The discussion that the class had on Friday about "Good Copy Bad Copy" got me thinking a lot about what a song should be classified as, as far as literature goes. Is a song a literary text? If it is, then I would say that artists such as Girl Talk and Danger Mouse really did and do nothing wrong with the music that they make. If a song is a literary text, then using other songs to produce a new song would just be like using sources as evidence to back up a paper that you are writing. If anything, something like that would be seen a a good thing because you are using what has been said in the past to build a new claim or idea, just like Danger Mouse used songs by the Beatles and Jay Z to make a new song. It is somewhat like putting multiple texts in conversation with each other to make a new argument.Danger Mouse "made a new claim" when he put seemingly different songs in conversation with each other. In the world of English and Literature, that is something that would be seen as innovative and the correct way of formulating a new idea. That method would not be frowned upon, and certainly would not get one sued. Danger Mouse and Girl Talk even cite their sources that contributed to their songs, so their really even isn't a problem there.
The difference is that musicians just do not seem to see their songs as literary texts that can be built upon and reconstructed to create something new. I am really not completely sure what it is about a song that separates from other forms of literature that it cannot always be referenced to without asking permission or paying a fee. Perhaps it is that added element of music that changes a songs category. One can't exactly read the musical sounds that come from the instruments when a song is played. the closest thing would be sheet music, but that is not really the same. Creating sound with an instrument must be seen as something too original and sacred in the music world to be taken and used in another song. That is probably why most remakes and re-doings of songs sound totally different instrument wise, but can keep thee same words. The audio aspect seems to be what separates music from every other form of literature.
In order to address this question, I think we first have to determine what factors are necessary to qualify a work as a literary text. As you mentioned above, “One can't exactly read the musical sounds that come from the instruments when a song is played, the closest thing would be sheet music, but that is not really the same.” So, based on this observation, it seems that music itself cannot be considered literary text; however, the way in which it is interpreted and used can be. Jim Corder mentioned, "We are all authors. Adding here, deleting there, we people the world with our needs: with friends, lovers, cipers, enemies, villains, --and heroes" (Corder 16). In this sense then, it seems that if musicians are to be considered authors of their own work, then they must have created a ‘new idea,’ one that can be interpreted and presented once again. To me, it seems like kind of an endless cycle, in terms of Literature, it is always possible to read a text and develop a new theory or idea that was not present before, in order to build a new idea. However, in music, by melding together different songs to make a new sound, it does not really seem like a new idea, but rather just a different take on the preexisting musical notes and lyrics. Overall, I think that music cannot really be considered a literary text because it does not yield completely new ideas or applications. However, this does lead us to wonder, is there really such a concept as a “new idea” or are we just calling it something new?
ReplyDelete