Slashdot Mirror
Peter Gabriel Wants You to Re-Shock the Monkey
PreacherTom writes "The party line for the music industry has been clear: discourage music downloads at all cost. However, singer Peter Gabriel is taking things in a different direction. In order to promote his own label, he is actually encouraging people to not only download his music, but also adapt it into something more modern. In doing so, he actually posted a sample pack of Shock the Monkey consisting of vocals and other pieces of the original multitrack recording. Some in the music business would call this the commercial equivalent of hiring kidnappers to babysit. In actuality, Gabriel is pleased with the results."
So HE'S the one behind those insipid "shock the monkey" banner ads that inspired me to write AdBlock! I am calling upon all wise men to boycott Peter Gabriel. It shouldn't be hard, considering he's just some stupid blogger.
Nine inch Nails put out a track and allowed it to be remixed..
s html?tid=141&tid=3
see
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/04/16/1417205.
to remix Peter Gabriel and Paris Hilton's new song and call it Shock the Junkie
... do I "win $20"?
Where's PETA when you really need them?
He who questions training, only trains himself at asking questions. -- The Sphinx, Mystery Men
I feel better already.
Somebody just spoke of losless audio on Slashdot without mentioning Ogg FLAC. What is this world coming to?
This sig intentionally left blank.
Sure some artists love it, because they often get paid when the music is used, or at least get credit for the riff/sample. The courts have ruled multiple times that unlicensed sampling is a violate of copyright (for example: Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Demsion Films, 2004). Plus, I don't think most artists have access to all the master tracks when sampling "illegally" ... which is partly why contests/experiments like those of Peter Gabriel and Nine Inch Nails were so interesting.
... particularly since the practice seems most common in Rap and Hip Hop.
Claiming that all "Real" musicians love having the music sampled is a bit overstated
Crack - Free with every butt and set of boobs
They are facinating in how they work, but let me provide a quick laymen explanation:
.wav file with equivalent (for most humans -some one might disagree - i don't) quality.
.j.
First off, your idea that tracks are "seperated" is an understandable mistake! But, the deal is that it's not the tracks that are seperated, it's the component audio frequencies that compose the sound that make up the song that are.
Let's skip the boring stuff and get right to it. If this interests you, i'm sure that wikipedia will have a full explanation. Imagine three people are whistling (and that this makes up the whole, if somewhat boring, song. Person 1 is whistling at 700hz (hertz, or cycles per second. Human hearing is approx 20-20000 hz, rather like the specs you see on headphones, no coincidence). Person 2 is whistling at 703 hz (NOTE this is close to person 1 on purpose) and person 3 is whistling at 900 hz. So you hear, uncompressed three whistles. There are two things that happen to make an mp3:
1) If I can analyze this sound to find it's frequency components for a given "window" (or in mp3 speak, frame) of time, i can just record that. It would be easier (smaller) to say Persons 1, 2, 3 are whistling at 700, 703, and 900 then it would be to record the full sound of them doing it (think about that)
Still, music can be complex, and there are different qualities of MP3 you can make too (usually refered to as bitrate, like 128, 160, 192 Kbps (kilo bits per second) so we have
2) A principal not unlike optical illusions called Psychoacoustics. It basically says that if you have two signals A and B, and A is louder then B, and A and B are close enough in frequency, a person will only tend to hear A. Common sense time, if a headphone speaker is making a sound, and a big loudspeaker is making the same sound, you'll only hear the big loudspeaker. The question is, how much different will the headphone have to be before you hear it?
This is the science of psychoacoustics. Basically, the more compressed an mp3 is, the more will be "stripped" out - that is as the bitrate gets lower, the amount seperating A and B is allowed to increase. On the flip side, if the bitrate is high enough, there is no practical difference to the human ear, because you just can't hear such a small difference anyway That's why a high bitrate mp3 is STILL five times smaller then a
Check on fourier transforms, psychoacoustics, and mp3 on wikipedia for more (and if anyone has a better example, well, typed this pretty quick, go for it!)
CS majors know the time/space tradeoff, but they never get taught the 3rd, crucial, tradeoff of the set: comprehension!
Uh, no. It just letting listeners remix already recorded segments into something they like.
Really.
Journalists are stupid. Sometimes.
and that my friend, is the beauty of innovation. if people willingly choose to give him money when he is giving his stuff away for free, than he's doing what we all try to achieve. profit. If thats not what "earning" your money is about, then I'm not sure I know what is.
When I think Peter Gabriel my mind is instantly driven to the video for "Sledgehammer" with the stop motion animated food. With all of the Photoshopping talent online, why should the remix project stop with music alone? Music videos would likely be impressive as well.
I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
Sure, the RIAA could dig some plain-old selling-CDs value out of it, but they've gone to that well plenty of times. So this is as much publicity stunt as artistic endeavor, and it's reaffirming exactly what the RIAA does: promote big acts.
Peter Gabriel is British. He has converted a garden shed on his own property into a recording studio where he produces for his own label. He actually runs his own website.
Yes, he's a big act, but since leaving Genesis he's been as much as possible an independent big act publicly at the forefront of not paying too much mind to copyright issues.
When his "people" came to him all upset that people in India were pirating his records his response was (paraphrasing):
"You idiots, book me. If they're not paying for what we're trying to sell they're at least demonstrating a demand for what we can sell that they can't pirate."
He has a long, personal history of being the good anti-Metallica.
KFG
Freedom to create derivative works. Freedom to distribute. Freedom to use as you see fit. No copyright nonsense.
The good thing: it is inevitable that we deal away with copyright. Modern exchange of information demands it (read, networking in the sense of distributing information based on the network model, as opposed to the broadcast model). The information exchange is much more powerful than the copyright law, and it is only bound to get stronger as networking is more and more part of everyday life. The first signs are already apparent. We've got a company called Google who is most likely among the biggest copyright infringers on the world, operating freely. Why? Because Google provides an essential service. To index information, thus make information accessible. Furthermore not only it is an essential service, but it is _good_ for content creators aswell. The fundamental clash is this: copyright and networking is incompatible. Networking/nature is not aware of copyright and can't be made aware of, because copyright itself is a fuzzy, arbitary and ultimately conflicting view on information. Copyright is the 8 ton gorilla. Networking is the 8000 ton meteorite. Networking is simply so useful that we're not going to give it up and networking cannot be fixed to obey copyright law. Copyright is not only detrimental to an information society, it is not needed and ultimately incompatible with future technological advancement. Networking implies free flow of information and creating derivative works. So like it or not: copyright goes away.
The bad thing: it is likely to be a long, slow process and change is only going to come when the situation becomes really, really unworkable.
The outcome: content creators will get paid for creating the given work, but won't be given a tax and monopoly on distribution for x amount of time. This is how most people would expect to get paid for a job. After all, why is it that while creating and printing a book in the 18th century was much more expensive and longer, the copyright law guaranteed less benefits for the authors than it does now. We're simply rewarding content creators too much for too little work.
Of course you could argue that copyright provides incentive. But this is a false argument. The correct way to phrase that is: copyright provides income, which is the incentive. Now, you might argue that in the 18th century, copyright was the most straightforward way to provide that income to content creators, but today it ain't so. Again, our wonderful networking age obsoleted copyright on that field. It is now possible to setup a worldwide micropayment system on the internet (it is just a matter of time until someone implements it), to sponsor the creation of most works. Still, you could say, what about big budget movies? Well, what about them. There will be companies willing to finance the creation of the movie just like now (of course actors would be paid fixed sums of money as royalties won't exist) and they'd make profit not from the copyright fees coming from distributing the work, but from using the given content to sell their product. Tv stations already do this, they give away movies for no financial compensation so that you watch the advertisements their income is from. Just from now on, your movies ticket would pay for the experience you're given in the cinema, not the copyright fees. People would still go to the cinema, but cinemas would actually have to compete on the best viewing experience, not at what you're actually able to view.
It might sound strange, but from a certain viewpoint, advertisements have it right: they are the means, not the end. As in, they exist as means for companies to influence you, not because they want to make a profit on advertisements. The profit is indirect. If all content would be used like that commercially: to help sell a product (cinema seets, a book, etc), as in not as advertisement, but as a necessary component, then we wouldn't have to pay outrageous profits to media cartells, just what they des
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
We recently read about something quite similar here in Sweden. An artist had found out that someone had downloaded a bootleg copy of a song he mostly performed live, remixed it and released it onto the internet crowds. When said artist found the song, he released it as his own on his new album. This was an excellent way to show how piracy _really_ works. It's not destructive. It's not anti-artistic. It won't hurt anyone if you don't take it so bloody damn serious!
Blog -
I know it's been said before, but Gabriel and other artists who opt to do this are smarter than it might initially look.
;-)
As in the terminology of the open source software market, in this context Gabriel's music constitutes what they call a "loss leader."
He puts his entire discography online, free for the taking. He doesn't make a cracker from that, and presumably he wouldn't plan to. He also lets people do the mashy thing as Bowie did. This generates enormous positive PR for him that he supposedly "gets the open source revolution." Then after a while, he either decides he's got bored sitting at home, or he wants to make some additional revenue...so he decides he wants to do a comeback series of concerts. He'd use his site with the free music as a point of sale for the concert tickets. Let's also say hypothetically that in the meanwhile, a particular one of the mashies of his music has become unusually popular. So he arranges for the author of this particular mashy to play at the concerts with him as a supporting act...Mashy Kid either does his thing solo, or better yet, he and Gabriel do a duet of sorts. Gabriel could also do something like a "very limited" run of autographed photos or CDs to sell at the concerts...which given the infinitely replicable nature of the music files, would hold particular appeal as unique objects.
Mashy Kid gets professionally discovered, so he's very happy...Gabriel's positive public image would be through the roof by this point...and he could also more or less surf home after the concerts on the tidal wave of cash that would have been forthcoming. (Assuming he still has a large fanbase of course, which I'm assuming he does...not to mention the additional demand that would have been raised by the chance of seeing Mashy Kid play)
This of course is only one of an infinite number of possible scenarios by which he could make a fortune with this.
So...yep, it's a crazy move, all right. Crazy like a fox.
Hmmmmm... I'm not sure if 'Troll' is the appropriate moderation, but I guess the moderator was trying to find something fairly close to "-1 Asshole".
-chris
San Francisco values: compassion, tolerance, respect, intelligence
You are all complete idiots and do not know how MP3 compression works. I cannot belive this trash got modded up.
You in particular have just mixed up HZ and KHZ and injected more bullshit like "It essentially tries to fit a curve to the master waveform".
Perceptual encoding is much more complicated than that.
It actually performs an FFT analysis and split the sound up into it's component sine waves.
Then, two methods are used to discard data.
Both known as perceptual masking. The first method deals with frequency masking, the second with time.
Human auditory perception cannot hear a quiet frequency when there is a louder one within a few hz of it.
So, you can discard all of them.
Humans cannot hear a quiet sound when a louder one immediately follows it. (Think of a bass drum, you do not hear the squeak of the pedal just before the beater hits.)
So you can discard all those too.
The watery effect of heavy MP3 compression is from too many transients being discarded by the second method, so the transients appear spread over time. The thin lack of depth is due to too many frequencies being discarded.
"the net result of a sound around 701.5 Hz coming in and out every 1/3rd of a second. It would basically sound like 3 beeps a second, though more like a siren than a beep. If the waves were at different amplitudes, the same phenomenon would still exist but there would not be complete silence during the destructive phases."
This is crap. The cancellation has ALREADY HAPPENED when the waveforms were mixed before you do the MP3 compression. So you just need to compress the result, not the individual tones.
Also, it will sound like an amplitude tremelo, not a siren which would imply pitch modulation.
I get that "tea" is your code for marijuana, but what are "milk" and "sugar" supposed to be?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere