18 posts tagged “remix”
You may be surprised to hear my take on this, but I know a little about Liberace and way more than I want to about Ted Haggard. After all, I'm a classically trained pianist, as was Liberace.
All of the sudden I think there may be something to all this channeling nonsense! [Cue spooky Liberace piano music, lots of reverb, and ghostly holograph of Liberace piano playing itself]. Oh did I leave that stage cue in there? I can be such a klutz sometimes!
Anyway darlings, rumors of my untimely and unglamorous death were highly exaggerated by some well-meaning friends in the Hollywood and Vegas press.
But it all turned out just fine, like always my little lambs! Had them over for a huge weekend party in my new secret lair - and they stayed for the redecorating Dinner on Sunday night! More on that later. I think I need a break from Rococo, and crawl back to the comfort of my beloved Louis XIV.
Mother was reading the paper to me yesterday, and there was this rather disturbing news about some religious man and the goings on in his boudoir. Not that his boudoir is disturbing, I'm sure it's nicely appointed.
Instead, the news was about this poor man and his wife and this nasty little trick trying to take the good Christian down into the gutter!
I won't have it. Liberace's fans won't have it! We must start a fabulous media blitz campaign and let everyone know just how good and Christian Ted Haggard is! We can hire lots of nice young men to do the heavy lifting and go door-to-door. I don't have that many bedrooms though, thank heavens. [cue angelic singing]
Am I gay? GAY, you SAY? Heck no, I'm married to Jesus! And he told me to turn the other cheek even though I want to slap you!
Too bad Ted isn't creative like I am. I think his wife gets at least a Rolls and I suggest a nice Throne as well. Works for me! And you put that nasty little trick to work driving you around and cleaning your gutters. America loves you!
Do you like the diamonds and furs, Ladies? They are nice, don't you think? OF COURSE THEY ARE - JESUS BOUGHT THEM FOR ME
My assistant tells me the
Well, Ted, I'm not sure about all of that. When I cry all the way to the bank, it's because I've given my life to showbiz - and she's a b-word if you take my meaning! I certainly don't make a habit of telling my secrets. Antiques and wardrobe are expensive enough as it is!
[yes I tagged Perez Hilton. You gotta problem widdat? ]
All for the want of a freakin photo of Owen Thomas.
UPDATE (Dec. 2008): I found a copy of the video at the center of this controversy. Judge for yourself! (Original music video using a Billy Joel song and various internet images)
- Video (2:45): Here Comes Another Bubble - The Richter Scales (via "antifreeze")
See Also:
Copyright, fair use and the struggle against online image misappropriation (Law Geek)
Nalts Fans the Flames of Online Civil War (Mashable)
- A flashconf on fair use? (Scripting News)
Stopping a Civil War - A Civil War is Brewing (Furrier.org)
- Illegal Proposition: Abuse and Damage the Source (Letter to Lessig)
This post was written in December of 2007, but one year later, the video is still missing from YouTube; copyright and "fair use" of images remains an issue in spite of Lessig's efforts, and those of Creative Commons.
- Let's assume: high-resolution digital media should be licensed, "paid for" and not pirated.
- For lo-fi photos, lo-fi audio, etc. we could make use and re-use "free", "low flat fee" or "attribution only".
There have been successes making things free or very cheap, letting crowds and time do their magic. Then later you make money in sheer volume, in the tell-all book, the director's cut, the audio re-master, or the glossy magazine cover.
Ms. Hartwell should not have needed to yank all her photos; perhaps she could have replaced them with lo-fi versions, her name inside the image frame, and never made public her hi-res collections.
Most people should still use lo-res public galleries so people know where to go if they do want the "good stuff". Unless, of course, you have all the fancy rich clients you need, and don't care whether new people discover you.
The music industry has missed this exact opportunity as well:
(thanks to Alex Lindsay of PixelCorps.tv for providing a crucial piece long ago)
- Very-lo-fi DRM-free audio tracks everywhere
- Two levels of paid-for service: normal (limited hi-fi), or premium all-you-can-eat
- Playlists then make sense, because playlists should always "just work", and be portable
- Missing track is a thing of the past
- Lo-fi track is what happens when you are cheap or are trying before buying.
- General Solution: Make lo-fi versions of most every photo and audio track available, for free or very low cost, and make it easy for "creatives" to pay to license hi-res media, be it one photo, ten seconds of music, etc.
- Benefit: things don't have to be "taken down", just replaced with lo-fi versions where people haven't paid creators or gotten permission.
This could enable a whole bunch of non-commercial activity, and should the Richter Scales start becoming commercial, they'd license the work or get permission, maybe share royalty. If they used the photo out of laziness, and don't care about the fidelity, I think the argument leans toward their side. Maybe there weren't other recent photos of the "new media d***-bag" (Owen Thomas).
One shouldn't find the hi-res media by searching. One shouldn't find lo-res either if one is going to be sued or taken down after the fact. Perhaps this is Wired's fault? The implication is that Ms. Hartwell's snapshot is worth more than the final music video, which I refute. How can we let a lot of hard work and talent go down the (you) tubes because the rules favor accusers, corporations and lawyers and provide no clarity, no recourse, no compromise, no simple legal guidelines for simple artistic goals.
(I should mention here that Ms. Hartwell was very aware of the large number of views they were getting. She may feel robbed, but others may feel extorted)
I think what angers some is that briefly showing a likeness, photo and subject not unusual or artistic, requires a pre-negotiated license. I do not think it reasonable to make a career of selling licenses to use ordinary (in this case) pictures of people that you* have access to and others don't.
That would put you* half-way toward becoming a paparazzo, wouldn't it? A paparazzo who doesn't have to compete and has the cooperation of the "celebrities." These are big celebrities only in their small insular world.
We aren't talking Princess Di and Dodi, fer cryin' out loud!
you* is a "hypothetical" you.
Jack Boulware wrote this about his piece on his blog:
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I wrote down everything I saw or heard in the media, and fashioned a sort of poem. A month later, I read it at San Francisco’s Edinburgh Castle pub, and then recorded an audio version for Salon.com. It’s now been published as part of the Public House anthology.
I liked the essay quite a bit, and later I was making recordings of piano noise and effects, so it was an obvious choice. The audio fidelity here isn't great partly due to limits imposed by Vox. Now for our feature presentation:
Can we give poor Mr. Barber and his Adagio for Strings a breather as well?
Dubbed "the explainer" by Wired magazine, Michael Wesch is a cultural anthropologist exploring the impact of new media on human interaction (and the impact of human interaction on new media). After two years studying the impact of writing on a remote indigenous culture in the rain forest of Papua New Guinea, he has turned his attention to the effects of social media and digital technology on global society. His videos on technology, education, and information have been viewed by millions, translated in over ten languages, and are frequently featured at international film festivals and major academic conferences. Wesch has won several major awards for his work, including a Wired Magazine Rave Award and the John Culkin Award for Outstanding Praxis in Media Ecology. He is also a multiple award-winning teacher whose teaching projects are frequently featured in the Chronicle of Higher Education and other major media outlets worldwide. Wesch is currently serving on the Editorial Board of Advisors for Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Dr. Wesch inspires hope in me, hope that the next generation(s) will take control of the messages and media that shape our attitudes and policies.
Here are three of his more famous videos:
Lastly, an in-depth presentation given at the Library of Congress, explaining YouTube, and the Numa Numa phenomenon. June 23, 2008, 55 minutes.
In celebration of the Supreme Court of California's recent ruling.
Assume for the sake of this post that ART means "audio reversed in time", i.e. any audio clip played (and saved) backward. This is an invertibly lossless transform.
Consider this mix, track times approximate:
00:00 -00.00 ART version of: "Barber - Adagio for Strings - Bernstein and L.A. Philharmonic "
02:00 -00.00 "William Orbit - Barber Adagio for Strings Techno Remix"
This mix goes from strangely familiar mourning straight to techno, and in between a short eight bars where you get the original theme. Were it not an overplayed piece you could insert the original (non-ART version) in the middle and go in and out of techno and/or the ART version.
ART tracks are more appropriately named by using the original name, with all the letters back to front, i.e. "cinomrahlihP .A.L dna nietsnreB - sgnirtS rof oigadA - rebraB".
Note that the reversed name is unique for all uniquely named tracks, and the capitalization is a hard-to-miss clue. Note also lack of misrepresentation and improper taking of credit where none is due. Also, no need to define a new abbreviation for this transform, which can be very confusing:
Another favorite example of this technique is the mix:
00:00 -00:00 "nialecroP - yboM"
00:00 -00:00 "Moby - Porcelain"
This is a pure "audio-palindrome" if you will; the ART version is undeniably musical and listenable. Key points: start with the ART version of a very familiar ART-friendly track, followed by the original track.
The question of applicability of Copyright law to ART-transformed tracks is an open one. It is quite complex, and assuming copyright did apply automatically, what of an ART-transformed sample? It seems unfair to think that ART-transformed tracks would be automatically limited, as they are NOT the same as the original at all. There is also a good bit of skill in knowing beforehand what tracks will sound like reversed, but of course this is a type of "recombination" art form, much as collage and remixing are.
A term I coined for unreversed backwards speech (* see below) is "Lynchified" with an abbreviation of single capital "L", but that does not really describe this transform: all [non-live] audio is ART-ible but only spoken or sung words are "Lynchifiable", furthermore "Lynchifying" begins at the time you make a recording, and cannot be applied after the fact since the vocalist must use phoneme-reversed words. And, ART reverses the entire track whereas "Lynchification" is the un-phoneme-reversal of many single words, but preserving the order of the words.
Related tidbits about reversal of glyphs, letters, phonemes, words, speech and audio:
- Phoneme reversal (phoneme-reversed words, or PRW): "it is not" becomes "tih zih tahn"
- Letter-reversal of text (letters reversed in time, or LRT): "it is not" becomes "ton si ti"
- Reversed letters (letter-reversed words, or LRW): "it is not" becomes "ti si ton"
- Word-reversal of text (words reversed in time, or WRT) "it is not" becomes "not is it"
- PRW, WRT, and ART together give you Lynchified speech. (Note: WRT and ART together restore word order)
- Reversed letter glyphs (flip single letters graphically on the X axis, or LRX): "p becomes q becomes p, b becomes d becomes b, z becomes s-like, s becomes z-like"
- "X-mirror" transform is related, allows you to make an "ambulance" sign readable in a rear-view mirror (hint: LRT with LRX)
[* Note: David Lynch invented the technique as far as I'm aware, used very effectively in Twin Peaks]
a cultural appropriation by Richard Walker
Update: May 2008
From the Lessig Blog:Deadline is June 2, 2008TotalRecut has launched a remix contest: "What is Remix Culture?" I'm a judge (as close as I'll ever get to that title, but now twice -- just finished judging the Obama in :30 contest). Cool prizes. Great question. Get busy.
Update: Feb 2008
- Lawrence Lessig has retired from his role as Free Culture advocate, and will be focusing on how money corrupts politics. A moment of silence, please!
- Steal This Film II is a very good shareware film that explain some Intellectual Property issues and history, without requiring you be a lawyer.
- The new book (and blog) "The Pirate's Dilemma" introduces a new name in the Copyfight wars: Matt Mason.
See Unread Book: The Pirate's Dilemma - Jenny Toomey has left the Future of Music Coalition.
- Nine Inch Nails released the source material to a work in the form of Garage Band Tracks. This was done specifically to allow remixing of the work.
- Nine Inch Nails in collaboration with Saul Williams offered a release with alternative payment options
- Radiohead stirred up a big controversy by releasing their last album In Rainbows with alternative payment options, including "zero money" pricing.
Cory Doctorow EFF graduate, Sci Fi writer, copyfighter, technologist, Canadian, CC-er
US Rep Mike Doyle Defends Mixtapes and Mashups on Floor of Congress
by Marshall Kirkpatrick
The Ecstasy of Influence (on radio program "Open Source", Christopher Lydon, PRI) Feb 2007
The "Ecstasy of Influence" with novelist Jonathan Lethem, who asks: without borrowing, stealing, cribbing, remixing, mashing-up, collaging and compiling -- without influences great and small, in other words -- is "creating" even possible?
Open Source » Blog Archive » The Ecstasy of Influence
Click to Listen to the Show (24 MB MP3)
Click to listen to my "Back to School Edit" of the Show (30 MB MP3)
(includes illustrative audio under hosler interview)Jonathan Lethem
- Author, The Ecstasy of Influence (Harpers.org), Motherless Brooklyn, The Fortress of Solitude, and the forthcoming You Don’t Love Me Yet, among many others
Siva Vaidhyanathan
- Associate Professor of Culture and Communication, New York University
Blogger, SIVACRACY.NET
Author, Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How it Threatens CreativityMark Hosler - Founding member, Negativland
Mike Doughty - Solo musician, Former guitarist and lead singer, Soul Coughing
- Extra Credit Reading - You can find Greta’s Mother of All Reading Lists here. She spent all day on it. It will make her very happy if you go check it out.
Update, 2007/02/07 (Christopher Lydon)
Mark Hosler of Negativland was kind enough to send me a few MP3s from their latest album, No Business. I asked him if he’d mind if we posted them on site. His reply: “I don’t give a s**t what you do with them!” Well, this is what we’re doing: No Business Downloading Favorite Things
Urban Slang: Gank: n. to steal or take something that does not belong to you.
An episode of Center for Internet and Society published on February 2, 2007
The Stanford Law & Policy Review and Stanford Law School welcomed Congressman Rick Boucher (D., Va.) to deliver a speech entitled "Congress Must Balance its Copyright Agenda".
Jonathan Coulton's charming "Code Monkey" is a song about a programmer. At the end of 2006, Jonathan and Quick Stop Entertainment held the "Code Monkey Remix Contest" [which provides links to tools to help get you started at remixing]
Here are the winners; I particularly like what Kristen Shirts did with it.
There many code monkey videos and video remixes on YouTube. Click here to search.
Thanks to Amber MacArthur and Leo Laporte for covering this on their podcast Net@Nite, ep14Future of Music Coalition
I've been a supporter and fan of Jenny Toomey's efforts for years now. She and her cohorts are working hard to make a better future for artists.
Lawrence Lessig (his blog)You may have heard of Creative Commons or the Electronic Frontier Foundation, two critical efforts he champions, both conceived "for the good of the people."
He welcomes artistic appropriation of his book "Free Culture," just click the link below...
"The Creative Remix" (October 2004) an hour-long broadcast special from
Here are Track one and Track two
A very enjoyable, lawyer-free, in-depth examination into the nature of creativity and "originality" from antiquity to the present day. Grey Album. Ancient pornographic literary theft. East Coast relics are given new life during an installation. Curmudgeonly antiques dealers are contrasted with young art school graduates. What is this thing? Less than five hundred bucks, the trafficker in dead things mutters.
Related post: Lane Hartwell & The Richter Scales
Related link: Thomas Hawk: More Crappy Censorship From Your Friends at Yahoo!
Dear Mr. Lessig,
Thank you for your reply a long while ago regarding my frustration over wikipedia photos! Now, let me try another tack in light of recent events. Apologies for the length.
Could it be made legal to... expand and merge clear fair use, quotation, transformative use, allowable "under the limit" use with "damaged" use:
- lo-fi audio (unpleasant, noisy, covered by other sound, tinny, bassy)
- lo-fi speech (almost or partly incomprehensible)
- lo-fi image (important detail missing, no color, no color fidelity, small part of image)
- lo-fi text (tiny, unreadable)
- lo-fi video (fuzzy, tiny, misshapen, jerky, lower frame rates)
If the use is clearly not fair use, or not agreed to:
the
less "fair" the use is, the more you have to degrade the thing you are
using, so it is absolutely undeniable that you are using the work
because you must, but not stealing the thing.
In Hartwell v. Richter, let's assume there is only one photo of the subject, and no permission (but at least some sort of access.) Then, you have a painter or illustrator work from the photo, creating a new independent work. That may not always be possible, affordable, practical, scalable.
But, let's assume you are willing to torture the thing you want to use without permission.
Why
can I not take the photo, print it on poor paper, get it wet, step on
it, leave it in the sun, then scan it at poor fidelity, so that I have
an indisputably inferior derivative "copy." Can I not use that,
without permission?
My point here is that I think it would be a huge help if we could say that there is always more abuse, more squashing, more scratches, more dust, more noise, more distance, you can apply until you reach the point where a claim of infringement is so ridiculous as to make even the most aggressive lawyers blush. It becomes "fair use" because it's no longer aesthetically intact.
Take the Richter video into an editor, identify the Hartwell content, apply some censorware to the video, so that you see it strobe, or reverse, visually, so you see the censor marks but also sort of see underneath. Anyway, Ms. Hartwell might welcome a reversal of the take-down, and perhaps they could try to discuss compromise. Perhaps everyone wants to see it now. Perhaps its not as good as all that. But, a single challenge should not mean sudden death and amnesia (take down and forget.)
Maybe people will realize satire and parody have the easy legal argument, and in fact have to be very close to the original to have that protection.
Disney, Warner Bros., now with many decades of paid-for mythology that we'll be paying to see again on the screen or in the park. And, don't use Mickey or Bugs, or they will sue you, but they will use them promiscuously and greedily.
Perhaps social pressure will make people stop enforcing copyright when the real goal is to silence others and maintain a monopoly. A runaway success in remix culture may get clout and cash and permit creation of hi-fi derivative works.
Or, we can do nothing and wait for the corporate singularity (I'm trademarking that right now) to occur. That's when for obvious reasons different conglomerates merge geographically, so that entire states are serviced by one phone company multi-monopoly, one content provider, one retailer, et cetera.
We need to prevent the "owners name their own prices, at the last possible moment" bargaining, and try to force a uniform sane fee for a tortured derivative work, so you can retreat enough to be safe, then go forward. Each case should not be another fight to the finish over claims of infringement that call for death and amnesia. (and never offer reasonable licensing terms)
Their properties are not hated, people hate the way they are used like a bludgeon... And if they could just relinquish some control and see what develops.
Am I living in a fantasy to think this could be possible?
The kind Mr. Lessig responded:
From a practical perspective, it is a great solution. From a legal perspective, it is weaker, since copyright protects a "work" and not any particular copy of it. In some contexts, I agree this would be a great solution.
Coldcut on Google
Coldcut on Wikipedia
Quoting Wikipedia:
Coldcut first came together in the autumn of 1986. Computer programmer Matt Black carried a tape recording that featured the inception of "Say Kids, What Time Is It?", a track he had made for a Capital Radio mix competition, browsed in the Reckless Records store on Berwick Street, in London. Ex-Art teacher Jonathan More, who worked in the store at the time, listened to the mix, suggesting a separate edit be made of the Jungle Book's "King of the Swingers" - Black had mixed this with the break from James Browns "Funky Drummer". Using his contacts from his Meltdown Show on Kiss FM and his club night, in January 1987 this mix was released on a white label and "Say Kids, What Time Is It?" became their first single.
Later that year, spurred on by an enthusiastic rep from Island Records, they released their influential remix of Eric B. & Rakim's "Paid in Full," which made the top 20 and was voted best remix of the year. Featuring a prominent Ofra Haza sample and many other vocal cut ups, it is now regarded as both a hip hop classic and a breakthrough in the remix field. The looped rhythm at the heart of the remix can be seen as an early precursor to the Breakbeats genre (one has merely to speed it up to note the similarity). The tracks "Beats and Pieces" and "That Greedy Beat" were soon to follow on the duo's self-run "Ahead Of Our Time" label (a forced acronym results in "AHOOT", and the duo wittily catalogued one release as "AHOT 14U"). All of these tracks were made by the painstaking assembly of spliced tape edits that would sometimes run "all over the room". The duo showed originality and resourcefulness by sampling Led Zeppelin as well as James Brown.
In 1987 Matt Black joined KissFM with his own mixed based show, the pair eventually joining forces, More and Black produced their own radio show, Coldcut Solid Steel.
Their first major hit as Coldcut was the top 10 hit "Doctorin' The House" in 1988, featuring singer Yazz. In the same year, under the guise "Yazz featuring The Plastic Population", they released "The Only Way Is Up", a cover of a Northern Soul gem which brought the song into the House Music era. The record reached no.1 in the UK charts, and the success of this funded more studio equipment for the duo. Their other most well-known hit single was the UK top 20 hit "People Hold On", released in March the following year. It featured singer Lisa Stansfield, whose band Blue Zone UK had been creating a mild buzz with the single "Jackie", and whose charismatic video presence was getting noticed within the industry. She would go on to have a UK chart number one in her own right later that same year, with "All Around the World". Prior to that major hit, Coldcut and Mark Saunders had produced the single "This Is the Right Time", which appears on her debut album "Affection".
The subsequent 1989 album "What's That Noise", released on Ahead of Our Time and distributed by Big Life records, featured reggae vocalist Junior Reid, the fictional George Jetson (on the single "Stop This Crazy Thing") and Mark E Smith. The United States version was distributed by Tommy Boy Records and featured Tommy Boy artist Queen Latifah rapping over the (previously instrumental) track "Smoke This One". Latifah's rap was decidedly anti-drug, while Coldcut's reggae dub-ish instrumental had tongue-in-cheek connotations of marijuana appreciation by virtue of its title.[citation needed] Its UK follow-up, "Some Like It Cold" released in 1990, also featured a collaboration with Queen Latifah.
In 1991, whilst touring Japan, they conceived and started their second record label, Ninja Tune, which continues to release diverse music by a small army of like-minded artists. In 1997 the duo unveiled their own real-time video manipulation software, VJamm. Coldcut's current live and DJ sets rely on video as much as records, taking the concept of multimedia performance into largely uncharted territory.
Conceptually, Coldcut owes as much to the ideas of beat writer and cut-up theorist William S. Burroughs, 1970s art / industrial group Throbbing Gristle, and the religious writings of J. R. "Bob" Dobbs as they do to Hip Hop originators like Grandmaster Flash or later innovators Double Dee and Steinski.
Recognizing the power inherent in Burroughs' cut-up technique and its presence in hip hop music, Moore and Black have relentlessly pushed the D.I.Y. ethic and an understanding of play as a means of fostering greater interaction with and understanding of the world. The similarities between this ethos and that of hacking need hardly be stated. Ninja Tune uses a corporate facade to communicate via the marketplace itself, an idea first implemented by Throbbing Gristle via their own Industrial Records imprint.
One of the key aspects of the Ninja Tune ethos, Stealth, implies that their following of DJs and listeners are "agents" in a Burroughsian sense, propagating the D.I.Y. ethic of play as an essentially subversive act by replaying and manipulating media under the radar of mainstream culture. In 2003, Black worked with Penny Rimbaud (ex Crass) on Crass Agenda's Savage Utopia project. In 2006, Coldcut released the album Sound Mirrors which has helped build up a massive underground audience thanks to the popularity of the single True Skool. The song itself features an Indian sample from a cult Bollywood era making the track incredibly popular on the bhangra and desi scene and with much of British Asian urban culture.
In 2008, Coldcut remixed ourselves, a #1-hit song by Japanese popstar Ayumi Hamasaki. This mix was included on the album Ayu-mi-x -GOLD-, which gave Coldcut a big increase in worldwide popularity.
Coldcut are the creators of the live VJ/DJ software VJamm, as seen here at the VJamm Allstars Site and at the Internet Archive.