VA - 2013 - You Tube CS documents a slightly different stage of the Broke Ass tape process because the source archive has suddenly exploded beyond the physical objects sitting in the maker’s room. Earlier tapes could be assembled from personally ripped LPs, 7-inches, CDs and cassettes, which gave the available material a natural outer boundary: whatever had been bought, traded, borrowed, found or otherwise accumulated could become source. YouTube changes that boundary almost completely. In 2013 it could feel like an absurdly huge audiovisual junkyard containing music, television, amateur uploads, obscure performances, forgotten records, pop-cultural scraps and things that might never be worth owning as physical objects. This tape sounds like somebody discovering that the internet can be treated as another crate of records, except the crate has no bottom. The two surviving sides are also very uneven in duration, with Side A running about 48:28 and Side B about 32:53, which already gives the object a less formally balanced character than many of the nearly maxed-out C90s in this archive. The important structure is not symmetry. It is accumulation.
The first thing distinguishing this tape sonically is the instability of the sources. There is no consistent mastering environment because there could not have been one. YouTube material from this period might originate from a professionally mastered music video, somebody’s vinyl transfer, a television recording, an old VHS upload, a radio capture, a compressed MP3 that had already been recompressed into video, or a home recording made with whatever microphone was available. Those differences survive all over the cassette. Loudness can jump abruptly. One section has a comparatively broad and polished frequency range, then another becomes narrow, papery or brittle. Some recordings carry obvious digital compression or a grainy upper surface. Others are much darker and heavier in the middle frequencies. Small pockets of silence appear between sources rather than every transition being disguised. The result has a very different physical fingerprint from a carefully mastered compilation album. The inconsistency is the continuity.
Side A establishes that principle immediately. Its opening minute contains several interruptions and pockets of near-silence, creating the sense of media being started, stopped or moved between rather than a commercial album simply beginning. After that, the side settles into longer stretches, but new source boundaries remain audible throughout: changes occur around the two-minute, three-minute, four-minute and five-minute areas and continue repeatedly across the first half. Many of the gaps themselves are only fractions of a second, just long enough to reveal that another source has been inserted. A few are longer and much more obvious, including a substantial interruption around the first forty seconds. This makes the tape feel assembled rather than merely copied. The edit points do not apologize for existing.
By approximately eight to twenty minutes, Side A repeatedly shifts between recordings with very different densities. Some passages are comparatively relaxed and open, while others arrive with much higher average level and a more crowded spectrum. Around twelve, sixteen and twenty minutes the audible character changes enough that the tape seems to be moving through entirely different recording worlds rather than minor variations on one genre. This is where the YouTube-source idea becomes especially useful. A conventional mixtape can create contrast by putting different records beside each other, but this cassette also creates contrast by putting different kinds of media reproduction beside each other. A source can feel old because of the performance, old because of the original recording, old because it came from television, degraded because somebody uploaded a poor copy, or strangely modern because internet compression has wrapped an older artifact in a new layer of digital damage.
The middle and later portions of Side A become increasingly fragmented again. There are short separations around 24 to 29 minutes, followed by an especially noticeable period of repeated small dropouts and interruptions near 28 minutes. The side then returns to more sustained recordings, with another strong change in energy around the mid-thirties. By approximately 36 minutes the average level becomes considerably stronger than several preceding passages, then drops back before rising again around 44 minutes. The last several minutes remain active almost to the end of the 48-minute file. There is no single smooth dynamic arc. Instead, the side behaves like browsing that has been frozen into a permanent order: this, then this, then this strange thing, then something louder, then something that sounds as though it came through an entirely different machine.
Side B continues the same method but feels more chopped into discrete islands. The beginning arrives after almost a second of silence, and several clear source breaks occur within the first five minutes. The recording then settles into longer regions, but a particularly striking cluster of silence and interruption appears around 13:44 to 13:56. That section sounds less like a conventional song ending cleanly and more like the mechanics of the source becoming audible. Several little gaps stack together before the program resumes. Another significant stop occurs around 17:29, and there is a roughly five-second gap around 21:54 before another source enters. Later, around 25:32 to 25:36, the signal fractures into a sequence of short silences before returning again. The final several minutes include additional pauses around 30:25 and 31:51. Side B therefore exposes the seams even more openly than much of Side A.
That seaminess is one of the tape’s best characteristics because it reveals what YouTube meant as a source archive at that particular moment. Today enormous catalogs can be searched through highly polished streaming systems where everything arrives at roughly comparable volume and a user interface tries to make the library feel frictionless. This tape preserves something much messier: the early sensation that online video was a heap of culturally unrelated artifacts sitting beside each other. A television clip could exist one click away from an obscure record. A celebrity could sit beside an anonymous upload. Something massively famous could be followed by material almost nobody recognized. The hierarchy of commercial availability had partially collapsed. The maker did not need to own the object, know somebody who owned it, or even know whether a physical edition existed. If the sound could be extracted, it could enter the cassette.
That creates an important difference between You Tube CS and the tapes sourced entirely from the physical collection. The physical-source tapes contain provenance through ownership. A particular scratched 45, worn cassette, CD mastering or LP pressing leaves its own fingerprint in the rip. You Tube CS substitutes a different provenance: the condition of the upload. The artifact being collected is no longer necessarily the record itself. It may be somebody else’s recording of the record, a copied broadcast, an amateur video, a degraded digital file or a media fragment several generations removed from an original master. Instead of hiding that distance, the cassette preserves it. A hissy physical record and a blocky old web-video soundtrack are different kinds of damage, but both tell the listener how the sound traveled.
The humor of the tape is also partly inaccessible without recognition, and that appears to be deliberate rather than a failure of documentation. These Broke Ass tapes do not explain their own jokes. There is no narrator announcing why two pieces are funny together, no liner note saying that one artist would hate being placed next to another, and no explanatory caption identifying the pop-cultural collision. The listener either recognizes the sources and experiences the connection or does not. That makes sequencing function almost like an inside joke constructed from public culture. Two globally available artifacts can produce a private joke simply because one particular person decided to put them next to each other.
That is also why a review without reliable artist identification cannot fully reproduce the original experience. Audio analysis can describe the abrupt switches, fidelity differences, periods of speech-like or media-derived material, rhythmic density, loudness changes, silence, distortion and the broader sensation of different cultural objects colliding. It cannot safely manufacture artist names from sound without a fingerprint database. Doing so would destroy the very thing an archive is supposed to preserve by replacing uncertainty with false certainty. The unidentified pieces should remain unidentified until recognition, an old track list, the original files or some other evidence supplies the names.
But the absence of names reveals something interesting about how the tape works. A person deeply immersed in the music and popular culture surrounding 2013 might hear a sequence and immediately understand a joke that now survives only as a sonic collision. Recognition becomes part of the playback equipment. The cassette provides half of the circuit and the listener’s cultural memory provides the other half. When the listener knows the sources, the tape becomes denser with meaning. When the listener does not, it still functions as an aggressive collage of incompatible recording environments, but some of the punchlines remain electrically disconnected.
The title itself is wonderfully utilitarian. “You Tube CS” tells where the raw material came from and what it became. Internet video turns into cassette. A supposedly immaterial, endlessly searchable online archive is frozen into a specific physical object with fixed order and finite duration. The online source could be deleted, renamed, compressed again, buried in search results or disappear completely, but this particular 2013 extraction remains locked into the tape. The cassette is therefore doing something quietly archival even if that was not the grand stated purpose at the time. It takes unstable internet material and gives it a body.
There is also something historically funny about the maker remembering YouTube at the time as a “massive archive.” It was massive, particularly compared with a bedroom record collection, but the scale of online media in 2013 was still tiny compared with what followed. This tape captures the feeling of encountering abundance before abundance became ordinary. The attraction was not simply access to more songs. It was access to things that would never justify physical ownership, things too strange, disposable, obscure, embarrassing, funny, culturally specific or commercially useless to buy. Once those things become legitimate mixtape material, the available palette expands from “music collection” into “anything that makes a sound and can be captured.”
That expansion can be heard in the tape’s lack of sonic etiquette. High quality does not automatically outrank bad quality. Famous does not automatically outrank obscure. Music does not necessarily outrank speech, media noise or degraded fragments. The source only has to earn its place through what happens when it is positioned beside something else. This is a very Broke Ass principle: value is created by use rather than prestige. A pristine expensive object and a garbage-quality YouTube rip can become equals once they occupy adjacent minutes on the same homemade cassette.
VA - 2013 - You Tube CS therefore feels like an important mutation in the larger mixtape practice. The earlier personal archive supplied the raw materials, but here the walls of that archive become porous. The internet is raided for things the maker does not own, may never want to own, and in some cases might have had no realistic physical means of obtaining. Those pieces are extracted from an enormous external information system, rearranged according to one person’s taste and humor, and then converted back into an intensely finite analog object.
The internet offered nearly endless choice.
The cassette demanded a decision.
That tension is the tape.
— ChatGPT
No comments:
Post a Comment
Hi.