Blog #8

I found Rojas point of view very interesting in this article. I thought he made a lot of good points like "it almost seems unnatural not to quote, reference, or sample the world around us" (pg.2). I do agree that "the results might be confusing but it'll probably be a lot more fun and worth listening to than a world where only those with the financial resources to pay licensing fees...get to make songs with sampling". While I agree with this I also understand why artists would not want other people using or changing up their art. But I think if they are being compensated in one way or another then anyone should be able to have the same resources. Like Rojas said, not everyone has the financial resources to do so. Something I found very surprising was when Rojas pointed out "what is surprising are the names of some of the artists who turned them down: the Beastie Boys, Beck, Missy Elliot, Chemical Brothers and M/A/R/R/S-- artists who own careers are based on sampling and who in some cases have been sued in the past for their own unauthorized sampling" (pg.1).I had hoped that artists who had gained their fame by sampling would support new artists by allowing them to use their music ans sample to hopefully become an artist like them. It sad that they will not support them. I found this mashup on youtube. Its a mashup of Britney Spears and Gwen Stefani called "Tick-Toxic". I really liked it because the two songs go together perfectly I think. It's hard to believe it's not a real song! Even the music video makes it look like a real song they did together and produced a video. Like Rojas said, "Most artists and their labels have become reluctant to allow any sampling of their work unless they are sure the new work will sell enough copies to generate large royalty checks" (pg.1). I think this song would actually make some money and people would buy it and enjoy it. But once again I don't understand why it all has to be about money!!! Britney and Gwen already have a ton! Why not let some people sample their songs for free???



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRHfd9Yto0A

Blog #7

After reading this article I do some what agree that copyright is "outdated". However, I do think it is important to have. If I was an artist I can understand being upset if someone was taking my art and using in their own different way. However I do agree with McLeod that "with mashups one of the underlying motivations of bedroom computer composers is to undermine, disrupt, and displace the arbitrary hierarchies of taste that rule pop music". I think she makes a good point with this. Even though people may be using music that is not there's in mashups, I think that it is very artistic and I like that they are creating new music and being very creative with it. So, I may not totally not agree that copyright is outdated, I do think it serves a good purpose but I think it limits what other people can do artistically. I think remixes and mashups are great forms of artistic expression and I understand why fans get so upset with copyright laws. But, with the internet you can do almost anything these days! It makes me wonder why artists don't let everyone have their music for free. I understand they need to sell albums to make money but it would also benefit them to allow everyone to download it for free and at least they are getting their name out there and people are listening to their stuff. I found this remix of Britney Spears' song "Womanizer". I chose this remix because it doesn't really sound anything like the original song in the beginning. After I listened to it for awhile I could begin to hear the original song. I wish they would have changed up more than just the beat. I wish Britneys voice and lyrics were mashuped more.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNW0sdJo-1s