Music Remix: Postmodernism in Copyright Scandal!
Remix artists and producers have it in them to make people stir a little. An already perfect piece destroyed at the hands of some musical butcher; the frustrated artist whose meticulously crafted soundscape has been trampled by a herd of braying cattle; and not to mention the poor record label manager whose way of life hangs in the balance.
The dichotomy is nothing new; Those of us who train hard and invest our lives in validating whatever our perceived agency gives us often feel offended or threatened by the introduction of new forms. Stravinsky caused a stir in 1913 with his avant-garde premiere of, The ritual of spring (The Ritual of Spring). Dylan lost half his following when he switched from acoustic to electric guitar and John Cage surprised us all with his famous 4.33, in which a pianist sits at the piano and plays absolutely nothing for 4.33 seconds.
The list goes on and is not limited to the type of extreme examples cited above. How many of us get excited about the relative merits of different musical genres, artists and bands, or types of production techniques? It seems we all have an opinion and for the most part we think our path is the right one. I’m trying to convince you now that the remix artist path is at least fine, but fear the die-hards by Adornian Prayed Walter Benja-minions you are unlikely to be swayed against the supposed authenticity of high over popular art. In fact, I know that my path is not the Correct way, it’s just has road.
I would argue, perhaps controversially, that the practice of remixing is not just a facet of contemporary society, but something that most musicians, and other professionals, inherently do to some degree. While many of today’s musicians and producers are criticized for directly sampling others’ music, I suggest that musicians have been doing this, albeit indirectly, since time immemorial. Consider the Beatles, for example, who have forbidden others to sample their work, yet much of the harmonic content within their tracks was based on a reinterpretation of rock ‘n’ roll and rhythm & blues. That is, chords I, IV and V. But the Beatles were not alone in this; chords I, IV and V are the harmonic components on which the vast majority of Western music is based. From Bach to the Beatles and beyond…
So I’m wondering who owns these sets of chords, because if, generally speaking, most of what has been produced since uses a fairly select handful of chord relationships, then someone, somewhere, deserves a pretty big royalty check!
I feel like there are two main objections with the remix artist; the first is the blatant, rather than hidden, reference to the work of others and any resulting monetary gain. In response to this, I would draw a comparison to academia and suggest that, at least with direct sampling, an explicit reference be made to the original within the actual content, as opposed to those who try to get others to work on their own by paraphrasing without reference. . Regarding any financial gain a remix artist receives, then you could consider that for any commercial remix, the original artist is paid for their sample and in some cases much more than they may have earned from their original release. . Old tracks can be given a new look that appeals to a wider audience, thus propagating the original composer’s music.
This brings us to the second objection that some have, with the idea that remixes can dilute the original message of the composer; a ‘written as nature intended’ type of approach. What I would say in defense is that when all is said and done, the original still remains; intact, as it was on the day it was published and as ‘nature’ intended. Ultimately, the choice remains firm on you whether you choose to listen to the original, the remix, or both. If the original message has been lost in the remix, it has almost certainly been replaced by another message that is relevant to those who hear and engage with it.
