The Grey Album

[KenElevenShadows]

Probably old news to you by now...but in case it isn't...

 

DJ/producer Danger Mouse married vocals from Jay-Z's recent The Black Album with beats made from the Beatles' classic The White Album to create The Grey Album. The "mash-up" CD is one of several bootlegs created using vocals from Jay-Z's supposedly final LP (see "Remixers Turn Jay-Z's Black Album Grey, White and Brown").

 

Some MP3 clips

[KenElevenShadows]

http://mymarkup.net/blog/archives/003547.html

[phaeton]

just curious..

 

when they do a "mash-up", do they make any effort to digitally sync the vox with the beats with the other instruments?

 

I know that if you looped things forever, you'd eventually get patterns, but i think the human mind/ear would need some "immediate gratification" or it'd just sound schizophrenic.

 

Just curious.

 

This album might be interesting to check out, i spose

[phaeton]

Oh yeah.. and that engineer guy on American Idol was hilarious.

 

He was cool though, i dug him.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by phaeton:

when they do a "mash-up", do they make any effort to digitally sync the vox with the beats with the other instruments?

Almost always, from what the mashups I've heard.

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by phaeton:

Oh yeah.. and that engineer guy on American Idol was hilarious.

 

He was cool though, i dug him.

Yeah, I liked the guy, too. I mean, not his singing, but just his overall demeanor and his response and everything.

[Steve LeBlanc]

Danger Mouse worked 10-12 hours straight for the first three days of doing this project...he felt inspired and driven to do it by his artistic sensibility. I think it's bogus that the Beatles won't retroactively give him permission to use the work...it's BS.

[Kaz]

Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc:

I think it's bogus that the Beatles won't retroactively give him permission to use the work...it's BS.[/QB]

I don't think it's bogus. Why should they if they don't want to? Especially since it is a piece of rubbish.

 

The only reason this is getting so much attention is because he stole the Beatles music, the most valuable music there is. He could have used his "inspiration" to create his own music, and then he wouldn't have to get The Beatles permission, but that might take more time than 3 hard days nites.

[Steve LeBlanc]

well I just disagree...he wasn't doing this to make money, he did it because he heard it in his head...that is art IMO and shouldn't involve the Beatles permission at all. If he'd planned it out to make money and marketed it as a product that would be different but he didn't...he's just spreading this cool remix he did to ears that would appreciate it. There has to be some kind of distinction made between media artist and rip off artist...this seems like a clear case of someone using a piece of pop-culture to make a statement.

[Matt.Hepworth]

Originally posted by zzzzzzzzz:

The only reason this is getting so much attention is because he stole the Beatles music, the most valuable music there is....

Beatles schmeatles....

 

Anyway, I should like to hear it, but I can understand why they wouldn't give permission.

[Philter]

Personally I don't like the idea of a stranger cutting up my shit and putting someone else's rap on top of it. What's wrong with wanting to have some control over your own work? I don't know why the Beatles would like it either, it's not like they need the publicity.

 

It's like some jackass tagging the Sistine Chapel.

 

I don't mean to knock on rap; it's the lack of respect for how other people want their own work treated. The guy might love the Beatles and everything, but you have to respect their wishes for their own songs.

[Kaz]

Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc:

this seems like a clear case of someone using a piece of pop-culture to make a statement.[/QB]

I have nothing against the guy, and I'm sure he's not in it for money, though, with the attention he's getting, I wouldn't be surprised if money comes his way. But, if The Beatles were "cool" about it, that would open the door for all kinds of losers using their music.

 

And, in my opinion, the whole idea of barfing all over 2 bars of someone elses work is extremely tired.

 

This will be forgotten in about 3 seconds anyway, Janet's boob will last longer, but people will still be listening to The Shmeatles original White Album a hundred years from now.

 

Anyway, I'm going to go mash-up Vanilla Ice and Bob Dylan, see if that gets anywhere.

 

Btw, what is the statement, exactly?

[shniggens]

Originally posted by zzzzzzzzz:

 

Btw, what is the statement, exactly?

Their blatant disregard for the integrity of good music.

[aliengroover]

I think I'd rather have Danger Mouse (or even Mighty Mouse) put one of the better (and most successful) rappers on top of reinterpreted/mangled/whateverhaveyou versions of my music, than hear many of the ridiculously awful covers I've heard at local pubs, and on major label projects. I haven't heard all of it, but I like what I hear so far, and that further reinforces my stance.

Peace

[Injun Killer]

I listened to it. The backing tracks are okay, kind of like the Beastie Boys' "Paul's Boutique," but not as intricate. Jay-Z's pathetic rapping ruins it. It's crying out for an old-school rapper like Ice-T or Chuck D. Overall, it sounds random and musically illiterate.

[kitaristi0]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

Probably old news to you by now...but in case it isn't...

 

DJ/producer Danger Mouse married vocals from Jay-Z's recent The Black Album with beats made from the Beatles' classic The White Album to create The Grey Album. The "mash-up" CD is one of several bootlegs created using vocals from Jay-Z's supposedly final LP (see "Remixers Turn Jay-Z's Black Album Grey, White and Brown").

 

Some MP3 clips

Molesting the Beatles music, Danger Mouse beware, the boogie men are coming..

[Jeebus]

Originally posted by Stephen LeBlanc:

well I just disagree...he wasn't doing this to make money, he did it because he heard it in his head...that is art IMO and shouldn't involve the Beatles permission at all. If he'd planned it out to make money and marketed it as a product that would be different but he didn't...he's just spreading this cool remix he did to ears that would appreciate it. There has to be some kind of distinction made between media artist and rip off artist...this seems like a clear case of someone using a piece of pop-culture to make a statement.

Right on.

[G. Ratte]

he wasn't doing this to make money, he did it because he heard it in his head... [...] If he'd planned it out to make money and marketed it as a product that would be different but he didn't..

Nah, he pressed up 3000 pieces of vinyl, which is a LOT for this field. It was a play to get a name and career going, which is working out for him so far because he's getting tons of press on this. Wired online did a 2-pager the other day, and SPIN and Rolling Stone have done positive reviews.

 

Unfortunately, it's a dull piece of work, IMO. The style is hackneyed, the choruses from Jay-Z don't fit with the music into any sort of big buildup and release... it's just some lazy looping and a few added kicks & snares.

 

This is the kind of result you get from art-student dilettante efforts that are more concept than execution.

[dahkter]

Heard it a few weeks ago,

I think it's an impressive piece of work, more than a loop with a kick and snare on top of it.

First the concept, then the execution, I think it is complimentary to both (JayZ and the Beatles).

Not amazing musically, but the soul of the project is sweet.

The bottom line is this is a fan's work first, and artists should appreciate that there are people that like their work enough to remix it...

Why not give 49.5% sales/royalties/publishing to the Beatles and Jay Z and give 1% to Danger Mouse?

Would that make everyone happy?

[Steve LeBlanc]

It was a play to get a name and career going, which is working out for him so far because he's getting tons of press on this.

no, he already had a name/reputation...THAT's why it's in the news because people lined up to get a copy of his remix. People have remixed the Beatles before, the only reason this is being shut down is because it's popular. He's not the only person doing remixes but he's really good at it and has built a following like all good artists do. I don't believe he sat down and calulated what would bring him the most fame...he just listened to the two records and felt driven to make something out of it...'cause that's what he does, it's what he's gifted at.

 

If an artist were to take a Coca Cola sign and use it in a collage that demonstrated how the Bush family has profited from Cocaine over the years...does Coca Cola have the right to sue or destroy the exhibit? Has the artistry of the Coca Cola logo been shit on?

 

Ok, probably not a very good analogy but do you see what I'm getting at?

 

The White Album is OLD, it's an established piece of pop-culture/history...I'll offer the radical argument that the Beatles don't hold any rights to it...that they've profited enough already. I would also question how valid the rights of copyright holders in this respect are...I can understand the need to control who profits from a work but that's about as far as I'll go. Preventing someone from using the recording for artistic expression seems bogus to me and I won't be surprised if copyright law is amended some day.

[shniggens]

I think the analogy you were looking for would be -

 

Take the Mona Lisa (painting), and let my 3 year old neice finger paint all over it.

 

Some things are just better off left alone.

[Steve LeBlanc]

Originally posted by shniggens:

I think the analogy you were looking for would be -

 

Take the Mona Lisa (painting), and let my 3 year old neice finger paint all over it.

 

Some things are just better off left alone.

If it were a print...it could be really cool, depending on how artistic your neice is....ah but even random finger painting can be pretty cool.

[Kaz]

Originally posted by dahkter:

 

Why not give 49.5% sales/royalties/publishing to the Beatles and Jay Z and give 1% to Danger Mouse?

Would that make everyone happy?[/QB]

Well you're going to have to ask The Beatles. And if it makes them unhappy, and they say no, is that okay? Or do artists rights mean absolutely nothing?

[dahkter]

Some questions:

 

- If the music you hear in your head is the Beatles mashed up with Jay Z, and you want to lay it down, should the law prevent this without expressed written consent from the artist?

 

- If you want to share this music with the world, should it be prohibited and illegal? What if people like it and there is money to be made from these remixed tracks?

 

- Finally, if you use the music of another to get your sound across, should they be rightly compensated? What if they feel their music is so superior to all other music that no amount of compensation is sufficient?

 

IMO, It seems artists rights has two sides to the coin, the artist being sampled and the artist doing the sampling, some type of mutually beneficial artistic and financial relationship should be feasible....

[Kaz]

Originally posted by dahkter:

Some questions:

 

- If the music you hear in your head is the Beatles mashed up with Jay Z, and you want to lay it down, should the law prevent this without expressed written consent from the artist?

 

- If you want to share this music with the world, should it be prohibited and illegal? What if people like it and there is money to be made from these remixed tracks?

 

- Finally, if you use the music of another to get your sound across, should they be rightly compensated? What if they feel their music is so superior to all other music that no amount of compensation is sufficient?

 

IMO, It seems artists rights has two sides to the coin, the artist being sampled and the artist doing the sampling, some type of mutually beneficial artistic and financial relationship should be feasible....

Question 1: if no one knows about it, then no one probably cares.

 

Question 2: Yes, it's prohibited and illegal, as it should be.

 

Question 3: You've got to get the rights first. If you don't, then they'll sue you, and stop you from distributing. Whether the music is superior or not doesn't make any difference.

 

The artist doing the sampling has the right to get permission before they sample. The Beatles had to follow these rules, too, or pay the price. These rules protect musicians and composers. Just like there are rules that you can't walk into a store and just take everything. If everyone wants to change the rules for musicians, then how about changing them for everyone. I'd like free gas and food and clothes and health care and blowjobs. But that's probably not going to happen. Why does everyone want to ripoff the musician and composer. Why not bring the oil companies down. Go steal some gasoline today!!

[henryrobinett]

zzzzzzzzz - I'm with you 1000%! Artists who create original work have rights that should be protected. Get permission. Get the rights from the artist, if this is how you want to exercise your creative juices. If you want to borrow in order to make a pastiche of previously created "found sound" get permission to do it release it. Whether something can make a lot of money or whether a lot pf people like it is very much beside the point. Don't make an enemy of your fellow artist. He's not the bad guy here.

[dahkter]

ZZZZZZZZZZZ and Henry Robinnett

I follow your logic, but this almost seems like the gun control laws, rifles are legal when used for hunting i.e. a program like Acid is legal if you are using your own loops, or copyright free loops (say from a sample cd).

But the reality, is people use guns to hold up banks, and people use software like acid to make (illegal) remixes of songs that they like.

A lot of this goes back to DJ culture - either a dj would extend a break live with two copies of a record(aka Billy Squier "big beat"), or a dj would create a special dance remix (aka the many remixes of MFSB's "Love is the Message") to make a song more dancefloor friendly.

Both of these techniques were responsible for innovating the way that music was created, listened, danced to and performed over. Both techniques are also illegal based on the laws of today. People get by with the disclaimer "for promotional use only"

Nowadays you have kids who grew up listening to sample based music, and they hear something, want to execute it, share it with their friends, who share it with their friends, etc. etc. etc.

Just don't see how the legal system can stop this type of expression from becoming more and more common as it becomes easier to do this type of thing.

Programs like Acid can be learned in five minutes and this type of technology will be available as standard in most computers (such as garageband) in the next two to three years....

What to do when websites have illegal sampled loops and material from artists and bands? Have lawyers sift through the site to remove sample based music?

I support the moral reasoning that artists permission must be received before someone reinterprets or remixes a song, but not sure how realistic this is based on the current technical climate....

Thanks for the interesting discourse....

[Injun Killer]

Boston Globe:

"The Grey Album" is, if not the best album of this still-new year, then certainly its most creatively captivating.

Rolling Stone:

an ingenious hip-hop record that sounds oddly ahead of its time.

Yeah, and if you believe that I have some invisible clothes to sell you.

[shniggens]

Originally posted by Pricey:

an ingenious hip-hop record that sounds oddly ahead of its time. .

Using music from the 60's.

[KenElevenShadows]

Having finally listened to the whole thing a couple of times via streaming MP3s while doing school work (ugh), I have to say that although I found a few of the edits and use of the songs inventive, I didn't find the album as a whole to be amazing. It's a little clever and certainly interesting in parts, but taken as a whole, didn't captivate me. Possibly adding to this is that I'm not a big Jay-Z fan, which may cloud my judgment slightly. DJ Danger Mouse did get a fair amount of mileage out of using only one album as source material, but I think I would have thought it was more clever if I had only heard one or two songs instead.