Archive for February, 2009
So I just played “Let’s Go Crazy” at Blip.fm. Why? B/c I could.
Holden was watching “The Backyardigans” and didn’t care. He came over at the end of the song and I, in my fashion, said, “What do you think of the music? Do you like it?”
He said, “No. No more music. This music is yucky.”
Guess what’s been reinstated by YouTube.
Prince bailed on his own at-home party to go and play a $100/head gig full of his own 25-year-old songs and covers:
Pop superstar Prince ditched his post-Oscars bash at his Hollywood Hills home for a show at Hollywood’s Avalon Ballroom.
Fans and famous friends paid $100-a-head to join the “Purple Rain” hitmaker at his Sunday midnight party, which doubled as the launch for his new Web site LotusFlow3r.com.
Prince dedicated his two-hour set to Oscar-winner Penelope Cruz and performed a string of hits and covers from upcoming releases, including The Cars “Let’s Go” and “Crimson and Clover,” a chart-topper for Tommy James and the Shondells.
Announcing, “I’m the DJ tonight,” Prince also played covers of the Beatles’ “Come Together” and the Rolling Stones’ “Honky Tonk Woman” as well as chart classics “Jungle Love” and “Play That Funky Music.” He ended the show with an encore of “I Feel For You” at almost 3:30 a.m.
The comments on the source story are funny. Check ‘em out.
Here’s an interesting video (pops).
It’s about the impact that YouTube-posted videos have on the music industry — it makes obscure songs popular and results in sales! Oh noes! I can tell you that the “History of Dance” video has resulted in some record sales b/c I went over to iTunes after about my fifth listen to buy a copy of “Cotton-Eye Joe” just to get it out of my head. Hawk hates that song. Heh heh. Anyway, I also learned that Weezer (and we are a pro-Weezer house, Hawk especially) is on Universal’s label, which might explain why Holden wasn’t part of the “Pork & Beans” video, which is chock-full of awesome. In fact, I might run over and buy a copy of that album later today. It depends. As much as I try to spurn UMG, I like the music. *shrug*
BTW: The dude who runs the blog featured our video today.
Apparently the Warner Music Has Gone Nuts turn of events in recent weeks is really getting people to sit up and take notice (and scaring/angering a lot of them as well). As I said when I decided to file my lawsuit, this will happen and happen and happen until someone stands up to the record companies and says, “We’ve done nothing wrong.”
That foot is me.
AP wants to sue Shepard Fairey over the pop art Obama “Hope” poster.
The image, Fairey has acknowledged, is based on an Associated Press photograph, taken in April 2006 by Mannie Garcia on assignment for the AP at the National Press Club in Washington.
The AP says it owns the copyright, and wants credit and compensation. Fairey disagrees.
From what I understand, the Fairey poster would be considered a “transformative work.” I don’t know a lot about that term but I think Lawrence Lessig suggested in Remix that he might consider my video a transformative work (which is why I want to learn more about the term). So I can’t say if Fairey’s poster or my video would fall into that category simply b/c I don’t know enough about the concept. I’m also not sure if Fairey’s use of the AP image is considered “fair use.” My non-legal opinion is that it is.
I do know that every single day lately I find some ridiculous example of a copyright holder run amok; it’s usually been Warner Brothers ever since that deal with YouTube fell apart for them. If Fairey hadn’t made money, hadn’t had this poster accepted into the National Gallery, and hadn’t achieved a new level of fame for his art (who knew there was a name behind the Big Brother “”Obey” posters on the electrical boxes?), would AP be pursuing a copyright claim against him?
When can we expect the suit by Campbells against the Warhol estate?
“I don’t think art should be only for the select few,” Warhol believed, “I think it should be for the mass of the American people.” Like other Pop artists, Warhol used images of already proven appeal to huge audiences: comic strips, ads, photographs of rock-music and movie stars, tabloid news shots. In Campbell’s Soup Cans he reproduced an object of mass consumption in the most literal sense. When he first exhibited these canvases—there are thirty-two of them, the number of soup varieties Campbell’s then sold—each one simultaneously hung from the wall, like a painting, and stood on a shelf, like groceries in a store.
Repeating the same image at the same scale, the canvases stress the uniformity and ubiquity of the Campbell’s can. At the same time, they subvert the idea of painting as a medium of invention and originality. Visual repetition of this kind had long been used by advertisers to drum product names into the public consciousness; here, though, it implies not energetic competition but a complacent abundance. Outside an art gallery, the Campbell’s label, which had not changed in over fifty years, was not an attention-grabber but a banality. As Warhol said of Campbell’s soup, “I used to drink it. I used to have the same lunch every day, for twenty years, I guess, the same thing over and over again.”
– from MoMA Highlights, 1999
Andy Warhol also said, “I masturbate to Duran Duran videos.”