The best YouTube mashups EVAH
Mar. 15th, 2009 09:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trixtahSomeone - "Kutiman" - has done the most coolest of jobs mashing up YouTube user-created music clips into funky sounds. The first one (The Mother of All Funk) is funk-rock, complete with brass, guitar solos, harmonica, and theremins. Then there's a dub track with real drums, double bass, trombone, melodica (of course), funky electronic effects, and a groovy vocal (not the pastafarian, although he's hilarious) and xtra bonus gadgets! The third track is a groovy downtempo breakbeat number reminiscent of Red Snapper (double bass, bongos, piano), and just the perfect vocals (the melodic and rap parts). And a wind quintet, assorted keyboards. The fourth track is full-on d&b with a 3-manual church organ, OMG GADGETS, and a bouzouki. Very reminiscent of Venetian Snares! Fifth track is bossa nova with Hammonds of hilariousness, awesome vocals (with a chick of hotness singing them), a jew's harp, a vibraphone (oooh yeeeah), a recorder, and assorted gongs. Sixth is a downtempo r&b-ish kind of track, but pretty pleasant. The last one is a very skillfully-repurposed emo-chick's bluesy warblings, with a nice flute solo, giant windchimes and a harp. Anyway, check out ThruYOU - the 8th track is Kutiman explaining his process. Yay!
That was a reward for finishing my latest and greatest reading review on a journal article called "Why is it so hard to be fair?"
The three-component model of fairness is an underlying theme of this piece: that fairness comprises distributive, procedural and interactive justice (Colquitt et al. 2001), with the emphasis here being on the procedural and interactive justice areas. How fairness is demonstrated in an organisation can obviously highlight potential conflicts between an organisation’s values and its actual culture, with clear implications with its relationship with clients and employees, particularly in the area of trust.
Three drivers of process fairness are outlined in the article: how much input employees feel they have in the decision-making process; how the decisions appear to be made and implemented (consistency, accuracy of information, transparency, etc.); how the managers behave during the process (respect for employees, active listening, etc.) (2006, p.123). It is then shown that fair process can have a number of beneficial effects, such as employees being better motivated to perform,.... Creativity and innovation are said to be low in organisations that have low levels of process fairness (2006, p.125).
[W]hy, if the benefits of using process fairness are so evident, is it not used more frequently? A few potential reasons are discussed: managers appear to self-rate their ability at process fairness more highly than their colleagues and subordinates do (so they don’t perceive there being a problem); also, there is a common belief that tangible benefits outweigh any potential deficiencies in employee treatment. In his 2002 study, Brockner states, “… when people do not trust the other party, they may define the relationship as more transactional, in which they assign less importance to intangible outcomes and more importance to tangible outcomes” (2002, p.63). In other words, perhaps people demand more material benefits in low-trust environments. Additional reasons for the lack of process fairness may be corporate polices (such as those that mandate secrecy levels that militate against open communication); a perception by some managers that engaging in fair process may erode their power base; and finally, that some managers simply want to avoid potentially difficult situations. (2006, pp.126-127)
I love those reasons for not behaving fairly (well, I think they're crap, but it's illuminating. I do sympathise with the last one!). Honestly, that kind of stuff is like throwing me into a lolly shop and saying "Go to it". I've never understood people who say things like "I can't be bothered with politics". The decisions that people make, and that includes the ones they supposedly make on your behalf, directly affect our lives. And knowledge is power.
It's kind of ironic that this Organisational Behaviour class is incredibly stimulating - if hard work - where the Information Systems in Organisations is comparatively meh (although it is interesting background). Of course, the latter isn't helped by a tutor who obviously knows his stuff, but who dithers. Hopefully it'll pick up soon.
That was a reward for finishing my latest and greatest reading review on a journal article called "Why is it so hard to be fair?"
The three-component model of fairness is an underlying theme of this piece: that fairness comprises distributive, procedural and interactive justice (Colquitt et al. 2001), with the emphasis here being on the procedural and interactive justice areas. How fairness is demonstrated in an organisation can obviously highlight potential conflicts between an organisation’s values and its actual culture, with clear implications with its relationship with clients and employees, particularly in the area of trust.
Three drivers of process fairness are outlined in the article: how much input employees feel they have in the decision-making process; how the decisions appear to be made and implemented (consistency, accuracy of information, transparency, etc.); how the managers behave during the process (respect for employees, active listening, etc.) (2006, p.123). It is then shown that fair process can have a number of beneficial effects, such as employees being better motivated to perform,.... Creativity and innovation are said to be low in organisations that have low levels of process fairness (2006, p.125).
[W]hy, if the benefits of using process fairness are so evident, is it not used more frequently? A few potential reasons are discussed: managers appear to self-rate their ability at process fairness more highly than their colleagues and subordinates do (so they don’t perceive there being a problem); also, there is a common belief that tangible benefits outweigh any potential deficiencies in employee treatment. In his 2002 study, Brockner states, “… when people do not trust the other party, they may define the relationship as more transactional, in which they assign less importance to intangible outcomes and more importance to tangible outcomes” (2002, p.63). In other words, perhaps people demand more material benefits in low-trust environments. Additional reasons for the lack of process fairness may be corporate polices (such as those that mandate secrecy levels that militate against open communication); a perception by some managers that engaging in fair process may erode their power base; and finally, that some managers simply want to avoid potentially difficult situations. (2006, pp.126-127)
I love those reasons for not behaving fairly (well, I think they're crap, but it's illuminating. I do sympathise with the last one!). Honestly, that kind of stuff is like throwing me into a lolly shop and saying "Go to it". I've never understood people who say things like "I can't be bothered with politics". The decisions that people make, and that includes the ones they supposedly make on your behalf, directly affect our lives. And knowledge is power.
It's kind of ironic that this Organisational Behaviour class is incredibly stimulating - if hard work - where the Information Systems in Organisations is comparatively meh (although it is interesting background). Of course, the latter isn't helped by a tutor who obviously knows his stuff, but who dithers. Hopefully it'll pick up soon.