On the matter of remix, a video immediately comes to mind. About the popular breakbeat, The Amen Break:
For its simplicity, I really appreciate this piece. The video provides a good bit of insight for unsuspecting music fans, showing how the advent of the sampler led to the revival of one basic sample (the amen breakbeat), that trended its way through music to a level of complete saturation in modern music. As the video shows, the amen break exists so deeply within modern music that there's simply too much to hope to extract it from, and too much to competently take legal action against.
My favorite group is House music duo, Daft Punk, who reached expanded popularity from their album Discovery, which made use of MANY disco samples. Followed by groups like Trip Hop "band" Gorillaz, British DJ duos like Basement Jaxx, Orbital... There's a trend here. I appreciate some hiphop acts too, like the supergroup duo Madvillian, half of which (the DJ Madlib) openly samples illegally. Frankly, I think he has enough money to get away with it. And he's willing to face litigation for his art. It's good art.
I can understand the issue when artists want credit and compensation for their works. But there's an all too familiar greed component at play. They don't mind reusing other works, they just don't want theirs used. Because they, these supreme and original artists, are THE original big shots. That seems to be rational, anyway. As a result of this, and the court ruling that prohibits sampling of others' works, there is a faction of composers and artists who were early enough in the game that they made their success, and now have the monetary means to press on with sampling and recording. Now, it's hard for new artists who are boxed out. Unless of course you're Dangermouse and use the internet very wisely.
The video above makes an interesting assertion, regarding the early 1980's growth of Hip Hop (before many knew the potential of the genre's success): "During the 80s, when DJ's plundered old jazz and R&B records, looking for samples, hiphop in particular and electronic music in general were not the pop phenomenon and money makers we know them as today. There seemed to be a brief few sort of glory years, back then. When the novelty of sampling, and the rate at which it was being employed as a new technique, grew faster than the rate at which any sort of copyright bureaucracy could maintain the law."
In a short sighted vision, sole ownership is key for profitability. But there is such a thing as over-protection. Cultural creation comes from the inspiration or re-use of older concepts, compounded on one another. In computer programming, even where open source isn't concerned, the concept abstraction exists. Basically: don't reinvent the wheel. Use existing tools (if working well), and compound from there. The opening of content for opportunities to remix or retool content is of value to the general public. Better yet, it allows for an ability to profit off of open content by the potential to reapply said content in original applications. The strategy of creating content, guarding it, then suing anyone who uses the content is faulty and oppressive. Not just to individual artists but to the publica and culture at large.
Related readings:
No comments:
Post a Comment