Your Sample Just Exploded

This is so cool. Yes, Melodyne has been around for a while, saving vocalists from their own flatness. But what really makes this interesting is what it means for samples. It’s hard enough now to detect the use of a sample, as it is folded, spun, and mutilated. But at what point does it stop being a sample. Obviously, the phrasing of the original instrument remains important, but at some point, you’ve chopped the original up so much that it isn’t really a “sample” any more at all?

I mean, if you “sample” a paragraph from a book, and don’t cite it, you’ve clearly plagiarized, but when you take single words from someone, you clearly haven’t. Musical notes are not as discrete as words–the phrasing of a note by a violinist, or even by a pianist is fairly unique–but once you get down to the note-by-note level, it starts to feel a lot less like sampling.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

The Halavis Virus

I just googled a mis-spelling of my name. No, this isn’t something I do every day. Google seems to have done away with many of their spelling corrections. It used to be, if you Googled the word “colour,” it asked if you meant color–something I pointed out in the draft of my search engines book. Unfortunately, Google has fixed this (bastards!). I haven’t decided whether to leave the reference and note that it was historically true (probably), or if I’ll yank the whole discussion.

Anyway, in this process, I was trying to trigger the spellchecker to come in, so I used “Halavis” which, in the past, has led to a suggestion of the correct spelling: a pretty nifty thing for someone who gets his name messed up often. Unfortunately, it does not make that suggestion any more. Despite “Halavis” being the name of an Argentinian textile manufacturer, and a rare surname, most of the links in the first few pages of Google results are references to me. So, I tried another common mis-spelling–Havalais–with the same result.

Now, on the one hand, I am not one of those people who gets overly upset when people can’t say my name, or spell it. Frankly, I am just happy that most of the time they have something nice to say about me. Heck, I’m even happy when they have something not-so-nice to say, since I’m glad to have people disagree with me. When my former chair, after five years in the same department, still introduced me as “Havalais,” I may have inwardly winced slightly, but it really wasn’t a big deal, I thought.

But as I look over the list of “Halavis,” I wonder whether he is better known than I am. And more importantly, I wonder whether so many references to my mis-spelled name encourages its continued growth. If you think to yourself “I read this article by Lackaff and whats-his-name” and a Google search yields “Halavis,” not once, but multiple times. When the journal Serials Librarian spells it that way, as does a recent co-author on her vita, and any number of my students, does it mean I should be more vigilant in defending (the spelling of) my name? Should I be “that guy” who gets huffy when people mangle his name? Or better yet, should I just go the “Sting” route and start going by just “Alex” or maybe “Alex H” or “Alex the Amorphous”?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 4 Comments

Obama in 30 seconds

Remember when MoveOn did the “Bush in 30 Seconds” contest last time around? Now they are hosting a competition for political ads for Obama. The winner gets her ad aired on national TV, and a nice chunk of change to buy more equipment. And, you know, a chance to convince some people to vote for Obama. Looking forward to seeing what comes of this!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

No Blogs Allowed

Mark Cuban - via LAistMark Cuban seems to like saying things that make no sense; it’s a good way of getting attention. Heck, here I am blogging about him.

The Dallas Mavericks have banned from the locker room any writer whose “primary purpose is to blog.” The problem is that this rule has been applied to only a single journalist, a blogger for the Dallas Morning News, who happened to also write an article critical of the coach the day he was booted from the locker room.

But Cuban defends his decision in a post that seems contradictory, to say the least. He starts out by saying:

A blogger, a beat writer, a columnists. The medium they use to deliver their content should be irrelevant. No question about it.

Right so far. The job of journalist has very little to do with where your story hits, and a lot more to do with the ways in which you gather it. If you are committing journalism, it doesn’t matter where you are doing it.

By the end of the same post, he not only has a question about it, he has completely contradicted himself:

Do they not know the difference between a blogger and someone who actually writes feature articles on a destination website?

Obviously, no they don’t. Unfortunately, he fails to explain the difference. I suppose he is suggesting that he will only allow people in the locker room who have a certain audience. By that measure, Howard Stearn gets a pass, for example. It seems pretty obvious that they limit access to the locker room to those who are full-time journalists, and probably not every full-time journalist who wants access gets it. The whole “blogging” think is a red herring.

As LAist points out, Cuban seems pretty clueless about the media environment, suggesting that if he lets one blogger in, every high schooler with a MySpace page will want to crowd into the locker room.

The banned journalist, Tim MacMahon, posts his own response, and once again showing Cuban’s perfidies (or at least churlishness) on the issue, brings up Cuban’s own argument against walled gardens expressed less that two years ago (during a talk in which he suggested that Google would be stupid to buy YouTube).

The question remains, though, how professional sports survives without the walled garden. Really, it remains the test case. Cuban, as with all owners, is in the business of selling first, the spectacle, and second, the brand. The only way to price out spectacles is to be exclusionary. But it’s also the best way to become irrelevant in a media environment rich with alternatives.

(via Aaron)

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment