I just learned about them today. They seem to be what results when people take different (and contrasting) songs (or other art, apparently) and put them together to create something new.
Which is how I found out about them today, because several people have apparently put together rap songs with Huey Lewis and the News' "Power of Love."
I heard two great versions today, one on an Adam Curry podcast (Q-Tip vs. Huey Lewis and the News: "The Power Don't Stop (Mr Shakyhands Man)"), and one here (Snoop Dogg vs. Huey Lewis and the News: "Drop It Like It's Huey").
The sad thing is that under US Copyright law, they might not be legal. They strike me as being derivative works. But I've got to believe there's some mechanism under fair use to allow for such innovation. Or if not, there should be. The world would be a poorer place if this kind of artistic innovation were not encouraged. Since the whole point of copyright law is to encourage artistic innovation, it seems that the law should accomodate these kinds of creative melanges that really add something to the cultural dialog.
I don't know, maybe I wouldn't be so enthusiastic about it if I didn't like the mashups. But I thought they were really good, adding something new and exciting to a song I really like ("The Power of Love") but not really taking anything away from it. Sure, it sliced the song up a bit, but it rechanneled its musical energy into a really interesting rhythm. And it's not like I can't go back and listen to the original if I really want to hear it the way it was initially conceived.
Also, I think it's got to be good for both artists involved. As listeners of one genre (eg, the rap) simultaneously listen to the music of another (eg, the Huey Lewis and the News) it's bound to expand the commercial prospects of the respective featured artists through the exposure to the other's audience.
Comments (4)
The second mash up (with emminem) was cool-- I couldn't get the other one to play.
On the other hand, I don't understand why you think that folks should be allowed to use huge chunks of a Hewey Luis performance without compenstating him or getting his permission.
Mark
Posted by Mark | February 25, 2005 3:59 PM
Posted on February 25, 2005 15:59
You know, it would be nice if you could manage to spell his name correctly. It is listed in quite a few places around my site, including, conveniently, this very post...
It also would be nice if you didn't take issue with each and every thing I post about. Especially when I've already substantially addressed your concerns. Case in point:
The goal and purpose of US copyright law is better served by not burdening interpretive artists with high costs or restrictions than by remunerating the upstream artists for something that, but for the interpretive artists being free to create it, would not have existed. The upstream artists lose nothing from the mashup, and may very well gain through the additional exposure and acknowledgement of artistic relevance the mashup provides.
Posted by Cathy | February 25, 2005 4:28 PM
Posted on February 25, 2005 16:28
I loved 'Drop it Like its Huey'. This particular song is an example of why mashups might be good for the artists. 'Drop it Like its Huey' showed Power of Love, for all of its alleged cheesiness, as actually timeless--- good beat, good guitar licks, without which one could go nowhere with a Snoop Dogg song. And that shows HLN music in a new light...it has to be good for an artist to go Beyond the Sterotype...
Posted by rueosat | February 25, 2005 7:16 PM
Posted on February 25, 2005 19:16
Reminds me of a joke I heard long ago:
Copying material from one person is plagarism. Copying material from a bunch of sources is called research.
Which leads me to thinking: When are people required to pay others for using copyrighted material, as opposed to just getting permission? Or is the way you usually get permission is by paying royalties?
Posted by Koichi | February 26, 2005 8:09 AM
Posted on February 26, 2005 08:09