3 ms·

Everything is a remix video series is worth watching in this topic. It covers how every musician from Led Zeppelin to recent artists "remix" existing melodies.

Everything is a remix video series is worth watching in this topic. It covers how every musician from Led Zeppelin to recent artists "remix" existing melodies. Also, how remix is done in other genres (e.g. movies): http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/ http://www.everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/

combatentropy 9y ago
People have accused me of being creative. But I always told myself I just mixed from more sources. For example, your average high-schooler might try to re-do a particular scene from a movie. Meanwhile, I would copy the camerawork from one movie, the comedic tone from another, and the special effect from another. People would tell me, you're so creative, even when the title of the home video clearly reflected its influences (something like "The Umpire Strikes Back"). What I love about the open-source movement is its embrace of letting others take what they want from your work, be it the entire program, just a function, or just a principle (not actually copying a single line verbatim). Maybe this is because you learned early on that it was never "your" work in the first place, but that you too had learned and copied from others. It seems to be that society doesn't understand the creation of art. To most people the artist is a wizard behind closed doors, creating works of genius from nothing. This is why our copyright laws are too strong and too strict. In truth, I think not just some but all artists work how I do: taking something they like, bending it with something else that they like, and adding a pinch of something else they thought was cool. Further differentiation happens in the execution. For example, if you're making a movie, a character you wrote may have been more obviously a rip-off in the script, but now that you have this new actor playing it, it naturally diverges further. Or you try to do a camera move you saw in movie, but your own skill keeps you from executing it perfectly, and it takes on its own character. Differences in the location and lighting further obscure the shot's influence.

combatentropy 9y ago

People have accused me of being creative. But I always told myself I just mixed from more sources. For example, your average high-schooler might try to re-do a particular scene from a movie. Meanwhile, I would copy the camerawork from one movie, the comedic tone from another, and the special effect from another. People would tell me, you're so creative, even when the title of the home video clearly reflected its influences (something like "The Umpire Strikes Back"). What I love about the open-source movement is its embrace of letting others take what they want from your work, be it the entire program, just a function, or just a principle (not actually copying a single line verbatim). Maybe this is because you learned early on that it was never "your" work in the first place, but that you too had learned and copied from others. It seems to be that society doesn't understand the creation of art. To most people the artist is a wizard behind closed doors, creating works of genius from nothing. This is why our copyright laws are too strong and too strict. In truth, I think not just some but all artists work how I do: taking something they like, bending it with something else that they like, and adding a pinch of something else they thought was cool. Further differentiation happens in the execution. For example, if you're making a movie, a character you wrote may have been more obviously a rip-off in the script, but now that you have this new actor playing it, it naturally diverges further. Or you try to do a camera move you saw in movie, but your own skill keeps you from executing it perfectly, and it takes on its own character. Differences in the location and lighting further obscure the shot's influence.