Slashdot Mirror
So Amazing, So Illegal
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."
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?
So you can laugh all you want to...
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!
Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
nobody would ever produce music, art, or literature. Which is also why works need to be protected for a century or longer.
Theirs goes, 'ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.' Ours goes, 'ding ding ding ding dingy ding-ding.'
The future of entertainment seems so old (so old).
Is there even a story here? What's your point?
the coolest club on
FFS, people, trim those goddamn YouTube links! This is all you need: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprMEs-zfQA
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
I suppose that this is just the kind of spark that you spend the first 15 seconds thinking "Wow, who would have thought of it?" And then spend the rest of the video realizing that it makes perfect sense. You take all of the individual artists, a guy with a web cam and some spare time, and combine them together into a one time use band or orchestra. We compile our kernels with individual modules, why not our music?
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
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.
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.
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?"
Disclaimer: I watched the video. I also RTFA. Sorry.
I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.
I don't buy the 'this is your future Elvis' bit for a second. While entertaining, and technically/artistically well done, its not appealing enough to make me watch the other videos.
That is a pretty well written article. Yup. Merlin Mann is a smart guy, and I've seen him be a bit over-nice, but now he's fed up and hitting back. And it's quite the lashing. And he's absolutely right.
Jag pratar lite svenska.
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
Right! Wait. What?
I write music... well, modest little piano pieces. I haven't uploaded any videos of me playing to youtube (yet), but I would be THRILLED to find that my stuff had been reworked into something like this.
Then again, I have considered issuing my tunes as open source (there's some places to do that online.)
This space available.
I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.
Individually, maybe not (IANAL, so I don't know). However, if you're producing several minutes (don't know how long the video is; haven't RTFA) composed of many different IP or copyright materials, is that still fair use?
I'm not saying that it is or it isn't; I'm just asking.
I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.
You thought wrong. This is commonly thrown around /. as if it's gospel, but the fact is there's no magic number that qualifies something as fair use.
Traditionally, the fair use defense is based on four factors, one of which is the "amount" or "substantiality" of the work that's infringed. That language is as murky as it sounds. The movie 12 Monkeys got in trouble for showing less than a minute of a weird looking chair, and if things hadn't been worked out, it could have been enjoined from distribution. If you're unlucky enough to have infringed the "heart" of the work, even if it's only 5% overall, you might not have a fair use defense.
There are a number of cases that involve sampling, and the way things have gone, it seems that the current consensus is "license it, or don't sample." Hell, even if you do license, you might not be off the hook - remember the whole "Bittersweet Symphony" debacle?
It's unfortunate, but this is the current state of things.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
+1 most random slashdot summary ever?
videos freakin cool though
Don't point that gun at him, he's an unpaid intern!
Mashups seem like a fun idea and the one on the main page is pretty cool. One would probably need to get rights to the various clips included though, the same way I believe rap artists who use riffs from the Police in the background need permission, pay royalties, etc.
The work isn't unique so its original crafter deserve some credit. It's unfortunate that "credit" means "cash" instead of just a line of text showing the artist's name.
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.
-----
"You spilled my egg... I needed that egg."
I dunno. In the late 80s people sued because a few seconds of their songs were being samples and reused... and they won. It was ruled copyright violation because apparently if you hear a song with a three-second chunk of "Abbey Road" in it, the Beatle's market is ruined, you now have no reason to buy their product.
Sortof the same way you'll now never buy "The Sun Also Rises" because this comment of mine contains some of the same words.
This space available.
Too late. Artists in the early 90s (like the infamous MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice, DJ Jazzy Jeff and "the fresh prince" Will Smith) were already sued for "sampling" of previously-released records. The outcome was that artists could still sample other person's music, but they had to PAY for it.
So the precedent is already there. The only question is if they think it's worth the effort to sue you. If you're a nobody, probably not, but if you just sold a platinum record, better hire a lawyer.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
First thing what I got to my head was "Is this licensed with CC?". Well, mayby not but this is exactly how CC has marketed itself.
All the artists of the "band" can be around the world, never meeting each other or contacting and people could mix their art and product new art from it, by same license.
Just CC by-sa (or what is the new license versions, if I remembere correctly, it is always "share alike") and you are mentioned in the credits.
That may very well be fair use (in the USA).
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Well, mash-ups and the remix culture being fast and loose with IP and copyright could be compared to how the king co-opted some parts of African American music that he had exposure to, and made it his own.
Or am I reading too much into this?
Also, last time I checked my Elvis CD collection was is my Dad's house, gathering dust. Can't really say that I am a fan, although obviously it is historic and all that jazz.
So maybe Elvis isn't everyone's Elvis.
v4sw6PU$hw6ln6pr4F$ck 4/6$ma3+6u7LNS$w2m4l7U$i2e4+7en6a2X h
IP = Imaginary Property
But the future of entertainment is not a 320x240 flash video with a "mashup" of random songs.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
It's called sampling. Many artists have done it, but one you should check out is DJ Shadow. He takes old 45s, samples the smallest components and assembles them into songs. He admits that copyright laws haven't caught up with it yet, but they will someday.
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
Are they saying the music is the future of entertainment? Because sampling started in the past.
Are they saying 4 minute videos of 3 seconds loops is the future of entertainment? Even if this were to displace all music videos, videos are not the bulk of the entertainment industry. People seem to like to watch content which is 23 or 100 minutes in length and is not composed of small loops of video repeated.
This guy seems to be the new EBN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Broadcast_Network), which means he'll be nearly forgotten in just a few short years.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Sargent Pepper taught the band to play
What?
While I agree that it takes talent to do this, this is no more amazing than a typical DJ that mixes various tracks to make their own. The only difference here is that "kutiman" used tracks taken from YouTube that include video. The only bit of extra work put in here is a little bit of video editing, and only to the extent that he/she selected which video clip is displayed at any given point. Any DJ could do this as it is all synced by audio, not video.
Don't get me wrong, I think this kind of stuff is AWESOME. But it's not novel.
Emergency Broadcast Network was doing this kind of stuff in the early 90s, and released a record, Telecommunication Breakdown, that was all made in this style. They even wrote software to do it, and U2 had them do the ZooTV footage for one of their 1990s tours (including the alternate "Numb" video with machinery.) There are videos online. Their work was also a critique of the role of media, marketing, broadcast media, etc., so there was an extra political layer in there.
That said, I think the remixing of video samples in the same way that we remixed audio samples in the past is definitely an obvious (yet delicious) advance in the way we make music... or video... or art or whatever you want to call it.
Here's a link to get you started on EBN:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Broadcast_Network
Creed.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
This is just the video counterpart to girltalk [http://www.myspace.com/girltalk].
</technical>
<cultural>
With the disparate production values, skill levels, eras and even ethinicities, it's a pretty compelling statement about how music can unite us.
</cultural>
<emotional>
Absolutely amazing. Immediately added them all to my Muziic playlist.
</emotional>
<legal>
He's fucked.
</legal>
I have a plan. Using mainly spoons, we'll tunnel our way out of the city...
Kutiman, the artist who did the Thu-You audiovideo compositions, did a marvelous job. As other posters have noted, these songs are generally good compositions, beyond the novelty effect.
But, seriously, there isn't that much new here. These really aren't even mash-ups, because such extensive editing has happened. The classic mash-up, Dark Side of The Moon played against The Wizard of Oz retains the originals in great part, and while their combination brings a sum that is greater than the individual parts, it would be difficult to argue that it would qualify for fair-use exception from copyright protection.
The Thru-You project deconstructs the source material into individual components and re-assembles as an entirely new whole. There is no question of copyright violation because it is clearly a derivative work. It's an exceptionally cool idea, and in this case done very well, but collaging isn't new, even within the music industry.
There are entire genres of popular music that are devoted to construction of new songs from sampled components of other songs. Perhaps the first genre where this happened with distinction was House music, starting, what, 20 years ago? Of course, the more technology advances, the more deconstructed-reconstructed the music can become, but still, someone like club master Stephane Pompougnac has been publishing his Hotel Costes line of recompositions for 10 years now.
Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
So mashups are legally ambiguous. Try this variation. YouTube releases an API that permits indexing into any video at any point. Further, the API allows displaying the video within a region-of-interest on the screen. The API is multi-threaded.
Under this scenario exactly the same artistic presentation could result, but without any prior editing. All that is being orchestrated is the simultaneous presentation of several works that were released precisely with the intent of display on remote desktops.
It would only be at the point that an end-user captured the performance into a permanent file, thus completing the remix, that any possible infringement would occur. (Although then an argument of private use might pertain.)
The art here (whatever one thinks of this New Elvis) is in the remix, not the permanent copy. These remixes could be traded as YouTube "scripts" - a form of extreme data compression - preserving the freedom of expression. Live performances could be organized using video projectors from laptops.
If YouTube manages to make any money from my idea, I reserve the right to beg for my fair share. But then, maybe I should remix this message as a script that samples other messages.
If a painter sells a work for a million dollars, does the paint manufacturer seek out an "equitable share"? Does the canvas producer say that the painter clearly built upon his product and without which the finished work could not have been done?
Clearly the artist could not work without the materials of his medium and the paint and canvas and brushes were paid for, but the value of those things are not dependent on the value of the final work.
I do not equate people with paint, but I believe the analogy holds true. The images and sounds that Kutiman uses are beautiful (or not) each in their own right and the final work could not exist without them, but to express value for them as a function of the value of the finished work is nonsensical.
The idea that anyone should be sued for the creation of art is absurd and is only credible because of the desire for profit at any cost.
I hope that each contributor is given recognition in some fashion, but also that each contributor in turn recognizes the creation of an artistic work beyond the scope of any of the individual samples.
What then is fair compensation? Who can really calculate the value of art? Take a picture of me and sell it for a million, should I get a share? Would I care if it was sold for only a dollar? I did not buy the camera, the film or release the shutter; I took no risk, should I still be entitled to the reward?
If I cut pictures out of a magazine and create a collage, should the magazine publisher feel entitled to sue me? The photographers? The newsstand where I bought the magazine? If my child does this for a school assignment should I fear litigation? Should you?
I thought if one is using 10secs (I'm unsure if there is a real number or duration) of any video, song, or literature it is not 'reproducing' or distributing IP or copyright, but Fair Use, and therefore not against a civil or criminal law.
Fair Use is about HOW a copyrighted work is used, not simply HOW MUCH of it is used.
If the source material is readily identifiable, and it is not clearly apparent that the re-user is engaging in a protected action like academic study, critical review, or parody, then the odds are pretty good that in the eyes of the law it will be considered a derivative work, and a copyright violation if not properly licensed.
Adding the video aspect of this work actually makes it MORE likely that the source material will be identifiable. You probably wouldn't be able to tell from 2-second audio-only snippet that a drum pattern was originally performed by Bernard Purdie, but when the audio is accompanied by the video footage of him actually playing it in one of his instructional videos, it gets a lot more identifiable.
Hey! These guys are pissing me off. Since when is it okay to take a bunch of other people's music and make it into your own?
How would these mashup "artists" like it if I took a bunch of their mashups and mashed it up into a "Double Mashup"?
Oh, what a monster mash of "art" that would be.
"I don't have to think. I only have to do it. The results are always perfect, but that's old news." - Meat Puppets
the band EBN was doing this back in the early 90's. the packaging actually came with a floppy and some videos on the cd.
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.
There's another 3:36 of my life I'll never get back...
'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?"
So after watching the Disney mashup on copyright laws posted a while back, my answer to this question is: You can't sue. They used clips of video and not the entire production. (and it could be for educational purposes)
Entertaining in a cutesy, clever-yet-amateur sort of way? Yes. "The freaking future of entertainment"? Hardly.
Just plain annoying really... better get the ramen.
And what do we do if we're not on the drugs necessary to think this is any good at all?
Oh wait, I think I'm doing it right now...
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
This text
"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."
is actually more amusing than the underlying article.
There's nothing new or illegal about this.
This is what subsampling law is explicitly for; the law even goes as far as to say how long each clip can be and still be legal (and he's way, way in the clear.) Intellectual property law explicitly allows things like this in the United States as long as they're within guidelines, and this is well within guidelines. This is how the TV news and rappers get through their day.
As far as new, bands like White Noise, James Tenney and The Beatles were doing this in the early 1960s; your choice of "The New Elvis" is particularly apropos, as this was determined legal in 1961 regarding James Tenney's Collage #1 ("Blue Suede"), made out of Elvis samples (though some would argue that there are earlier examples.)
This is what my old Elvis looked like.
But the video is freaking epic, that much is true.
StoneCypher is Full of BS
That was the coolest video I have ever seen on YouTube. I've already watched it 5 times.
Brilliant - made my day.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
More people need to speak to their lawyers before using the "Fair Use" defense. I've been in education for about 10 years now and it's rarely clear what is and is not legal to use under the "Fair Use" exemption for education. But keep interpreting it how you want--you'll need a good lawyer if anybody ever wants sue you.
So someone gets creative as a video jockey and this is "so amazing," and now it's "so illegal?" There are artists that are doing this live... Not to mention that before the digital technology caught up with the trends, artists were getting famous doing this with vinyl records and calling themselves DJs.
DJ Qbert and DJ Shadow come to mind as obvious examples of talented "mashup" artists.
This story has to have hit some kind of record for "issue worth discussing ruined with hipster hyperbole."
A post from not too long ago about how copyright sucks: http://slashdot.org/yro/03/02/14/1914236.shtml?tid=155
I don't have to read the article (sorry, "writeup"). I already know: the Death of Western Culture is being announced in willfully bad and ugly grammar. And "mashup" itself should be in the running for "Most Unfortunate Neologism of the Decade".
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
Adding the video aspect of this work actually makes it MORE likely that the source material will be identifiable. You probably wouldn't be able to tell from 2-second audio-only snippet that a drum pattern was originally performed by Bernard Purdie, but when the audio is accompanied by the video footage of him actually playing it in one of his instructional videos, it gets a lot more identifiable.
That makes crystal clear sense in my mind, explained as such.
Thanks a lot! Now I have the bass line from Ice Ice Baby going through my head!
Pay back:
Rob Van Winkle would like to apologize to you.
You can't take the sky from me...
I got all kinds of parse errors when I tried reading this.
I'm using the GNU ISO-compatible English parser, here's the output I got:
"writeup of a mashup"
Warning: similar-sounding words are too close together
"mashup"
Warning: buzzword
"some random youtube mashup video that you maybe have seen before called the Mother of all Funk Chords"
Semantic error: How is a video a mashup?
Semantic error: What the hell is a Funk Chord??
"'if your reaction to this crate of magic is"
Semantic warning: What am I reacting to?
""Holy crap, clearly, this is the freaking future of entertainment,""
WHAT?? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT.
AND WHAT THE SHIT IS A FUCK CHORD?
"it's probably time to put some ramen on your Visa and start making stuff up for your LinkedIn page."
Warning: Did you mean Vista?
Semantic warning: Who's LinkedIn?
"Because, this is what your new Elvis looks like.'"
Warning: Possibly failed metaphor.
Derived meaning: "Here's the new guy who was popular a few decades ago who made music you don't care about."
Well, if Mr. Fuck Chord was popular a few decades ago, I don't really care.
Video sampling was popularized by Coldcut who even produced their own software, VJamm, for this sort of stuff. VJamm was likely what was used to put together Mother of All Funk Chords. For more of this, Coldcut's video of Timber is a classic produced with VJamm.
The one link in the summary isn't the only thing this guys did. This isn't a fluke, this is a true artistic talent. These mashup artists are getting better and better. Listen to the whole set then you'll be in a better position to appreciate and critique. I realize there will be those that do not like it, but if you have a shred of appreciation for music you'll have to recognize the talent. BTW track 8 is the guy explaining the project.
Track 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprMEs-zfQA
Track 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAvS0pc9NIw
Track 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsBfj6khrG4
Track 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JffZFRM3X6M
Track 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXulsZpu72E
Track 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i88CKr6Shn4
Track 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vch-Z9ccHTk
Track 8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kz0gYbqOZXQ
"It's because they're stupid, that's why. That's why everybody does everything." -Homer Simpson
No, on second thought, don't.
How is this illegal? If it was a copy of an original piece yes. What it seems to be though is that the original piece has been morphed and manipulated into something new and enticing. Yes it did copy parts, but it took them out of context and used them in some new form. This is not copyright infringement in so much as it is fair use.
I like groups like Secret Chiefs three who play middle eastern surf metal. Cookbook blues/rock progressions are way beyond stale.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I think infectious is the key here. IMHO obnoxious is not neccesarily synonymous, e.g. my head is filled with Rubinoos tunes, which have gotten even groovier as the years go by. OTOH, I do like to sing "the song that never ends", if I think it'll ruin someone's day.
The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
Someone else who wasn't dazzled by some kid throwing a bunch of clips together. With modern editing software, this isn't the amazing feat everyone on this board is making it out to be.
You said: There is no question of copyright violation because it is clearly a derivative work.
The owner of the original work has the exclusive right to make derivative works.
Anyone else has to ask for (and receive) permission before making any derivative work.
I agree with your fuck the suits and copyright law BTW.
OTOH there is a lot of got music that doesn't require samples from Andrew Bird to Abigail Washington to Secret Chiefs 3 there are many people still making original compositions. No they won't get major label deals and don't need them in a era of the "long tail" cheap easy recording and a million niche markets.
Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
I thought you'd go with "crap" but you didn't. You went with "government music" - of which, I have never heard Sam Kinison mention. WTF?
Lasse Gjertsen has done this sort of thing, only he put together all his clips with a camcorder so he has no IP issues.
Hyperactive -- a sort of human drum solo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9698TqtY4A
Amateur -- actual instruments
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzqumbhfxRo
Jeg går en Tur -- "self-portrait"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ncOAJpr3n0
Lasse Gjertsen's "Hyperactive" was a huge viral hit in 2005, and a number of people have imitated it. The ones I have seen pretty much just copied it exactly, not even inventing a new rhythm. Here's a cute one. It says "parody" but it's really more of a straight copy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xhqnt0EvY8
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
I've never understood what is so novel and interesting about someone taking bits of other people's music and making something of their "own" out of it.
Isn't it just another kind of kindergarten style collage that isn't really original? This is like an author constructing a novel out of pieces of other works, there's nothing new or innovative about it.
What happens when we run out of original material to "mashup"? Will we then get mashups of mashups? It is a terribly proletarian "art" if you can even call it that. If you have that kind of talent and ambition, why not create truly original music?
This video _IS_ really good. It's not just a mashup, it has art history blended in with the rest of the materials. If you pay attention (and have any musical culturing at all) you'll realize this is more than a well spliced mashup. You need some perspective.
Just a bunch of random clips. I listened to the first 40 seconds and promptly shut it off.
j/k it was awesome! watch it in HQ: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tprMEs-zfQA&fmt=18
-- Boycott Shell
To me, that kind of stuff is not music.
There may be some sort of creativity involved, and it might possibly be defined as some form of abstract art, but it's definitely not music.
If this is the future of music, I will be really sad.
When rap got popular, I asked myself, can anything ever be worse than that?
I guess now we have the answer.
As I see it, we have had a steady downward progression
Music reached its peak with 19th and 20th century orchestral, jazz and progressive rock.
Then rock got a little simpler and less interesting.
Then punk got a lot simpler and less interesting.
Then rap decided to remove the melody and harmony and just leave the beat and the lyrics.
Now this stuff requires absolutely no musical ability at all, it's just cut and paste.
I wonder how the next generation can get even worse. Maybe we have finally hit the bottom, and the next generation will actually get better.
And yet, I was out of my chair and grooving. (On your lawn).
-FL
Sounds like the future of crap to me.
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
> My assertions are as well backed up as yours.
Not really. There's a URL to the mashup I'm talking about, so people can see for themselves. Where's your link to the video that "typical teenagers do in an evening" so we can all compare?
There's nothing to see here... This kind of audio/video cutup is old as hell and it surprises me how people still find it novel :) three examples come to mind now:
coldcut & hexstatic - timber from 1998 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8-QDCKdVO4
hexstatic - telemetron from 2003 http://vodpod.com/watch/174667-video-hexstatic-telemetron-3d-hexstatic-telemetron-dailymotion-share-your-videos
dj shadow - midnight in a perfect world from 2002 http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2s3k_dj-shadow-midnight-in-a-perfect-wor_music
All of these use more than just samples as opposed to the mother of all funk chords but the principle is still the same.
protons, neutrons and electrons mashup to form atoms. atoms mashup to form molecules. molecules mashup to form biomolecules. biomolecules mashup to form cells. cells mashup to form plants and animals. the point? everything is a building block for something new. when pieces of old stuff interact in a new way to form new stuff, that is called emergence, not copyright infringement. this phenomenon is inevitable, and the more building blocks that exist, the more the mashup effect will be amplified. like it or not, us and everything we do/say/think is simply a mashup of a mashup of a mashup of a mashup.....
Folks like Ray Charles, Art Tatum, and Blind Willie Johnson managed to create and perform amazing music while completely blind! So it turns out that the darkness of the room really has little to do with how good the music sounds.
> 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.
Natalie Grant - Held
Mark Schultz - He's My Son
Bluetree - God of This City (Read up on the back story to this song.)
I guess you can still say there aren't a lot of those songs, but most Christians don't spend their lives in that state, either.
Besides, most people don't listen to Christian music because it's musically brilliant. They listen because they can relate.
People complaining that this isn't music or that people can't groove to this are out of touch with what's been going on in music for the past couple decades. Even just looking at the pure mashup scene, there's a thriving dance culture there that goes to clubs to hear DJs blend pop songs together, and some of the DJs are remarkable performance artists. Check out the Evolution Control Committee's "wheel of mashups" shows for a taste - it may not be your thing but there's no doubt that people have fun with it and love the musical experience. It's a bit on the cheesy side perhaps and you may not think of it as original but the fact is that people love to groove to it and they give props to the DJs as performers. And as far as the originality aspect goes, I don't see how it's all that different than combining well-known blues or rock riffs on your guitar to create new tunes.
As far as I'm concerned, there is music I like and music I don't care for but I'm not going to get all high and mighty about how the stuff I don't care for isn't "music." It's just not a discussion worth having.
OK, I listened and watched, and it started out great, but then he added too much shit to it, so it was very aurally blurry. No good at all in fact.
The guy obviously has talent, like a great chef, but he hasn't learned that "less is more". The chef continues to put things into his dish, but in the end it tastes like crap because everything is competing with everything else.
The 4-way thing had huge potential, but he was mistakenly thinking that "if some is good, more is better".
How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
It will be worth watching what happens to the documentary RIP: a Remix Manifesto as it pushes the mashup boundaries itself while reporting on the whole mashup phenomenon.
Fortunately it's backed by the National Film Board of Canada and so they aren't completely without some official backing.
If you're curious about mashup culture, or in the legal maneuvering behind it all, or in fact about copyright's entire future, it's worth checking this great film out.
Damn those pesky terrorists
I just love this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZLjJy0abf8
I don't know about the funkiness but the author has done an impressive effort composing actual music from disparate videos.
Nice editting too tho some of the vignettes are a little creepy.
As for illegal: that would be sad as the finished article is substantially different from the original pieces. It would be very harsh and closed minded judge that sided with the IP holders.
Am I the only one here who thinks the interesting thing about Kutiman's work is NOT that it's a mashup, but that it's an incredibly complex mashup of stuff by a LOT of *ordinary people*, many of whom are pretty much unknown? That's the statement I think Kutiman makes, and the one that matters to me here: "I can do really fabulous things without once touching your big-name stars."
I was laughing my ass off as soon as I read the Linked In part.
Mind blowing talent, no matter what your musical taste. Fact is you didn't create it. He did.
Respect, have it.
This definitely reminded me of Girl Talk. Love that music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girl_Talk_(musician)
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I just tried to access 43 folders. What happened?
This isn't groundbreaking. Cold Cut did very similar mashup videos in the late 90s and early 2000s. I think the CD actually had software on it that allowed you to do these mashups yourself on a Mac.
They were smart enough not to use IP in the videos so they didn't get sued. Or may they did, I dunno. This video is pretty badass though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLu7p9bTJ84
Few Idol contestants do well after the show, win or lose. Kelly, Daughtry and the country girl are the only 3 with noteworthy careers. Maybe 3 others beyond that have mediocre careers. The rest struggle to claim any attention they can.
Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
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.