![Burst Labs [Logo]](/wp-content/themes/burstlabs/img/logo.png){kind=logo}
Girl Talk: Illegal Art vs. Immoral Commerce?
If you're new here, you might wanna check our FAQ. The surefire way to stay up to date is to subscribe to our RSS feed, or get the latest updates from the Lab in your Email. Thanks for visiting Burst Labs!
So, mash-up wunderkind Girl Talk released his highly anticipated follow-up to “Night Ripper” today. The album, “Feed The Animals” is available from the Illegal Art website as a “pay-what-you-wish” download.
First off, the album. Girl Talk is the undisputed world champion of the schizophrenic, yet somehow cohesive, mash-up. “Feed The Animals” is, by any standard, more comprehensive, more varied, and more visceral that “Night Ripper.” The samples fly by with such effortless fluidity, that just as you think “Hey, I love that song!” he has moved on to 3 other songs you love. The result is a masterful, hugely satisfying piece of work.
Now, with that out of the way, I need to separate the music lover in me from the music creator, the one who makes a living through licensed music…
Grapefruit Balls
No one would deny that Girl Talk has got balls the size of grapefruits for suggesting that you should pay HIM for constructing an album completely from unlicensed samples. As an example, I did a quick, and by no means comprehensive, list of the artists sampled in the first 3 tracks (though I’m sure that by the time this is posted, a comprehensive list will be available on Wikipedia).
Play Your Part (pt. 1):
Spencer Davis Group
Pete Townshend
DJ Unk
Twisted Sister
Temple of the Dog
TI
Sinead O’Conner
Jay-Z
DJ VortexShut The Club Down:
Avril LaVigne
Dolla
Butthole Surfers
Rod Stewart
Ahmad
Cool KidsStill Here:
Procul Harem
Youngbloodz
Blackstreet
Kanye West
The Band
Cassidy
Ace of Base
Fergie
Kenny Loggins
Salt ‘N Pepa
Beastie Boys
Cat Stevens
Impressive? Absolutely.
Illegal and insulting? Well, yeah, that too.
Opting To Pay $0.00
Knowing, to a certain extent, what I was going to get, I chose to pay nothing, and was greeted with this screen:
To its credit, there is, to my mind, no judgement here, just an attempt to gather information. That said, I’m going to go over the choices, and the reasons for my choice.
I may donate later
Well, yes, but not by buying an album. When Girl Talk comes to town, I will be front and center, all sweaty and such.I can’t afford to pay
If I couldn’t afford a dollar, I would hope that I would be working instead of obsessing over a blog post.I don’t really like Girl Talk
OK, this one made me laugh.I don’t believe in paying for music
If you’ve read any of my posts, you’ll know this is not the case.I have already purchased this album
Um…. no.I don’t value music made from sampling
Absolutely not the case. There is value in all music. Which is exactly my point. By not using licensed samples, Girl Talk is devaluing the very music he thrives on.I am part of the press, radio, or music industry
Well, yeah, kinda, but that doesn’t entitle me to anything.Other reasons
I would have preferred a box here that allowed my to explain my “other reasons”. It would have gone something like this:
Like I’ve said, brilliant album, talented artist, important work of art, terribly indecent piece of commerce. I wish him best and hope he finds a way to make more music, which I will, no doubt, listen to and enjoy. However, I refuse to be complicit in a musical black market. [ms]
Kia says:
6/19/2008 -I think this argument would hold more water if you were talking about the release of Night Ripper, which had a fixed price. By offering the album in a “pay what you want” format, Girl Talk is saying “hey guys, wanna give me some bucks? no? okay then, party on.” Also, unlike Radiohead (I think) paying nothing gets you the same quality (320kbps) as paying (correct me if I’m wrong).
As a person who is the polar opposite of creative, I can’t empathize with the idea of him thieving someone else’s “hard work/blood, sweat, tears, etc.” I do understand it’s a gray area. But I also really like it, and think that he’s, in a way, giving a lot of these artists free-ish publicity.
I also think in the grand scheme of things, Girl Talk is too small time to matter. It seems like a big deal to us (I had to stop listening this morning because I was getting too pumped, totally inappropriate for work) but people “in the know” with music are a small portion of the consumer market, right?
Max says:
6/20/2008 -Curious what this could be, I decided to type in 12$ to get a FLAC release.
Two menues further you will realise you can download it anyway, donating or not.
Somehow I understand why you are that upset… but I think it’s far not that big deal, isn’t it? The p2p/torrent community is way bigger shit, this dude has worked for the release.
D'oh says:
6/20/2008 -I tried to pay $5 but the system they used for credit card payment (in the U.S.) said that my information was invalid. I double checkd the info and tried to pay twice, but the system they chose to implement for payment was not working.
So I just downloaded the album and shrugged my shoulders.
If I find myself really digging the tracks, I may go back later and try again. Maybe their system was down right then.
Matt says:
6/20/2008 -Max-
Yeah, many people have commented on the ability to “pledge” to pay a certain amount, then just download it for free anyway.
I guess the difference, in my mind, between this and the P2P thing is that P2P is consumers cheating the artist, while “Feed The Animals” is an artist attempting to cheat other artists.
It just seems crudely incestual. I understand the argument that he’s not requiring you to pay for the album, but it just seems in poor taste, in this catastrophic music industry climate, for him to keep any money he makes at the expense of other artists.
Max says:
6/20/2008 -Is it really that catastrophic? I think the real parasites in your business is the media - hyping just a small part of already big artists, forcing all the others to get through the bottleneck. I don’t think this guy deserves this negative attention.
And the climate is another thing - climate is big parts what you interpret into your industry. I’m working in the creative sector in germany and the business is kind of hard, on the client side and the competition, having students dumping your prices all the time. But why worry? You still follow your passion, don’t you?
Matt says:
6/20/2008 -Max-
I’m not trying to degrade him as an artist or pile on negative attention. I love the guy’s work, I was just making a statement of opinion on the way he chooses to do business. If he had chosen to give the album away for free, I would take zero moral issue with it.
I understand “following your passion”, but that’s not really an excuse is it? Could I just make a mash-up of tracks from FirstCom, WestOne, and VideoHelper, and then license it and collect the royalties, all the while avoiding legal trouble by saying “But I was just following my passion”?
Again, not denigrating the artist’s work at all, just the way he’s choosing to try and profit off of it.
Max says:
6/20/2008 -I realised that, just wanted to state that I don’t think this pay if you want thing is worth the attention. But I can understand you and somehow you are right, of course there is no excuse. The passion thing just helps me to still love my work although I have people in my business making my daily earning harder than it could be and was not intended to excuse any illegal actions =). So anyway, I kind of like the guys work ;-)
James says:
7/8/2008 -I think what is happening is perfectly fine. He is not reselling existing music, he has created something new and different. You can’t tell me you get the same effect listening to the songs he used alone.
He should have to pay for the songs, but the way he uses them is up to him, he paid for them. If I buy ingredients and then compile them into a gourmet meal for a restaurant should the supermarket get a cut of the restaurant’s profits? The original songs were just ingredients for his larger work of art.