Talk:Mashup (music)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Songs (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

Super Mash Bros[edit]

I think Super Mash Bros. needs its own page.

-JohnnyLurg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.188.155.32 (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pop Will Eat Itself[edit]

CB,

I don't remember the issue date (sometime in late 1984 or the year 1985) of the Melody Maker. It's the issue with Bronski Beat on the cover. That quote has always stuck in my head, even before PWEI existed. If someone else can please substansiate this, I would appreciate it. Two Halves, who is at the job right now...

Hi, Two Halves.
Fair enough if someone can provide a scan, or if Mr Quantick himself feels like weighing in :-), but all the references seem to suggest he was an NME staffer at the time.
Best wishes, chocolateboy 19:55, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

PWEI predates the Eminem work by a decade?[edit]

Speaking of Pop Will Eat Itself, would it be better to refer to their work in 1990 rather than Eminem's as being a seminal influence on 'bastard pop'? They do seem to be doing what this article calls mashups, and such work was released in or around 1989 (album: This Is the Day...This Is the Hour...This Is This!). Somehow I can't help but think that there were widely known, influential examples of 'bastard pop' by 1990, if not before them, but this much I'm sure of: the PWEI work came far earlier and seems to fit the description given in the article (pop song constructed from portions of other pop songs). Their 1990 album Cure for Sanity features a track called "Dance of the Mad Bastards".... Opinions?

Mooncaine (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Double Dee[edit]

I thought Steinski collaborated with Double Dee on those "Lesson" EP's.

 ~phr
Cheers. Fixed! chocolateboy 11:30, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The central european side...[edit]

Besides finding the 'bastard pop' entry both educational end enjoyable, I couldn't help but feeling that the central european angle is missing.

I am mainly speaking of German/Dutch DJ, producer, remixer, etc. Ben Liebrand, and remix services such as DMC, Ultimix, Disconet etc. For more info I suggest to follow the link to www.mixfreaks.org.

This community, active since early 1980's uses a different jargon, were mash-ups are called "Minimixes", and Glitch is reffered to as "Extreme Edits".

thanks, Modium

Hi, Modium.
Well, I mentioned JPL, who namechecks the hell out of Monsieur Liebrand... I've discussed this elsewhere, and the fond reminiscing often ends up embracing sampling and "samplism" generally (hiphop, R'n'B, "pop" &c.), which is fascinating (to me), but ain't Bastard Pop. I guess Liebrand was overlooked because his "edits" are usually authorized rather than illegitimate, but I'm keenly looking forward to checking your link, and would love it if you or someone as knowledgeable as you improved the article.
It would make a refreshing change from the usual stream of vanity spam :-) Be bold!
chocolateboy 02:09, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edits[edit]

GNU and all, I wouldn't dream of editing without your consent...

So, I will include two issues here for you to include in any way you see fit:

- Jargon: 'Edits' (also known as 'Acetates') usually mean the way used by late 70's - early 80's DJ's to extend breaks in 7" singles. Instead of cutting between two copies of the same 7" (while one copy plays the break the other is spun back to the beginning of the break, to be faded in at the right time), the 7" would have been recorded onto a 1/4" tape recorder several times, the breaks would have been cut out of the tape and pasted one next to the other. Very few deejays played the tapes themselves. Most of them printed several vinyl copies at special stores. Thus the term 'White Label' was born - those records would have nothing on them but the shop's serial number and meybe a few notes scribbled by the editor for himself. People do edit nowadays but the technology today lets them produce a full remix. No one is content with just extending breaks. This scene by the way, gave birth to the break-dancing scene, but that's another story.

'Extreme Edits' (also known as 'Shotgun Edits') came by after the appearance of samplers and wave-based synthesizers. The first samplers were very limited in memory, enough for one phrase, so the deejays and producers used it to rep-rep-rep-rep-rep-repeat 1 or 2-beat samples. Those who couldn't afford the high priced samplers, toiled in cutting tapes into countless small pieces and putting them together into pasted tapes that bearly hold. As time went by, those sound snippets grew smaller, were played out of order, and went through all kinds of sound processing effects -- as far as the technology of that time could allow. And glitch was born.

'Minimixes' is the European name for A vs B mashups, and also up to about 10 minutes mix sets.

- Legitimacy You got one thing wrong: A lot Ben Liebrand's and other DJ's (latin rascals for example) remixes were approved by the industry. Later they were hired or commissioned by the industry to remix tracks. But at least at first, those versions were bootlegs given or sold from one DJ to another, and it took a long time for them to be cleared, if ever. The situation was this: The DJ bought the original track, and thus paid for the right to play it. The DJ used to play the track in a certain way: extended breaks, layed over another track, etc. (the industry supported that by releasing DJ versions containing instrumentals and acapellas). The DJ is tired of having to manipulate the track in every set, records the manipulation and creates an acetate for personal use. The audience or other DJ's like version and want to listen to it at home / play it during their sets. The DJ can't sell (or even give away) his version since he doesn't have the copyrights (this starts to sound like GNU-GPL and open code). He can still play it since it is a substitute to the manipulation of the original track. So, in the time before the Internet and GYBO Ben Liebrand and his Fellow DJ's had an Idea: They would extend the 'Personal use' term from one person to a group by forming a club called Disco Mix Club (DMC for short). They would make money from the club membership fees, giving the versions away (along with a nice club magazine) for free, and forbidding the members to pass them along to non-members. Other similar remix-services were formed in the same manner, like 'Hot Tracks' and 'DiscoNet' offering a steady flow of special versions for a monthly fee. Some of them accepted home-made versions from club members and incorporated those in their following issues.

I know all this by word of mouth. You must have noticed that Names, Dates and examples are almost completly missing. I guess some googling of the terms mentioned above might fill in the blanks, but I fear that writing this lengthy artice came on the expense of something else I should return to... I hope someone will find the time for it...

thanks, Modium

Hi, Modium. Thanks for your informative post. It certainly looks like there's a lot of material there. Have you thought of putting it into a separate article?
Oh, and by the way: please do edit mercilessly without my consent. I'd be delighted if you did, and offended if you didn't :-)
chocolateboy 14:50, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

MTV Mash[edit]

Where would you place MTV Mash, and shouldn't we have some comments concerning that. That Mash-Ups have been part of the mainstream, and such. (Although personally, I think most of the MTV Mashes neither are very original, nor particularly good musical compositions.)

Worth a mention, methinks. Get an account and have at it! :-)
chocolateboy 20:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redirect[edit]

"Cutup" has multiple meanings. Should it really be redirected to this article?

I agree. A dab page would be better. Go for it!
chocolateboy 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Emergency Broadcast Network[edit]

CB,

why drop EBN?

soobrosa

Hi, soobrosa.
Looks like they're worth a shout if you could expand on their role as precursors. Or merge them into cut-ups. The original sentence was a bizarro non-sequitur that didn't merit its own section.
chocolateboy 00:23, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CB,

check my attempt, perhaps it's not the best position.

Very nice!
chocolateboy 21:22, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

mastermix.org[edit]

CB,

should include http://www.richcolour.com/mastermix/

soobrosa

Nah.
chocolateboy 00:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CB,

qouting Wikipedia:Spam, "be open. be polite."

check the site, this guy is doing an awesome job digitizing mastermixes, dj cut-up special of cassette tapes from the eighties. goldmine.

---
"be open. be polite."
Fair point. But if you look at the history of the article, you'll see why I was skeptical. As the bootleggers section clearly states:
This is a collection of links to bootleggers mentioned in the article. This article is not a link farm. Please do not add vanity links here: they will be speedily removed.
---
this guy is doing an awesome job
I'm sure he is, but he's not a notable figure in the history of bootlegs and therefore doesn't belong in the article. Bear in mind that there are plenty of much better known 'leggers (such as Kurtis Rush and Braces Tower) who aren't even mentioned.
goldmine
Cheers. I'll check him out.
chocolateboy 21:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Grey Album[edit]

The article says of The Black Album acappellas that, "Jay-Z... presumably, sanctioned, if not actively encouraged the release of the acapellas." I think, but I am not sure, that Jay-Z not only intended the acappellas to be released, but explicitly authorised it. My copy of the Black Album acappellas CD looks a lot like an authorised release. Tim Ivorson 10:23, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Tim. I'm sure you're right. I was just hedging because I couldn't find a reference to Jay-Z or his attack lawyers explicitly endorsing them. FWIW, I think it's become pretty much de rigeur for all but the most clueless of pop and rock players to tacitly endorse mashups (nothing radical about it: it's just good marketing). But the rules of the game seem to require them to keep it on ye olde down low. Be nice if someone actually went the whole hog and slapped a Creative Commons license on their dark raw materials... [1]
chocolateboy 23:23, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Tim Ivorson 10:45, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Chemicalbrothersremixed.com - Not spam[edit]

How is the Bootleg album at Chemicalbrothersremixed.com a 'spamlet', as one edit describes it? As far as I'm aware, it's one of the most notable bastard pop albums out there.KeithD 07:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi.
Well, I said "spamlet" rather than "spam" :-) The problem is that, until recently, that section contained six albums (the other sections contain just one, two or three "highlights"); and there are strict injuctions against that kind of wanton linkery. I did Google for that album a while back, and, indeed, there were plenty of hits, but please replace one of the other albums (preferably not A Night At The Hip-Hopera, which is probably the most famous one after the Grey Album) if you feel Chemical Brothers Remixed is worthy of inclusion. That section isn't meant to be an exhaustive list of bootleg albums, which is what it was in danger of turning into.
chocolateboy 21:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the explanation. Having checked the links, I'm going to delete both the Clash and Blur albums from the article: the Blur link is broken, and the Clash album is no longer available. KeithD 22:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaataa[edit]

Why are Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambatta missing from the influences section? This is straight up racism, and this "mash-up" is just another case of "Elvis Presley." It's just more "white power" to erase the facts of history. These two giants of hip hop aren't obscure or unknown. They took records and played parts of them, in sequence, to create new songs. They did mash-ups, without computers. Grandmaster Flash invented contemporary DJing. He even built his own equipment, taking apart old stereos for parts to build new machines. Grandmaster Flash was a hardware hacker.

Afrika Bambatta did roughly the same thing, creating the roots of American techno music. He took American funk and melded it with German kraut-rock giants Kraftwerk. Fast forward 25 years into the future, and people are praising mash-ups for bridging the gulf between "black" and "white" musics. Bambatta cut a record with Johnny Rotten from the Sex Pistols and PiL in the mid 1980s. He bridged the gap. The racial/racist divide is created by the record industry for marketing purposes; they segregate, divide, and conquer. Rappers and DJs were mixing styles between disco, funk, latin music, and rock back in the 1970s.

Moreover, this postmoderm mixing culture is a Black invention. Everyone does it, but the contemporary form is fundamentally rooted in Black working-class invention of Hip Hop. High Art forms tended to eschew collages of popular music, or created works to maximize the juxtaposition, and is often hotile to the audience's listening pleasure. Hip Hop used popular music, melding it with underground funk, with the specific intent to make listenable, danceable music.

That is the ethos of the mash-up.

Also, the Beat or Surrealist cutup isn't related to the mash-up. Cut-ups, as practiced by Burroughs, was intended to remove the author from the production, to create accidental works of art. The mash-up aesthetic is intentional.

66.245.212.226

---
Why are Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambatta missing from the influences section?
There is no influences section.
I suspect that most people who've contributed to this article are as passionate about Grandmaster Flash and Afrika Bambaataa as you are, but bastard pop and hip-hop ain't the same thing:
the fond reminiscing often ends up embracing sampling and "samplism" generally (hiphop, R'n'B, "pop" &c.), which is fascinating (to me), but ain't Bastard Pop. [2]
Take a look at the illegal art site for some background info on exactly how, where, when and why hiphop (and r'n'b and "pop") took a different tack to bastard pop when it came to accommodating "the man"'s onerous sample clearance requirements.
As for "cutup": go for it.
chocolateboy 20:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Boulevard of Broken Songs[edit]

Party Ben's mashup of Green Day, Oasis, and Aerosmith, originally produced for his LIVE 105 (San Francisco) radio show, was one of the first major mashup radio hits in the US in late 2004 and 2005, eventually receiving airplay around the world. See San Francisco Chronicle article here: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/05/03/DDGTCCHQP41.DTL .

The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.170.212.129 (talk • contribs) .

It's a notable enough track, but:
  • the article isn't a link farm (as the Bootleggers section clearly states, links to bootleggers not mentioned in the article are not welcome)
  • the track doesn't (technically) belong in A vs B, otherwise it would make sense to add it to that list
  • it's not historically significant (i.e. it's not a landmark)
Rather than trying to shoehorn a reference to "Boulevard of Broken Songs" into the article, I've added a reference to Party Ben alongside GHP, Soundhog and Lionel Vinyl.
chocolateboy 16:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is totally biased against American producers and entirely Euro-centric. This snobbery is a disservice to readers. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.20.96.116 (talk • contribs) .

... and bandying lurid and unfounded accusations is somehow a "service"?
  1. Negativland (US)
  2. DJ Lance Lockarm (US)
  3. Frank Zappa (US)
  4. DJ Dangermouse (US)
  5. Emergency Broadcast Network (US)
  6. Evolution Control Committee (US)
  7. Goodman & Buchanan (US)
  8. Double Dee and Steinski (US)
  9. DJ Z-Trip (US)
  10. Party Ben (US)
  11. DJ Shadow (US)
  12. John Oswald (Canada)
  13. Kid 606 (Venezuela/US)
  14. Dsico (Australia)
  15. The Avalanches (Australia)
  16. Morning Musume (Japan)

And, lest we forget:

  1. Eminem (US)
  2. Missy Elliott (US)
  3. Britney Spears (US)
  4. Madonna (US)
  5. The Strokes (US)
  6. Jay-Z (US)
  7. Christina Aguilera (US)
  8. Adina Howard (US)
  9. Beyoncé (US)
  10. 'N Sync (US)
  11. The Neptunes (US) &c.

And, lest we forget even more:

  1. The New Yorker (US)
  2. Slashdot (US)
  3. Salon (US)
  4. Illegal Art (US)
  5. Waxy (US)
  6. The Village Voice (US)
  7. Goldmine (US)
chocolateboy 22:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

As a newbie who looked up mashups to see what wikipedia had to say, I was surprised DJ Shadow, Cut Chemist, and DJ Z-Trip (specifically) received so little attention. The Brainfreeze and Product Placement albums and tours were hugely influential to the modern mashup scene. In the movie Scratch (2001) Z-Trip even explains precisely how he mashes. 2cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.67.109.229 (talk) 02:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Omission of Coldcut/Solid Steel section?[edit]

I would add quite a bit of info if I had the time, but I think alot info about mashups is missing without delving into the world of ninjatune. At least 3-4 times a week a new mash up is featurd on the solidsteel radio show. Hexstatic has illicit albums that are nothing but mashups, and Coldcuts mid 80's works arecomposed of other peoples works (though not mashups). next362 00:05, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)

regional nomenclature[edit]

Whence did this article originate? I ask because I've never heard the terminology cited therein either used before or used in this particular context; in particular, glitch pop is rather dramatically different from the usual sense I've heard in the SF area, and the overarching genre is usually referred to as mashups or bootlegs.

I suspect that this all might be UK in origin, given that the "bootleg of the year" was won by somebody in England - although there's no telling who or what actually bestowed that honor; similarly, the '"blog of record"' is UK-based (and also defunct, according to its headline article.)

--moof 09:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

glitch pop is rather dramatically different from the usual sense I've heard in the SF area
"Glitch" has a couple of meanings. I've seen it applied to:
There's also "glitch hop" (e.g. Kraddy). Only one of those 8 artists is British, so it's certainly not a regional word. It's used in SF [3] (as, of course, is "bastard pop" [4]), New York [5], Minneapolis [6], Australia [7] [8] &c., and is the standard term for the five tracks listed in the Glitch pop section.
the overarching genre is usually referred to as mashups or bootlegs
The songs are "mashups" or "bootlegs" (cf. "rap"). The genre is "bastard pop" (cf. "hip hop"). [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] &c.
similarly, the '"blog of record"' is UK-based
So?
and also defunct, according to its headline article
Well, so are Napster and Audiogalaxy (sorta), as well as The Björk Remix Web. That doesn't change their role in the history of bastard pop. The "Without Me" challenge single-handedly kickstarted the first wave of bedroom bootleggers in 2001. [14] [15]
although there's no telling who or what actually bestowed that honor
Get Your Bootleg On (GYBO). [16]
For more background, I recommend the New Yorker and Salon articles, and Strictly Kev's aural history of the genre, Raiding the 20th Century.
chocolateboy 19:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

bootleg[edit]

" The Grey Album effectively launched a new bastard pop subgenre: the bootleg album"

9th Wonder's God's Stepson, a take on Nas' God's Son, came out before the grey album. granted it wasnt based on mashing up a particular album with an acapella, but i think it is given credit as being the first to put the idea into the hip hop genre. and i believe it was a bootlegg too.--Jaysscholar 07:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Intro-Inspection[edit]

Is there a source for this edit? The New Yorker (it's not the definitive article on the subject, but it is a reliable and fact checked source) disagrees:

"Frontin' on Debra" is an example of a "mashup," in which, generally, the vocal from one song is laid over the music from another. [17]

As does Salon:

Typically consisting of a vocal track from one song digitally superimposed on the instrumental track of another... [18]

And Wired:

Inspired by the cannibalistic craft of bands like Negativland, bastard-pop artists are laying the vocals of one song over the music of another. [19]

Of course there are exceptions and variations on this theme, and, of course, they are elaborated in the body of the article, rather than the intro.

chocolateboy 18:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Daz - Overlooking the fact that this is an evolving musical form and that The New Yorker, as stated above, can hardly be identified as a reliable source for new media and pop culture, the fact remains that there is no need to place specific limitations on the music. The vast majority of emerging mashup and bastard pop artitst do not conform to a simple lyrics over music formula anymore. It's not a question of 'is this an accurate description' - sure it is, but the definition needs to be inclusive of the big picture of what bastard pop is, not limited to something lesser. "generally" they are no longer just lyrics over foreign music. That's some of them, but "generally" they're much more complext mixes than that. Music from both, beats from both, breaks from both, vocals from both (and sometimes even more than two). My edits serve to broaden the scope of the definition as well as accurately describe the form as it exists today.
Why reverse my edit? Correct it if it's inaccurate but don't put it back to a more limited definition. Since I have broadened the scope of the definition for the purposes of a more accurate definition, it doesn't make sense to reverse it to a more limited one. Unless you're saying that bastard pop does not refer to what I am describing.
The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daz902 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Daz. Please see Wikipedia:Cite sources, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Check your facts, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles#Lead section for the rationale.

chocolateboy 17:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"break-in" records a "flash in the pan?"[edit]

Well, *my* first exposure to "break-in" records was Dickie Goodman's "Mr. Jaws", which my Billboard Top 40 book says made it to #4 on the charts in 1975, considerably later than the cited "The Flying Saucer Parts 1 & 2"'s #3 in 1956, so it wasn't exactly a flash in the pan... but I don't really have enough other information to write about it authoritatively. B&G had 2 other top 40 "break-in" hits ("Flying Saucer The 2nd", #18 in 1957 and "Santa And The Satellite (Parts I & II)", #32 in 1957) among many others released, and Goodman solo had one other top 40 "break-in" hit before "Mr. Jaws, "Energy Crisis '74" (#33 in 1974). I seem to recall there was also an "Energy Crisis '78" (possibly not by Goodman), and Dr. Demento played break-in records by a couple of other artists (one was a Chicago DJ, the other was I think an unknown) in the late 1970s. (Looks like more or less the everything Dickie Goodman ever did is now available on CD, though; see Amazon.)

Also... only slightly off-topic... I'm looking for any information about a particular mashup done of George H.W. Bush's speeches. There are at least two of them, but there's a particular one I'm looking for to which I haven't been able to find any references anywhere. Rather than cluttering this page, I'll put a more complete description here.

--Woozle 15:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Spam or Not Spam.[edit]

There seems to be some very arbitrary definitions (hi, Chocolateboy!) of what links are spam and what isn't. Not that I have any intentions of violating WP:3RR, but I think it would be good idea for any in-line list of links (i.e. not in External links) to have at least some short blurb as to why they're significant, rather than just blandly keeping some and dismissing others as spam. --moof 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi :-)
Google is the arbiter. I've removed Oorsmeer as (these days) it gets less than a thousand hits. Radio Clash gets 65,000 hits and is therefore more notable and linkworthy than many things on the page, though, you're right, someone should expand the reference to avoid the aroma of spam. I've removed it as well for the time being, though I think it's worth a shout (as is MTV Mash).
The links in that section made a bit more sense when Culture Deluxe and bastardpop.co.uk were among the main bastard pop portals, but the former seems to be legit these days, and the latter is beastly dead.
By the way, the criteria are:
- bearing in mind that Goodman and Buchanan are never going to get as many hits as Collision Course, but play a much more significant role in the history of bastard pop.
chocolateboy 03:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rename "Mash-up"?[edit]

some people who like the concept of "Mash-ups" might not appreciate the term "bastard" applied to their music. wouldn't it be better to move / rename and/or split up the article? --Nerd42 15:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

The sensibilities of an unsourced minority do not determine Wikipedia naming conventions. "Funk" means "stink"; "punk" means "prostitute"; "geek" means "circus freak"; "impressionism" and "queer" are insults; and no-one who produces cinematic, cannabolic or instrumental hip hop has much love for the "trip hop" label. None of these articles will be renamed on the grounds that "some people" might allegedly "not appreciate" them. The various names are prominently mentioned at the top of the article, and "mashup" is a dab, that isn't going anywhere anytime soon, for reasons outlined here.
chocolateboy 23:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should moved to "mash-up," but not because "bastard" is offensive, but because it is the more-used term: http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=bastard+pop&word2=mash+up. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Odd name for an article. All friends, plus online and media references I've seen call these mixes mash-ups. Never heard of "bastard pop" until I took a look at this article. 66.235.18.41 01:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

"Bootleg" is more popular than both. [21] [22] [23] The name is not going to change to either on the basis of flawed Googling.
See above and here for the rationale. Or, if you want the executive summary: this article is never going to be called "mashup(s)" or "mash-up(s)" because the web usage outnumbers the musical usage. What you're actually advocating is Mashup (music) which a) already exists as a redirect and b) is not the name of the genre and not the first thing someone would type into Wikipedia or Google when searching for an article on mashups. [24] [25]
chocolateboy 06:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

why not a link farm?[edit]

just wondering why not link to every bootleg/mashup artist? unless there is some central site with links to every artist (and not some private forum post)... maybe a section about GYBO and artists who've played there would be wise too. also you should change the bootleg section to 'bootlegs mentioned in this article' to keep down 'outside links' Compn 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. chocolateboy 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well honestly, most of wikipedia is a link farm. Even pages that have won awards for having a NPOV still have a link to fan sites etc. When people look up mashups, they are more or less restricted to ones that are considered "groundbreaking." Then the mashup artists that aren't "groundbreaking" are left in the water. In this type of page, it should be a linkfarm, or else it isnt really complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJKingpin (talkcontribs)

"A link" doth not a link farm make. Most of dmoz is a link farm. Most of Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you're hellbent on being disagreed with by a large number of people, please take your position up on the WP:NOT talk page.
chocolateboy 06:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image twice[edit]

Image:Bootie_1-YearAnniversary.jpg seems to be linked in twice. AnonMoos 19:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The Who Boys[edit]

Hi,

Great article ... good overview!

Can I ask, did you have a link to The Who Boys before? We were told by someone there was one but maybe not? We were going to point people to this page. Sorry if you don't want it up there...

Brian The Who Boys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnormal (talkcontribs) 13:43, July 25, 2006

There was a link, but it was removed by someone. Why? Because Wikipedia is not a link farm, you aren't mentioned in the article, and no one has any idea who you are in general. DJKingpin 07:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
So, by the same thought process, Team9 and DJ Metalix should also be removed? Except I have heard of Team9, my understanding is that it's really one guy who helped create American Edit. But DJ Metalix is not mentioned in the article, if no one speaks up, then I'll remove that external link. And then I'll go through the rest of the external links and see if they were mentioned in the article too. OK? Just trying to make the article better by using the standard you, DJKingpin, have set forth. Thanks. --Eric Jack Nash 11:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
DJKingpin, sorry wasn't addressing the question to you but to the writer... thanks for your input though. I must say that I assume Rolling Stone magazine and the Toronto Star, who have both reviewed The Who Boys, are not "no one". Just because you don't know about us, does not necessarily equate to being "unknown" (although that may be an epistemological discussion for another time). Do a Google search for "The Who Boys" and there will be plenty of hits of varying relevance. Also, check us out on MySpace to see all of the people who apparently have never heard of us. I see you are on there as well... liking your sound, actually. Anyway, I digress. There are many mashup acts that aren't mentioned in the article, but because the topic is "bastard pop" and is the main topic covering mashup etc on Wikipedia, not allowing legitimate links to other artists who have received some recognition seems a bit unfair, unless the article itself is never going to be updated to reflect more recent artists? Anyway, not really that bothered about it, just wanted to know what the situation was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnormal (talkcontribs) 12:39, July 26, 2006
Well, if thats the case, put an article in there about The Who Boys and then add a link again. After I made that last comment, I went to your myspace page and listened to some of your music, sounds like really good stuff. To Eric Jack Nash: if Team9 or DJ Metalix aren't in there, either erase them, or add something in the article about them. I know for sure that Team9 not only helped Partyben with Dean Grey, but Party Ben has said several times that they did most of the work. Now I only wish I could put myself in the article somewhere....:( DJKingpin 13:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

DJKingpin, thanks for the comment on the music... just a simple misunderstanding re the propriety of the article. I suppose we could add a bit about us on the page, but assumed that would be looked at as a bit too self-aggrandizing for people. We've got our bio info etc up on Jon Nelson's "Some Assembly Required" blog this week and general info on our website, so I suppose if chocolateboy or someone else wants to incorporate us into the article whenever it's updated, that would be great. Really just wanted to clarify what the protocol was for the page... thanks for the input. Brian

Holletronix[edit]

It seems that this page is lacking mention of Hollertronix's "Never Scared"

Requested move[edit]

Bastard pop → Mashup (music) … Rationale: Mashup (music) redirects to Bastard pop now, even though mashup is the more commonly-used term … Recury 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Support, at least 5 people (if you include me and the others at Talk:Mashup) have stumbled on this article and said "Oh, he means mashup. Why isn't it there, I wonder?" That is about 5 too many. Recury 19:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, i've been to this article a few times and I've always kinda thought the name was questionable. Crumbsucker 12:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support per above. I think there was a time when mash-up wasn't yet widely known but that time has passed. --Dhartung | Talk 11:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bastard pop, mashups, and bootlegs. They are known by all three names. Obviously the article can't have all three titles, but as long as the two that aren't used are mentioned in the article, its not that big of a deal. Although Recury has a goood point, if it does get moved, there will be a group of people wondering why it isn't in bastard pop. 16:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support "Mashup" is preferable to "Bastard pop". TacoDeposit 04:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Mashup is the term I've heard most often (including radio DJs who make over $100,000 a year). I've never heard anyone say "Bastard pop". Twang 8 August 2006

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

Moved Ashibaka tock 01:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Yay!! --Nerd42 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for delisting [as Good Article][edit]

Hi all,

I have delisted this article because its lead is too short, its references are insufficient for its size, its inline citations are non-existent and the move from bastard pop to mashup is incomplete (i.e. the article is unstable). There also appears to be some structural issues with the article. The Subgenres and External links sections could use trimming. And it is unusual for the bulk of an article on a musical genre to be under the heading History. The featured grunge music article may be helpful in developing this article. If you disagree with this delisting you can seek a review or if you feel the article has changed significantly to address these issues you can seek to renominate it.

Cedars 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Promotional links[edit]

This article is quickly turning into a page of promotional links - the bottom of the article is probably unneeded with all those links. The notable albums section should also be cut down and more strictly watched - I'm not sure of the popularity of most of the albums there and therefore have no idea which ones to remove? Can anyone help? Jack 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I've removed a lot of the links, but there are still way too many. The "External links" section should be redone in inline WP:FN format; that would make it a lot easier to keep spam out. Demiurge 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Zappa[edit]

As long as you're going to mention in the the cut-up section, the "remixing" of political speeches, you should probably put in a section about "Porn Wars" in which Zappa basically did the same thing.

Clayton Counts / The Beachles[edit]

I am adding "Sgt. Petsound's" to the list of notable bootlegs. This is sure to upset some of you, which is why I am taking the time to explain why this is being done.

  • It is a bootleg.
  • It is notable, in accordance with WP:MUSIC. Recently, Clayton Counts' article was proposed for deletion. The overwhelming consensus was to keep the article, as it is well within Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.
  • Other bootlegs in the list fail WP:MUSIC.

Whether Counts considers himself a member of this scene is irrelevant. The Wikipedia standards for notability are clear: multiple, independent references from reliable sources. If we aren't going to adhere objectively to these guidelines, then we may as well rename the subheading "bootlegs that the authors of this page believe to be notable." Lists such as these need to be NPOV. There are many bootlegs I enjoy more than the Beachles record, but I could say the same about others in the existing list. This is not about whose bootlegs I like better. I'm not proposing that anybody be dropped from the list for lack of notability, but if you ask me it could still use a little cleaning up. According to WP:MUSIC, Counts' record is clearly more notable than some of the entries here, and that is all that is needed to warrant its inclusion. Even if the entire world hates the Beachles, it has been determined to be notable, and no one can deny that it is a bootleg. TrevorPearce 15:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

- TrevorPearce is Clayton Counts, I recognise the writing style and his previous page was removed by Clayton when it was revealed 'TrevorPearce' was him by another person. So this is vanity link spam. I've removed the Beachles, and I suggest it not be re-added, apart from the little press it received (much less than most other albums, and receiving a Cease & Desist is not notability, neither is getting aggro from EMI, myself and many others would be on there if that was the case...ditto EW press. Notability should be on other factors than a few mainstream news articles caused by legal issues, nor Google hits - otherwise the Wiki article WILL be link spam of dubious nature decided not by the mashup artists but the whims of legal departments - Tim, Radio Clash. --78.86.8.218 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- It was never "revealed" that I am Clayton Counts or anyone other than who I say I am. I only wish I had the kind of free time Clayton has. Just because some kid says I'm Clayton Counts and you blog about it doesn't mean anything. My name is Trevor Raymond Pearce. I also don't see how you're the judge of what is and isn't notable. If it's listed in Wikipedia, its notability has been established. You don't set the standard. If something gets enough press to draw the ire of EMI, it deserves to be here. What sour grapes. TrevorPearce (talk) 02:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Box[edit]

The entry about Black Box isn't quite right, the Ride On Time single was already in the UK charts before the lawyers got involved. The Ride on Time single was pulled from the shelves, the vocal was replaced with a soundalike and it was re-issued as Ride On Time(Remix). Stx 16:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


Article needs rewrite?[edit]

This whole article smacks of promotion of advertising. I think it should be rewritten to remove the NNPOV that is obvious througout the article. I was going to attempt to remove some of the offending lines myself when it became clear there was too much embedded in the article.

It does not read like an encyclopedic article. It reads like several DJ's personal FAQ on what they do for a living, and where to check out their "stuff". Deusfaux 02:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially the section on Double Dee and Steinski is a mess. Erik Veland 06:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed that the intro actually sounds like a I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue explanation of "One song to the tune of another," which is designed to be confusing and funny. Point is our intro is confusing and not concise. 86.3.167.148 (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, this article needs a rewrite! I was thinking about Slingshot and Pink Project studio-based-"mashups" and thought I'd look it up under Mashup (music) and I can't believe that there is not a mention at all! Sample-based medley or collage is secondary to this 1981-83 movement of studio musicians recording (and licensing!) entire overlays of one song's lyric over another song's instrumental (which ECC once claimed originality to in 1995!...13 years later). Djbrokenwindow (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Argh! the classical section doesnt' even include Victor Borge's timeless comedic playing of the melody of Happy Birthday over Claire De Lune (Debussy)!
Yes, it does smack of individual dj's inserting their own contributions into the history, yet not including the history that precedes them...? I have a personal, miniscule contribution, but that pales compared to the predeceeding contributor's work!
C'mon you guys! Where are the citations?! - Djbrokenwindow (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This page does need a major rewrite. I'm thinking about moving the history behind mashups to its own article and making the main page about defining mashups, explaining the different subgenres, and talking about copyright issues -- a topic central to the genre that isn't mentioned anywhere. Any thoughts? --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This article would also be greatly improved with more information supported by citations. Hyacinth (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"a capella" and compound words[edit]

This article seems to use "a cappella" or "acappella" to mean "vocal track". This definition isn't at [a cappella] or even Urban Dictionary, and to some of us old people, "a cappella" is still an adjective ofor adverb meaning unaccompanied by instruments, especially if sung by a group, especially Renaissance sacred music like Palestrina. If people want to include it because it's the jargon of the mashup business, I think it needs to be defined rather than being used in the lead. And I suggest an encyclopedia article should stick to widely recognized terms such as "vocal track", "vocal part", and even "singing" until this sense of "a cappella" becomes standard (if it ever does).

If "a cappella" is used, I think the article should be consistent about whether it's one word or two. Likewise the article now uses both "mash up" and "mashup" for the noun. I suggest making it consistent, and I strongly prefer "mashup" (or hyphenated). —JerryFriedman (Talk) 21:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. A vocal track would be without instrumental accompaniment and thus describing it as "acappella" is standard per your description. Hyacinth (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, "a cappella" isn't a noun in standard usage. Also, it applies to the whole performance or recording. We can say that "Biko" by Peter Gabriel starts with an African a cappella chorus, but we can't say that then Gabriel sings a cappella (or unaccompanied) with a rock band accompaniment! Even though he probably recorded his vocals as a separate track. So I don't think an encyclopedia can call something recorded solo, but intended only for mixing with other tracks, "a cappella". —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed: notable mashups[edit]

  • The best-known mashup in the U.S. is from an unauthorized album called "The Grey Album" which is put together by Brian Burton a.k.a as Danger Mouse. The vocals are from Jay-Z's "The Black Album" and the musical background is from the "White Album" by the Beatles.

Please Wikipedia:Cite your sources. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 03:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

    • Though the way it was put was pretty bad, this article should have some mention of the Grey Album -- if I'm not mistaken, it was the first set of mashups to be widespread enough for legal action to be taken against it. Someone with more knowledge should add it. --flatluigi(talk/contrib) 04:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

DJ Shadow & Cut Chemist[edit]

It seems strange that DJ Shadow and Cut Chemist's collaborations are unlisted here.

Brainfreeze was groundbreaking back in 1999 both for the techniques used and for the crate-digging prowess both DJs showed in their then-obscure selections.

Then, in 2001 they returned to their Brainfreeze project with Product Placement

In 2003, DJ Shadow put out Diminishing Returns, then again in 2005 he came with Funky Skunk.

Finally, in 2007/2008 DJ Shadow & Cut Chemist reunited for their Hard Sell tour.

The point, is that DJ Shadow and Cut Chemist have both been quite influential in this scene and deserve citing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.161.231.108 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never even heard of them. I was heavily involved in the mashup scene for about 2 years. Reading his page, it seems he just uses samples to create beats for music, which isn't exactly what mashups are.DJKingpin (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

DJ Shadow and Cut Chemist both have hardly anything to do with mash ups, and none of the points brought up have anything to do with the definition of the term mash up/blend but rather mixtapes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppy dirt (talkcontribs) 04:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Whipped cream.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Whipped cream.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Tags[edit]

Huge swathes of uncited material. Arbitrarily connected themes. OR patchwork featuring many instances of synthesis. Reliable secondary sources that support said connections and that underpin the historical survey, as presented in the article, are required. Ideally needs to be stripped back and reconstructed using verifiable sources that deal explicitly with the subject matter. In total, this connectionist excursion is simply not supported by any verifiable sources and therefore fails WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:VER. Semitransgenic (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Mash-Up Albums Page[edit]

How about an page involving Mash-Up albums, After all... You have list of mashup songs page so what's the harm!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.137.95 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

DJ Hero[edit]

Obviously, this article should mention DJ Hero's relevance to the genre. It really kind of brings it all out into the light. Everybody knows that's not just "turntablism" - it's all mashups most of the way through the game. The turntablism sounds like it was added as an afterthought. --Nerd42 (talk) 01:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


re first "citation needed"[edit]

re: citation needed for "bootleg" as a term. Is http://www.bootiemashup.com/about/ good enough, or is the goal to find the seminal use of "bootleg" for a mashup rather than, say, an unauthorized live album? Given who they are and what they do, it's doubtful they'd object to Wikipedia using them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bren Flibig (talkcontribs) 23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is a mess[edit]

It looks like this article has had proper care and attention in the past. But frankly it is a mess now. A lot of very specific information of unclear importance, yet mostly uncited. Evidence of many editors publicising their favourites acts with no regard to the cohesiveness of the article. It's muddled, full of original research and transparent opinion. I'm going to attempt to address a lot of this... --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The "inline citations" are weird links that have no relation to the "research". I'm going to go ahead and delete stuff that doesn't make sense. We can work with some degree of a fresh pallet. So strange this article took a nosedive... Ongaku72 (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Does Glee count?[edit]

Most of the article indicates that Mash-ups are more or less completely DJ made so do the songs from Glee actually count as mash-ups, or is there another name for them? Will Bradshaw (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think Glee should be here, neither I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue or Quodlibet - as someone involved in mashups/cutup culture (bastard pop/bootlegs as they were called then) since 2002 an following cutups since early 90's the first time I heard of those being anything to do with mashups was this page. I think they are an off-topic diversion, a footnote maybe but definitely NOT a direct influence. Rather than me removing them and surprise-surprise they pop up again *sigh* can someone with WikiAuthority remove them or decide? Certainly it's obvious that people heavily involved with mashups have not written this page - it reads as half link spam and half wrong or confusing... = Tim / Radio Clash —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.8.218 (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

HIP HOP MIXTAPE DJS[edit]

I'm kinda shocked that there is no mention of the hip hop mixtape Dj's from the early to mid 90s in New York - Doo Wop and Ron G specifically. Before the term "mash up" even existed these two hip hop dj's were putting acapellas from contemporary R&B records over Hip Hop instrumentals to give the song more street appeal except they were called blends.

If you read all the entries listed under "Mashup (music)" and read the years these separate incidents took place you will see a big gap in the years from 1987 to 1995. These hip hop mixtape DJs mentioned are the missing link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sloppy dirt (talkcontribs) 04:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

How about Simon & Garfunkle's Scarborough Fair/Canticle?[edit]

That fits the general description of a "Mashup". TCav (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

No. A mashup is about remixing pre-existing recorded tracks. Marius63 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ahh if that's the definition - which would make more sense than what is currently on the page - then the Classical and Sorry I Haven't Clue sections should be removed then? I agree the fact that artists are manipulating pre-recorded pre-released tracks (ie ones they didn't record) is an important one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.8.218 (talk) 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair use--not[edit]

"""To the extent that such works are 'transformative' of original content, they may find protection from copyright claims under the "fair use" doctrine of copyright law.[3]"""

I am prety sure not. I'm prety sure copyrigth protects against transformation too (not just copy).

Hmm... I see now the problem. This page, the discussions, are confusing recreation with remixing. Marius63 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

London Booted / early mashup albums[edit]

I won't bother to re-add them (again for the 3rd time) but question - why is relatively unknown mashup albums on there, whereas albums such as London Booted (London Calling by The Clash mashed for the 25th anniversary), Parkspliced (Blur's Low Life, 10th anniversary) and GYBO's Created A Monster - some of the first mashup albums that came out after or at the same time as the Grey Album are ignored?

London Booted eventually made a (quietly sanctioned) vinyl release on Prankmonkey which makes it notable amongst most mashup albums that don't get release - even a CD in Japan with all the tracks. Before than was GYBO's I Created a Monster, which was more of a mashup compilation so might not count - but the Blur - Parkspliced was shortly after that in 2004.

Can I recommend they are added as some of the first - also the influence of GYBO, which GYBO's switching hosts and deleting boards probably affects the Google ranking for these, although you should see Boing Boing and various picking it up, as well as the Discogs entries - and indeed my blog posts on the projects, but to declare my interest I wasn't running either of these, I had one track on either as 'Instamatic', nothing on the first, but surprised as they got a lot of press and a rare physical release that they don't qualify as notable? Why is that? - Tim, Radio Clash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.8.218 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Popular confusion with "Medley"[edit]

It might be worthwhile to include the difference between a mash-up and a medley, due to or in addition to the fact that the terms are often confused in popular culture. (For example, Mash-Up (Glee), in both title and content, uses "mash-up" when referring to medleys.) Calbaer (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Mashups involve the manipulation of recordings to combine elements from two or more songs.

Medleys are multiple melodies played in succession. --Nerd42 (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hear ye, hear ye! Proposal to overhaul this article[edit]

Any serious contributors to this article take note: it is overlong, full of all sorts of self-promotion, non-notable artists/albums, irrelevant information (cut-ups) and so on. I propose giving it a good kick in the nuts/ovaries (let's be PC here) and trying to make it encyclopaedic. Cue oohs and aaahs with fairy lights and tinkly tinkly music. Anyone willing to help out, chime in, or otherwise give their informed opinion on say the US mashup scene and its notable proponents, please make yourselves known.
Or, as a duly appointed scurvy-infested pirate Cap'n, I will hack'n'slash my way through it alone ;-) A warning shot across ye bows. CaptainScreebo Parley! 18:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole thing needs to be overhauled. I think the biggest issue is the initial definition of "mashup" which is so open-ended that contributors have looped in the concept of musical covers, remixes, and sampling with the 2000 era-specific musical movement of "mashups." The open-ended definition of mashup in this article opens the door for artists who are especially NOT mashup artists, glaringly, the influential hip-hop group N.W.A. StickerMug (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)