I wasn't talking about "not having a problem with some fan-edits", I was talking about the "fans" editing the work. They are the ones I meant with the attitude problem.
Someone edits Senjutsu and posts it on YouTube
- Thread starter Josh
- Start date
I wasn't talking about "not having a problem with some fan-edits", I was talking about the "fans" editing the work. They are the ones I meant with the attitude problem.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
While I understand this position to a certain degree (and mind you, I have never heard this edit in question, nor do I intend to do so), I'm somewhat torn myself and I find the sentiment a bit too harsh.
First of all, yes, there are people who should "know better" than the artist. For example the producer. If someone made a version of the DOD album that wouldn't make my ears bleed, I'd gladly listen to it. I don't care that 'Arry is half deaf and likes the atrocious sound.
Second of all... a lot of people amended or tweaked a work by previous authors/artists in a way they improved upon it. Rimsky-Korsakov modified Mussorgsky's works and those actually got popular and helped get Mussorgsky's fame, IIRC.
A lot of people know his Pictures at an Exhibition only through Ravel's orchestration of the piece. Yes, now with the "author-author-author" hysteria everyone seems to return back to Mussorgsky's originals, but I'd say both have their place.
Editing, compiling, remastering etc. also counts as "authorship", at least legally, so I probably wouldn't feel as strong as you do about it.
Especially as I don't agree with the deification of the author, as is popular nowadays.
The studio forced a happy ending on Allen's Hannah and Her Sisters. So what? It's OK, many of his movies have downer endings and this one has a distinctly different feel and therefore is among my favourites of his, along with other movies that are more according to his intention.
Also, I'd really, really wish if people like Stephen King, George R. R. Martin or even the late Robert Jordan had (or had had) better editors. Seth McFarlane, once he got un-cancelled and the fame got into his had, got protection from editors and the results are not always liked by everyone.
And much as I love Maiden and much as I love Senjutsu, sometimes I wish they did listen to other opinions as well. Like every band. Artistic intention vs. humility and all that.
Just my tuppence worth, I get that you love Maiden a lot and you find this irreverent. I'm always trying to consider if the result is good as a result or if somebody actually did shit over it and created something that is worse. I'm not interested in this particular case, that's up to others.
(Also, BTW, "single edits" have also been used for decades and you don't see anyone going up in riots because you won't hear the four minutes of instrumental soloing in the radio version of the Door's Light My Fire.)
Smither
Ancient Mariner
I've come to realize that I don't have any problems when people edit songs from other artists for their own enjoyment, I think it's fair enough and leads to a better experience with those songs.
What I don't like, on the other hand, is when those edits are posted on YT and the people who made it keep bragging about it, in the vein of "look, I made their music much better than it is, you have to listen to it". I find that to be really arrogant and pretentious.
What I don't like, on the other hand, is when those edits are posted on YT and the people who made it keep bragging about it, in the vein of "look, I made their music much better than it is, you have to listen to it". I find that to be really arrogant and pretentious.
The_7th_one
Ancient Mariner
Iron Maiden is gonna get him/her 
It's a producer's or a book editor's job to give the work its final shape, and they were hired by the creators to do so, so this is something different.
The difference being that Rimsky-Korsakov and Ravel were accomplished composers of their own who put their own work out there to the mercy of their listeners. I have absolutely no problem with an artist covering a song in their own style, which is essentially the modern version of a re-arrangement, or even integrating someone else's work into their own, like Maiden did with Life's Shadow by Beckett. It's not about this. It's about some random guy who may or may not have something to show for himself claiming he knows better, slicing apart or speeding up someone else's work and being proud of it. If he went and recorded a cover of the album in a way he prefers, I would have a lot more respect for that because at least he would have actually played the music himself, analysed what Maiden were doing and then come to the conclusion that it would be better his way. But invading someone else's work with no respect for the creator's intent or the creator's process behind it, and with the intent of improvement (rather than artistic use of their own), it just rubs me the wrong way.
It doesn't have anything to do with that. I just have a problem with the attitude of pretending to know better than an artist and reshaping it to make it fit the way you like it instead of engaging with it and trying to understand or appreciate why it is the way it is. Nobody would dream of cutting out the Mona Lisa figure and pasting it on a different background and claiming that "now it's better". People would only do that to make an artistic statement of their own. But for whatever reason, Maiden are fair game. I protest against that.
I guess that's what it boils down to for me. I sometimes struggle to formulate my views so concise.
JudasMyGuide
The resident reactionary recalcitrant
I understand your POV in that post generally, but if I understood what you mean here, I disagree with the insinuation. I'd say that classical pieces/art whatever are much MORE a fair game than any given metal band including Maiden. I have seen countless pieces of beautiful art desecrated, fucked up, laughed at.
I mean, Pachelbel's canon has been misused many times over to be dragged in the dirt by some shitty hip hop song that's allegedly "better". Well, it's definitely played more often, at least.
A Gregorian chant - the most pious and beautiful of sacral music which actually eventually laid the groundwork for pretty much all the music we listen to today in the West (I'm simplifying, of course) - misused to promote blasphemy and/or downright terrible, uninventive music.
But maybe I'm seeing this from a different point of view and you didn't mean it quite like that.
Anyway, thanks for the kind response, like I said, I get where you're coming from.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
I have a same stand as yours on this one, but don't overlook enthusiastic kids working with their favourite band's material.
If you're into drawing covers why not start with modifying existing ones where you have the context and the topic already provided? Or why not cut and paste around MP3s to practice audio software a bit. Or why not butcher a song with your own parts and solos just because it feels good to improvise over it?
The problem with this generation is that they have to publish - cue George Carlin - everything.
Sure, if it's about learning your craft, there's nothing wrong with it.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
If some sort of real creativity is put then it passes my scrutiny. Cutting out parts of the songs and speeding up what's left of it is not creativity it's destruction. But if you manage to pull a proper 'radio edit' out of a 7-8 minute song then hats off to you.
Perun in my lands we would say that someone is trying to be a bigger Catholic than pope.
Perun in my lands we would say that someone is trying to be a bigger Catholic than pope.
Magnus
Pica Serdica
Diesel 11
As you scream into the web of silence...
I really could care less about the artistic merit of fan edits. If they can use the original material and rework it in a different way then I say go for it. There are some really interesting Maiden edits out there - off the top of my head one of the ones I thought was cool was a restitch of "Seventh Son of a Seventh Son" where the interlude became the intro. It's honestly really cool to hear material you love turned inside out. Maybe it'll even highlight something you never noticed before.
I just don't have an issue with this stuff. I'll still love the original, for sure. And maybe they'll even do something interesting that I'd never have expected or thought of. It's harmless and kinda fun.
I just don't have an issue with this stuff. I'll still love the original, for sure. And maybe they'll even do something interesting that I'd never have expected or thought of. It's harmless and kinda fun.
I agree with this, people really need to get a grip.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
I agree, for the most part. But sometimes the fans really do know how to do it better. Case in point: Metallica. “And Justice for Jason” is a welcome alternative mix, which is arguably disrespectful of Lars but obviously shows much respect of Newstead. Also, the fan-made remaster of Death Magnetic is the only bearable way to listen to that album, as the official CD is a monstrosity of over-compression, distortion and clipping.
By the way, none of this is legal advice. These things totally violate copyright law.
I think the fans are correct that those two albums need fixing, but I don’t think the edits necessarily sound good (partially because the source material is flawed and they don’t have much to work with).
I’ll say this much, I mostly agree with Perun on this one. These fan edits are stupid at best and disrespectful to the original artists at worst. But I mostly find myself confused about them more than anything else. There’s enough great music to listen to that if I feel like a song has enough structural problems that it needs an edit, I’m just not going to listen to that song.
srfc
Ancient Mariner
Is it not some lad playing the bass himself not Newsted?
Rosscopolis
Trooper
Ditto.
Shmoolikipod
Stranger to the Light
I'm with Diesel, why does it need to be "artistic" or "creative" to exist? So what if someone sped up a song by 20% and shared it. He might even think it's superior. Bands sometimes play their songs 20% faster live. Megadeth remade RiP with some shite changes. And they could even think that's a better version, but that doesn't undermine their original intent either.
The real problem is when the editor is actually being disrespectful to the music and people, but that's just good ol' "I'm correct and you're stupid", aka arrogance.
The real problem is when the editor is actually being disrespectful to the music and people, but that's just good ol' "I'm correct and you're stupid", aka arrogance.
Ruflux
Ancient Mariner
Indeed it is, there's no stems for half the album's tracks and even the ones that were available weren't actually used, it was just somebody sloppily playing over the album.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Regarding DM it's just a merge of all the stems ripped out of Guitar Hero. Nothing fancy.