lucky to get a record deal at all.
Most "indie" bands I know, and I do know quite a few of them, really don't sound much different from 1960's rock music, whether they call themselves "experimental" or not. They're usually no more experimental than Pink Floyd or the Beatles were in their later period. That stuff literally would have been top 40 material in the past.
Being a top 40, mainstream band used to be something everybody aspired to, whatever kind of music they were in. It didn't used to be derogatory, and you weren't considered a "sellout" if you reached that status. That's different now because the type of music on the top 40 chart is different now, and because those charts are now controlled by mega-conglomerates by way of their radio and TV networks colluding to shove this crap down people's throats.
Personally, if a great band manages to break onto the top 40 chart, it's certainly nothing I hold against them. I don't say "well, now they suck because other people like them." That's what a snob does.
But, that doesn't mean I don't think most bands on the top 40 these days do suck. They just suck for other reasons.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, it often seems that Christian musicians put all of the time and effort into the message, and aren't particularly concerned about the musical wrapper, thereby creating music that is often, well, bland.
That is because most CCM that gets picked up only gets picked up because it sounds like whatever is being played on mainstream radio. You get an imitation of already bland music with
s/(girl|woman|baby)/Jesus/g
There's some good stuff out there. One of my favorite bands, even after ditching CCM and most of Christianity, is Burlap to Cashmere, a Mediterranean-flavored group with very poetic lyrics and great arrangements. Even DC Talk turned into something special, albeit very much a studio product, with the albums Jesus Freak and Supernatural.
The primary reason CCM sucks is precisely because it is mostly imitative: it's a microcosm where the barrier for entry is set low because if it were up to mainstream standards (which doesn't set the bar very high to begin with) there wouldn't be enough acts to sustain the industry. Christian artists (which really means "artists on Christian labels") are also subject to "The Jesus Quota," wherein an album won't be released unless it mentions Jesus at least five times or what have you. Additionally, since Christian music is viewed as a reversal of mainstream music, very few artists are willing to talk about the negative experiences that they have as Christians: being friendless at a church, feeling hopeless due to an external situation, doubting God or some aspect of God, etc. These are things that nearly every Christian has to deal with at one time or another but they are not often represented in music, hence the shallowness of the lyrical content.
Re:Um, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Um, what? (Score:1, Insightful)
The guys on this site have the most transparent agenda ever. All entertainment should be free; and make no mistake, they really mean it as in "beer", as in it doesn't cost anything. (But of course, people should pay to "subscribe" to their news site.) That wacky ramen-linkedin sentence in the summary demonstrates yet again that their hope is for people who currently make money in the entertainment industry to someday end up broke and unemployed.
The other favorite type of news story around is one in which a highly skilled profession or artisanship can be (sort of) replaced by some geek with a computer in their basement. They love that shit. It betrays an insecurity so deep they want everyone with more skills or talent than themselves to be jobless and homeless. It shows in the slant that's evident here every day.
Re:Um, what? (Score:0, Insightful)
If your reaction to this crate of magic is 'Hm. I wonder how we'd go about suing someone who "did this" with our IP?' instead of, 'Holy crap, clearly, this is the freaking future of entertainment,'
what if your reaction is "this looks and sounds like ass" ?
Then you have no clue/taste.
Re:The original content has to come from somewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
>I personally think [Kutiboy's] accomplishment here is more one of editing than one of actual creating.
I'm unclear on the difference.
If I'm writing using the English language, aren't I just editing? since I didn't invent the language?
Editing, in writing, is generally considered to mean changes intended to clarify a work or to make it adhere to some ruleset. I don't think TFV was aiming for either of those.
That is actually the whole point of patents and copyrights: they acknowledge that any creation people make belongs to all of us, in the same way that the language we all speak belongs to all of us, and in order to encourage people to create more stuff the laws provide a brief protection for creators, before their creations become part of society's mental furniture.
Re:Um, what? (Score:2, Insightful)
what if your reaction is "this looks and sounds like ass" ?
You'd be correct.
Re:Um, what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, because nobody ever wrote any music or lyrics or anything like that. We wouldn't want to have to listen to, I don't know, something that we haven't already heard?
50 bloodsucking leeches in suits
As opposed to the bloodsucking leeches in sweatpants that can't think up their own guitar riffs or lyrics, and so they use someone else's? Or the bloodsucking leeches that are too cool to pay for any of the entertainment they want? Those kind of leeches?
Re:Um, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
what if your reaction is "this looks and sounds like ass" ?
What if your reaction is
(1) "Yeah, this is pretty good, but hardly the revolutionary work the summary makes it out to be", then
(2) "Are mashups really the future of music or in truth the *present* of music that's going to look as dated as hippyesque flower power and 'so 2000s' in ten years time?"... and then later on
(3) "This story- and the way it's presented here- is quite Digg-esque, isn't it?"
Re:Um, what? (Score:1, Insightful)
Specifically, Metallica isn't horrible? U2 & Coldplay are the same genre as Radiohead? You don't have to like the same music as me or anyone else - you like Metallica, fine, that's a preference. You don't like Radiohead, that's fine too. But you'd have to be deaf as well as stupid to think coldplay & U2 were anything like radiohead. Maybe you should *except* you can't categorize music or spell, and go "ride the lightning."
Re:Um, what? (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to the bloodsucking leeches in sweatpants that can't think up their own guitar riffs or lyrics, and so they use someone else's? Or the bloodsucking leeches that are too cool to pay for any of the entertainment they want? Those kind of leeches?
Er, no. See, leeches in real life are little critters that suck blood out of bigger critters. They nourish themselves at someone else's expense, hence the metaphorical use.
"Bloodsucking leeches in suits" makes sense in reference to someone who sues musicians, because he's enriching himself at the musician's expense: if he prevails in court, that musician will have to pay a hefty settlement. The dude in the suit gets richer as a direct result of the musician becoming poorer.
But it doesn't make sense to call the musicians themselves "leeches", because they're not removing the original content. If you mash up 50 YouTube videos to make a song, the original 50 videos are still there for anyone to watch. You're not enriching yourself at someone else's expense, you're just building a new work on top of the existing works you see around you -- and the term for someone who does that is "artist".
No, CmdrTaco Is Right (Score:2, Insightful)
All of the snipers are wrong here, and very used to the cynical default stance of Slashdot types, evaluating the latest new thing in terms of what was known before ...
Eventually somebody, somebody very much like this dude will use the mash-up format so prodigiously well that they will transform everything. What keeps being forgotten is that they have a library of the worlds media at their fingertips.
When that breakthrough artist happens, we will be forced to throw out the rules, and even the copyright lawyers will simply give up in amazement over the sheer awe of what has been created.
This is a format ripe for a bonafide precedent-shattering innovator. A Mozart or Picasso or pick-your-genius will turn the rules on their ass, and nothing will be the same afterward.
The rest of you can snark and quibble along until that happens (which will be soon) -- and then you will claim that you were in on it, that you expected it.