It's been a while since I've talked about anything related to the art that unites us all, what with my writings about Glenn Miller and Hugo Chavez. If it weren't for these crazy mashups, I wouldn't be here to write about those unrelated topics. While the medium itself sort of has a bizarre relationship with both ourselves and the rest of the internet, we can't deny that we've found ourselves fascinated by its ways. It has allowed simple editing hiccups to become more humorous by the way they're sequenced. It has spurred a plethora of catchphrases that still find some charm no matter how nauseatingly repetitive they get. And most importantly, it has introduced us to content as absurd as the very videos they find themselves spliced and mangled in. The very foundation of the Youtube Poop rests upon the objects that it pulls apart and stitches back together into a sputtering Frankenstein, the source material, or sources for short. Sources are integral to the process since they provide the challenge, enhance the humor and draw in particular audiences to your poop. A source can be potent by its own, can be the centerpiece of the work or can be accompanied by various others; it may define the pooper or it may simply serve for entertaining visuals. Nonetheless, it is essential that the pooper knows about their source, feels their source, tastes the source, caresses their source, dates the source and becomes the source itself. That way, it can then use it to its utmost potential.
The first thing that one has to be aware of is how to go about picking a source or sources. The choice of sources has an effect on how you go about your process and how others view the work you create. There are four main categories of sources:
Spadinner sources are typically what Youtube Poop is known for. It's your Nintendo CD-i cartoons, your Dr. Rabbit, your damn hedgehogs, your singing apes and your talking volcanoes. At a glance, the Spadinner source can be a toss-up for the viewer. This either indicates that the video is going to be an amateur display of how much two Italian plumbers can declare their homosexuality or a masterful exercise in turning toothpaste tubes into live worms and epileptic seizures. It's ubiquity has made it appealing to the beginner for its familiarity and to the expert in how to defy its convention. It mostly stems from that Spadinner sources are already weird without much editing. Their voice acting is unnatural, the animation is uncanny, the plot lines are ludicrous and the doctors are surprisingly attractive. Going through the frames, one can find many an odd visual to exploit for their amusement. So many have used it that there is so much extra content for them to be bent further and so many are familiar with it, that even if no ones uses that extra content to take a further risk on that source, someone will still be interested in it for the sake of familiarity. They also tend to be great for laughs, whether they're cheap or not.
Common sources are similar to Spadinner sources in how many times they are used and how it can either indicate that the creator is a novice or a professional. The difference is that while Spadinner sources have deeply rooted themselves in the Youtube Poop "culture", common sources are just used often. These range from American pop culture to Japanese pop culture to more American pop culture to general internet culture to even more American pop culture. Certain common sources can find themselves being subjected to familiar frames of mind when in the process of being edited. Spongebob Squarepants as a source has automatically found itself with the stigma of being reduced to Spingebill, a process in which the show is reduced to being plastered with shocking edits in a creepypasta fashion. Others find themselves spreading due to how a pooper or a group of poopers have used the source successfully. King Of The Hill has attracted much attention after DurhamrockerZ, OrpheusFTW and AttackOfTheHank have extracted the potential off of it. Common sources can achieve Spadinner-level of notoriety, be it from selective jokes or how much it is used, but it may not be considered such either because it is not weird enough on its own, it was not obscure before its usage or because the council of the almighty poopers has not yet granted it that honor.
Hip sources, fad sources, down-wit-da-kewl-kydz sources or on-fleek sources are either on the cusp of becoming a common source or will regress into an irregular source. Hip sources will naturally be material that attracts many to use it but it depends entirely on those who use on how it will evolve. Some are intended as the flavor of the month, being exploited either to be cheeky bastards (PETA Fish/Some Screams Can't Be Heard) or because of an increase in interest (Hey Arnold). Others are riding on already-established current trends and follow their lifespan in terms of how frequent they become used in the future (Adventure Time, My Little Pony, Steven Universe, really any children's cartoon). And some simply stem from in-jokes that then over-saturate the poop market and cause shit stocks to plummet to the annoyance and chagrin of viewers (forced memes). It's not to say that there isn't the possibility that a hip source cannot become a common source, though it is largely dependent on how the source rises and falls. The timing of when you use the source can have an effect on the work itself, sometimes regardless of the talent. Using it at the bandwagon's peak can guarantee a reasonable amount of views and a few subscribers, but using it when it has become commonplace or no longer attractive can lead to considerable downvotes and misspelled insults.
Irregular sources are perhaps the larger section of sources out there. If we were to think of the categories in ranks, Spadinner sources are the royalty of Youtube Poop, common sources are the knights, hip sources are the jesters that either live to see another day or get mauled by tigers and irregular sources are the smelly peasants. Though that's not to say that they can't relate to their higher counterparts. They can be as hidden and off-kilter as Spadinner sources, as relatable and noteworthy as common sources or as trendy and eye-catching as hip sources. What may keep them irregular is the mixture of attributes that they share or their lack of usage from the general pooping community. To an individual pooper, an irregular source can become common for them, and that in turn could allow it to rise above the ranks, considering that they have the ability and notoriety for it, if they so intend for it that is. Perhaps their unique source choice can only work for them or the source itself relies on it being irregular because it adds to the idiosyncrasy of the poop itself. DanielRadcliffle777 was pivotal in the usage of irregular sources because it further defines the unpredictability and insanity that came from his content. An irregular source can prove to be harder to succeed with on its own, as there is a chance that it may not be catapulted to a higher category, but it is not impossible for one to do well with using those sources.
When choosing a source, you must be familiar with its inner workings and understand what you can do in order to convert it into Youtube Poop. You must watch it as though you are a campaign manager trying to ruin the credibility of the opponent, exploiting any errors no matter the size and distorting the message for your own advantage. Sometimes its the visual, other times its the auditory. Animation tends to be very attractive as a source because of their frames. Since they have to produce certain effects either for the sake of comedy or convenience, funny faces and animation smears prove versatile for a poop. For instance, if there's any awkward movement that stems from a collection of smear frames, it can be reversed and played back a bunch of times to further stimulate the uncanny atmosphere. If there is an interesting background image, quick cuts that zoom closer to the object are presented. Live action works can serve just as well when it comes to silly frames or silly "sus"-like movement, but they lack the speedy and rubbery nature of cartoons. Sentence mixing, on the other hand, can only be as effective as the source you choose. If the source is foreign, garbled or cryptic, you may want to avoid that. But if there is clear enunciation, a lot of talking and some funny words sprinkled in, the source is far more powerful. Couple that technique with the fact that what you edit the source to say in relation with its original tone creates humor through clever juxtaposition, and you can show that you are a competent and hilarious pooper.
Another important factor of sources is how many you use and how you decide to focus your energy on the sources themselves. Most videos either fall under the main source and the multiple source structure, with a select amount of single source videos. Single source videos are 90-100% fixated on a sole video source. If there is any extra content, it will be restricted to pictures, audio clips for effect, music (which is not usually referred as sources, unless it's specifically an audio or visual poop or if the audio carries more weight in the video), or incredibly short video clips. Most single source videos work off the 90% margin, with those going for the full 100 relying on incredibly quick editing, immense visual and audio manipulation and/or a lot of stutters. Single source videos tend to be Spadinner sources or common sources as it attracts a greater crowd that going with irregular sources. Not only that, but irregular sources tend to be tricky to nail down in single source format because it requires a lot of attention to detail from the source and wonderful editing craftsmanship, even considering the 90% margin. Very few are able to reach the consciousness of the internet and the community at large but there do exist a handful of them out there, as well as users who mainly characterize themselves as focusing on irregular single source poops.
If one wants to retain the focus of the poop to an irregular source, the main source model is much more preferable. The main source model is applicable to any type of source and may be considered the most frequently used source model. In essence, one source is centered as the point (the main source, as it were) in which the rest of the sources work around of. In contrast to the single-source model, 60-80% of the main source is shown and used with the other percent being relegated to the filler sources. This model allows for more flexibility because any opening that the main source creates is covered by the filler sources. Sometimes those openings are due to similarities that the main and filler source share like characters, quotes, movements, actors, etc. Other times it stems from the contrast that the sources creates. It can even simply be because the main source only has enough potential that there needs to be something else to keep it afloat and to provide a better foundation. Naturally for that last instance, it's best to hide that fact. Spadinner and common sources often find themselves attaching as the filler to an irregular or fad source to serve as eye-catching material or enhancement to the more unfamiliar work. With fad sources in particular, the Spadinner and common sources add to the punchline of what the fad is. It can also be inverted, having Spadinner and common sources be the main source but be surrounded by the irregular or fad sources as to go with a new approach on using those sources in conjunction to newer material.
Then we have the multiple sources model, in which no source is meant as the focus and all serve to interact and intertwine with each other in all sorts of different ways. The multiple source model can take the sketch comedy approach in which there is a set amount of time for each source, with the other sources occasionally popping their head and running gags being present throughout the video. Spadinner sources have generally found themselves in that approach, as their commonalities mesh well with one another and the culture around them has cultivated certain tropes and mannerisms to be apparent amongst themselves. Common sources also serve well under the sketch comedy approach, though more of what makes them special stems from the imagination of the pooper. The other approach is the collage approach, where-in the irregular sources thrive better in as said approach aims to be more surreal and visually stimulating. Artistic or unique poopers are fond of the collage approach since the lack of focus makes it all the more challenging for them to construct the work and would serve to be more intriguing to the viewer. As a result, the irregular source being less connected to the general public becomes attractive to mish-mash together in the collage format, perhaps building upon Spadinner and common sources to leech off of them and strip them bear of their conventions. Combining all the types of sources into one video can achieve great results but one must be more cautious as it requires precision and cohesion to work properly.
Sources are key to what makes a poop work from where it comes from, to what type it is, to how it is edited and to how many are used. It can help in the individual poop to set the bar for what the viewer should expect. It can provide the pooper a pattern for them to build upon and create their own pooper identity. A source's strength can be noticed upon by others and built upon, spreading its popularity amongst the community. It can lead people to be interested in new topics simply because they saw something from the source that could only be brought out by the pooper. It can make a pooper's message or style all the more poignant. Sources are the heart of the poop, providing the energy and the emotion for the viewer to entrance themselves in the heavily altered creation that it keeps alive. Being mindful of the source is being mindful of the poop that you produce. And god knows that we all want to produce some great poop.
The first thing that one has to be aware of is how to go about picking a source or sources. The choice of sources has an effect on how you go about your process and how others view the work you create. There are four main categories of sources:
Spadinner sources are typically what Youtube Poop is known for. It's your Nintendo CD-i cartoons, your Dr. Rabbit, your damn hedgehogs, your singing apes and your talking volcanoes. At a glance, the Spadinner source can be a toss-up for the viewer. This either indicates that the video is going to be an amateur display of how much two Italian plumbers can declare their homosexuality or a masterful exercise in turning toothpaste tubes into live worms and epileptic seizures. It's ubiquity has made it appealing to the beginner for its familiarity and to the expert in how to defy its convention. It mostly stems from that Spadinner sources are already weird without much editing. Their voice acting is unnatural, the animation is uncanny, the plot lines are ludicrous and the doctors are surprisingly attractive. Going through the frames, one can find many an odd visual to exploit for their amusement. So many have used it that there is so much extra content for them to be bent further and so many are familiar with it, that even if no ones uses that extra content to take a further risk on that source, someone will still be interested in it for the sake of familiarity. They also tend to be great for laughs, whether they're cheap or not.
Common sources are similar to Spadinner sources in how many times they are used and how it can either indicate that the creator is a novice or a professional. The difference is that while Spadinner sources have deeply rooted themselves in the Youtube Poop "culture", common sources are just used often. These range from American pop culture to Japanese pop culture to more American pop culture to general internet culture to even more American pop culture. Certain common sources can find themselves being subjected to familiar frames of mind when in the process of being edited. Spongebob Squarepants as a source has automatically found itself with the stigma of being reduced to Spingebill, a process in which the show is reduced to being plastered with shocking edits in a creepypasta fashion. Others find themselves spreading due to how a pooper or a group of poopers have used the source successfully. King Of The Hill has attracted much attention after DurhamrockerZ, OrpheusFTW and AttackOfTheHank have extracted the potential off of it. Common sources can achieve Spadinner-level of notoriety, be it from selective jokes or how much it is used, but it may not be considered such either because it is not weird enough on its own, it was not obscure before its usage or because the council of the almighty poopers has not yet granted it that honor.
Hip sources, fad sources, down-wit-da-kewl-kydz sources or on-fleek sources are either on the cusp of becoming a common source or will regress into an irregular source. Hip sources will naturally be material that attracts many to use it but it depends entirely on those who use on how it will evolve. Some are intended as the flavor of the month, being exploited either to be cheeky bastards (PETA Fish/Some Screams Can't Be Heard) or because of an increase in interest (Hey Arnold). Others are riding on already-established current trends and follow their lifespan in terms of how frequent they become used in the future (Adventure Time, My Little Pony, Steven Universe, really any children's cartoon). And some simply stem from in-jokes that then over-saturate the poop market and cause shit stocks to plummet to the annoyance and chagrin of viewers (forced memes). It's not to say that there isn't the possibility that a hip source cannot become a common source, though it is largely dependent on how the source rises and falls. The timing of when you use the source can have an effect on the work itself, sometimes regardless of the talent. Using it at the bandwagon's peak can guarantee a reasonable amount of views and a few subscribers, but using it when it has become commonplace or no longer attractive can lead to considerable downvotes and misspelled insults.
Irregular sources are perhaps the larger section of sources out there. If we were to think of the categories in ranks, Spadinner sources are the royalty of Youtube Poop, common sources are the knights, hip sources are the jesters that either live to see another day or get mauled by tigers and irregular sources are the smelly peasants. Though that's not to say that they can't relate to their higher counterparts. They can be as hidden and off-kilter as Spadinner sources, as relatable and noteworthy as common sources or as trendy and eye-catching as hip sources. What may keep them irregular is the mixture of attributes that they share or their lack of usage from the general pooping community. To an individual pooper, an irregular source can become common for them, and that in turn could allow it to rise above the ranks, considering that they have the ability and notoriety for it, if they so intend for it that is. Perhaps their unique source choice can only work for them or the source itself relies on it being irregular because it adds to the idiosyncrasy of the poop itself. DanielRadcliffle777 was pivotal in the usage of irregular sources because it further defines the unpredictability and insanity that came from his content. An irregular source can prove to be harder to succeed with on its own, as there is a chance that it may not be catapulted to a higher category, but it is not impossible for one to do well with using those sources.
When choosing a source, you must be familiar with its inner workings and understand what you can do in order to convert it into Youtube Poop. You must watch it as though you are a campaign manager trying to ruin the credibility of the opponent, exploiting any errors no matter the size and distorting the message for your own advantage. Sometimes its the visual, other times its the auditory. Animation tends to be very attractive as a source because of their frames. Since they have to produce certain effects either for the sake of comedy or convenience, funny faces and animation smears prove versatile for a poop. For instance, if there's any awkward movement that stems from a collection of smear frames, it can be reversed and played back a bunch of times to further stimulate the uncanny atmosphere. If there is an interesting background image, quick cuts that zoom closer to the object are presented. Live action works can serve just as well when it comes to silly frames or silly "sus"-like movement, but they lack the speedy and rubbery nature of cartoons. Sentence mixing, on the other hand, can only be as effective as the source you choose. If the source is foreign, garbled or cryptic, you may want to avoid that. But if there is clear enunciation, a lot of talking and some funny words sprinkled in, the source is far more powerful. Couple that technique with the fact that what you edit the source to say in relation with its original tone creates humor through clever juxtaposition, and you can show that you are a competent and hilarious pooper.
Another important factor of sources is how many you use and how you decide to focus your energy on the sources themselves. Most videos either fall under the main source and the multiple source structure, with a select amount of single source videos. Single source videos are 90-100% fixated on a sole video source. If there is any extra content, it will be restricted to pictures, audio clips for effect, music (which is not usually referred as sources, unless it's specifically an audio or visual poop or if the audio carries more weight in the video), or incredibly short video clips. Most single source videos work off the 90% margin, with those going for the full 100 relying on incredibly quick editing, immense visual and audio manipulation and/or a lot of stutters. Single source videos tend to be Spadinner sources or common sources as it attracts a greater crowd that going with irregular sources. Not only that, but irregular sources tend to be tricky to nail down in single source format because it requires a lot of attention to detail from the source and wonderful editing craftsmanship, even considering the 90% margin. Very few are able to reach the consciousness of the internet and the community at large but there do exist a handful of them out there, as well as users who mainly characterize themselves as focusing on irregular single source poops.
If one wants to retain the focus of the poop to an irregular source, the main source model is much more preferable. The main source model is applicable to any type of source and may be considered the most frequently used source model. In essence, one source is centered as the point (the main source, as it were) in which the rest of the sources work around of. In contrast to the single-source model, 60-80% of the main source is shown and used with the other percent being relegated to the filler sources. This model allows for more flexibility because any opening that the main source creates is covered by the filler sources. Sometimes those openings are due to similarities that the main and filler source share like characters, quotes, movements, actors, etc. Other times it stems from the contrast that the sources creates. It can even simply be because the main source only has enough potential that there needs to be something else to keep it afloat and to provide a better foundation. Naturally for that last instance, it's best to hide that fact. Spadinner and common sources often find themselves attaching as the filler to an irregular or fad source to serve as eye-catching material or enhancement to the more unfamiliar work. With fad sources in particular, the Spadinner and common sources add to the punchline of what the fad is. It can also be inverted, having Spadinner and common sources be the main source but be surrounded by the irregular or fad sources as to go with a new approach on using those sources in conjunction to newer material.
Then we have the multiple sources model, in which no source is meant as the focus and all serve to interact and intertwine with each other in all sorts of different ways. The multiple source model can take the sketch comedy approach in which there is a set amount of time for each source, with the other sources occasionally popping their head and running gags being present throughout the video. Spadinner sources have generally found themselves in that approach, as their commonalities mesh well with one another and the culture around them has cultivated certain tropes and mannerisms to be apparent amongst themselves. Common sources also serve well under the sketch comedy approach, though more of what makes them special stems from the imagination of the pooper. The other approach is the collage approach, where-in the irregular sources thrive better in as said approach aims to be more surreal and visually stimulating. Artistic or unique poopers are fond of the collage approach since the lack of focus makes it all the more challenging for them to construct the work and would serve to be more intriguing to the viewer. As a result, the irregular source being less connected to the general public becomes attractive to mish-mash together in the collage format, perhaps building upon Spadinner and common sources to leech off of them and strip them bear of their conventions. Combining all the types of sources into one video can achieve great results but one must be more cautious as it requires precision and cohesion to work properly.
Sources are key to what makes a poop work from where it comes from, to what type it is, to how it is edited and to how many are used. It can help in the individual poop to set the bar for what the viewer should expect. It can provide the pooper a pattern for them to build upon and create their own pooper identity. A source's strength can be noticed upon by others and built upon, spreading its popularity amongst the community. It can lead people to be interested in new topics simply because they saw something from the source that could only be brought out by the pooper. It can make a pooper's message or style all the more poignant. Sources are the heart of the poop, providing the energy and the emotion for the viewer to entrance themselves in the heavily altered creation that it keeps alive. Being mindful of the source is being mindful of the poop that you produce. And god knows that we all want to produce some great poop.