Once upon a time, in a galaxy far, far away (""Ready are you? Wh-wh-what know you of ready?"" interjects Yoda backed by a dubstep beat), technology became so advanced that artists could take the creative work of countless others and splice them together in new, trendy ways. These new, flashy packages became the ‘hip' to music's old ‘hop,' spontaneously sparking dance parties using the least likely of characters.
However, how much enjoyment can you glean from a reorganization of sources you've already either exhausted or determined a waste of time?
Like this one time I had a group of friends who entered a drinking contest. Before competition they would practice the drinking games we had learned while having good times in college. They were then required to go through all of them in a nasty competitive environment that would most likely leave some of them with cirrhosis later in life—""blame it on the al-al-al-al-a-al-alcohol."" Even though they all insisted it was essentially the world's greatest party, I couldn't understand why they would want to force themselves to painfully experience what we used to do when we were bored and rowdy.
I mean, isn't part of the reason kids don't like vegetables the fact that parents—whether in media or real life—are always viewed as forcing them down the throats of their children? Then once those kids mature and experience the new foods on their own terms, suddenly mushrooms and onions are the cherry on top of a good egg sandwich. Nah mean?
By the way, that was the plot of ""Beerfest"" I copied to make my point. Isn't it frustrating that I had to put a twist on somebody else's idea to express my own thoughts?
Now imagine some type of radio service that had one style of programming that abused that same principle: taking the work of others, mashing them together to make a soupy mix of melodies and turning the beat up to unventilated-basement-dance-party proportions. Except here, the only payoffs are some dance beats and trivia fodder (Ooh, I know that guitar part but I can't think of the song it's from! Anybody know?)
As far as I can see, there are at least three levels of ""borrowing"" that technology has provided music makers. Other than mash-ups, there is sampling (which within itself varies drastically) and the selling-out of a predecessor's innovations to personal ends. The best recent example of this is ""Fireflies"" by Owl City, which goes beyond knocking off Postal Service, possibly crossing into the realm of intellectual plagiarism.
Obviously, the last type is inexcusable. Sampling can vary based on examples, but ultimately, it gets a nod of approval because ingenuity and personal flair are often added to the mix.
And lastly, I am left wondering how hard it is to glean anything but bouncing booties from mash-ups. They don't have as much fresh, creativity input to be considered sampling, yet they are altering the original songs' integrity to fit the genres broad rule of having strong beats.
Plus, even if the point is to be the most carefree music least likely to stimulate thought while most likely to provoke the busting of some moves (""Don't just stand there, b-b-b... bust a move""), why not go to something genuine like Cut Copy, !!! or Ratatat (""-tat-tat-tat / that's the way it is).
Either way, at the end of the day I find myself wondering why people are still using other people's voices and ideas to express what they could probably fit in one sentence if they were creative and concise (meta moment!).
Convinced mash-ups glean more than just bouncing booties? Explain why to Justin at jstephani@wisc.edu.
