JDS-107

[Insanimania]

I still listen to these albums.

I don't care, I love them and still believe Sense is Dead was made by her.

[Steve]

I'm still going to listen to it, but I'd like to know the proper tags for the songs, so I can see the right stats on last.fm and whatnot.

Now that I think about it, JDS-953 was quite an interesting compilation. Making a concept album takes work, but finding the right songs made by other people takes less work, but a lot of music knowledge and some luck.

[Insanimania]

I waited for her to come long enough; I am now drunk.

Who's with me?

[Mac]

I waited for her to come long enough; I am now drunk.

You can't just wait around if you expect her to come. You've got to go hard, and you've got to go deep.

[Bacon]

I'd like to be an idealist and find out the 4 we've found are the only ones she stole, but I really just wish she'd show up and say something, anything about this.

[Insanimania]

She'll show up eventually. She has been offline everything for two days, you know.

Keep in mind, what we have here could be one big misunderstanding. That's what I keep telling myself, anyway. And that if it's not, Sense is Dead was made by her.

That's the only one that matters to me

[Bacon]

I don't get you on the big misunderstanding part... I'm pretty much certain she released these claiming she had made all the tracks, and I mean, with what we've found, I don't see much other conclusion then that she stole these and put them online as her own. What exactly is there for us to be misinterpreting anyways?

[Insanimania]

Collaborative works.

Alcohol works, yes. Delusion is nice.

[Bacon]

It was the most fun when we were still completely ignorant.

[Insanimania]

I had this rattling around in my head for months after I was browsing some of Shirobon's work.

Still felt good, though.

[Mac]

stole

Lol.

Just listen to some actually good music:
http://www.mediafire.com/?t4ldqedlmtm

Whoa!

[Steve]

In art, for the purpose of not having "stole" being mocked by anti-copyright activists (though, I consider myself that to a certain extent), there needs to be a term for "took from the original creator" that sounds less extreme. I know what Bacon is talking about. Jan didn't break into the recording studios for these artists and take anything. Jan claimed to have made things that were made by someone else.

[Mac]

Actually Steve, the term is plagiarized. Copying ideas, methods, or styles, without attribution. This word is also value-laden, though— it conjures up emotions and a distinct idea of badness with it.

Also, copyright and intellectual property is not the same thing. Copyright and patents exist for economic reasons. Intellectual property exists for social reasons. Both have actually been recent inventions, with copyright coming into existence in the late 1600s and early 1700s, and intellectual property much harder to pin down, but around the same time.

[Steve]

Even from a lenient artist's standpoint:
Really Good = Everyone having access to my music.
Really Bad = Everyone having access to music I made, but being called someone else's.

Without at least a little appreciation for the creator, organized art cannot survive. Would you do work so someone else could be paid? You don't seem to like it when the government decides how your money is spent; what if someone decided how all of it was spent, and it wasn't even to help people less fortunate?

Agh. I wrote that before I saw what you added. Ah well, posting anyway.

[Mac]

Even from a lenient artist's standpoint:
Really Good = Everyone having access to my music.
Really Bad = Everyone having access to music I made, but being called someone else's.

Without at least a little appreciation for the creator, organized art cannot survive. Would you do work so someone else could be paid? You don't seem to like it when the government decides how your money is spent; what if someone decided how all of it was spent, and it wasn't even to help people less fortunate?

You define appreciation for the creator just the same as putting a nametag to it. I define appreciation for the creator for how much that information has been copied and spread and shared among all the people of the Earth and all the people through time. The kernel of the soul, the substance of the bulk, and the actual valuable material of all human utterances are just plagiarisms. It doesn't matter who sequenced the human genome, or was the first to say "I Love You", invent the wheel, or write a poem. It matters that it was saved and shared— copied from mind to mind,— faster than it could be killed by the tsunami of white noise that is the timerot of human memory. People forget things. But people won't forget the cure for cancer. You should be ashamed to die if you won't be plagiarized, because in your death nothing of value was lost.

[Steve]

It's more than the tag. At this time, there's pay, the opportunity to be signed to a label, fans, etc. But that's all based on our current music industry state. In the ideal state, being credited for work would let people know who made it. This allows them to listen to more of what they like; in this very example, I thought I was listening to Jan's music. I had to wait for Jan to compile more stuff, when I could have been listening to more of what the actual artists made.

Should the scientist that discovers the cure for cancer not get paid for it? Should people not see him as the person that cured it? Maybe he can do more with his intelligence. Not everyone can cure cancer, which is very apparent right now. Was his role in society of no value?

Maybe if one's talents can't be of value, they shouldn't even bother using them. Maybe Mr. Cancercure should work at McDonald's flipping burgers instead, since he can live off of that.

EDIT: Dude, we should totally be doing this on TFMI.

[Mac]

Here's another one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world ... rmany.html
It's an idea that's been held by the proud few since the beginning of art. Hegeman says "There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity." This is something I have said before, and, writing in The Golden Rules of Filmmaking, Jim Jarmusch says:

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery — celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It’s not where you take things from — it’s where you take them to.'"

He's a filmmaker. Of course he holds this opinion. Film is most clearly out of any of the fine arts, just a carefully copied natural world.

[Lt. Surge]

Wow. That's just...sad. There's something I need to do in iTunes now.

I'm curious as to who is .TZA guy is now...

[Eisen]

Here's another one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/world ... rmany.html
It's an idea that's been held by the proud few since the beginning of art. Hegeman says "There’s no such thing as originality anyway, just authenticity." This is something I have said before, and, writing in The Golden Rules of Filmmaking, Jim Jarmusch says:

"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery — celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: 'It’s not where you take things from — it’s where you take them to.'"

He's a filmmaker. Of course he holds this opinion. Film is most clearly out of any of the fine arts, just a carefully copied natural world.

See, it's really easy to say "originality doesn't exist" when you actually don't think about the literal meaning of it. "Originality" is literally defined as "virtue of introducing new ideas" in one of its definitions. Basically, you're the first to do a certain thing a certain way using your own brain's capacity to invent. Were there not the first people who built a skyscraper, or draw a picture? Were there not people to propose theories, revolutionizing the way other people view their world? The only way you can deny that these events all are not "original" is by stating that because it is able to exist, it has already been created in a sense, or that due to fate, every possible combination of artistic, scientific, social, philosophical revelations or modifications can and WILL happen.

This idea is flawed, however and is similar to the "time doesn't exist" argument. "Time" has always existed, but was not recognized until it was put into comprehendable language of some form (this even includes any animal that may have been able to comprehend time prior to humans [also, language is not restricted to tongue in this case... Personal thought processes of ancients, etc]). "Originality" has always existed, but it was not recognized until further on when humans developed negative emotions such as hate, jealousy, envy, etc. If an ancient human were to "copy" another ancient's cave painting, the "original" human would become jealous if perhaps the ancient that "copied" the original painting and got credit, recognition, acceptance, as well as being called something he was not (original) for something that was as simple as looking at the original. The case is the same here. It is a lie to call someone original that did nothing but use the abilities of someone else's mind and not their own for their own benefit. It's like trying to take the easy route by not using your OWN CREATIVE BRAIN, and instead dumbing yourself down by not doing so; taking someone else's genious (especially intentionally [Damn, I forgot to mention the "intentional" part in all of this, but whatever; it's too late]).

That is why you and your "nothing is original" argument are wrong, sir.

[NoResults]

I know this is old, but I registered to post this for whatever reason.





Was mop creating chiptune versions of other songs or just outright lifting tracks from other artists?