It seems that those who argue for free sharing and remixing of music are arguing something similar about music: That once released, the artist is not responsible for what it means to the public any longer. This makes me wonder how ideas about who music belongs to have changed since digital technologies have made it so much easier to sample and warp it to create new pieces. Obviously, without computers, it was still possible for artists to "borrow" and re-appropriate the work of their peers, but the action has evolved and become much more widespread. It seems like part of the argument of those who want copyright laws to be less strict is that digitally remastering a piece is less "stealing" than simply copying or changing the notes on an actual instrument.
This is perhaps because of the collage effect that brings together many different pieces and warping them with one another. If one simply re-plays another composer's work as one's own without remastering, this does not lead to the creation of new musical ideas, and therefore is not acceptable. Therefore, perhaps it's the juxtaposition of certain sounds and the images and ideas that they convey, that lead to the creation of new ideas in remixes. According to several of the theorists we have read this semester, text is essentially a collage as well, a combination of words that each have pre-conceived denotative and connotative meaning. Words are not original: It is the way that writers combine them that leads to the creation of original language and ideas. So does the same hold true for sound-bytes?
Miranda -
ReplyDeleteI think it's important, however, to note the difference between the artist/author being responsible for meaning and the artist/author receiving credit for doing the work. Wimsatt and Beardsley's statement about the work belonging to the public is certainly an interesting one, but given that the statement supports the argument that the author's intention shouldn't govern the meaning of a piece, I hesitate to use this statement to argue for free sharing of music. Interpretation can be a separate issue from ownership, and this is an important distinction.
I remember one of the people - I think it was the guy who ran Creative Commons - saying that he know that students do all kinds of things with his book that he didn't intend, but that it's ok with him as long as they don't try to sell his book under their names (or something to that effect). I think your last paragraph gets at this idea, though.
"Words are not original: It is the way that writers combine them that leads to the creation of original language and ideas. So does the same hold true for sound-bytes?"
ReplyDeleteMiranda,
As true as I believe that is for language, I would argue that doesn't quite hold as true for music. It has several different components, and those can all be arranged in different patterns creating an almost infinite number of combinations. When music is being remastered, the message of the song isn't always changed. The argument shouldn't be "they stole my music," the argument should be "they stole my message." If the message can be shown to have a new meaning (not that I'm offering a way to judge that, mind you), then the song should be legally allowed to be remastered.
This idea of new technologies creating an easier way to use other's music is interesting. Would you say that easy-to-use computer mixing programs are giving the average music listener more agency? Because I would agree. The world of yesterday was one where, to be heard by the masses, artists had to make and distribute their own recordings, often paying a lot of money to make their music known. They had to be serious artists. But today's technology makes it easy to be an artist; literally anyone with a computer can create music and distribute it all over the world. Thus the music creator has more agency with technology, can create (and yes, I would call music sampling a creation) and (like Dangermouse) can become well known without ever leaving his home. In a similar way websites like Wikipedia have made it easier to write papers. No longer does one have to go to the library and do hours of book-research to find textual support. With the computer, everyone can be a researcher and distributor of well-backed, critical works of writing. What I'm really interested in is why did hard-copy music (tapes, records) die before the book? Although with newer technology the book is slowly dying, what makes this death happen so much slower than the death of non-digital music?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the comments, I actually see intention and ownership as fairly related. If the author is "dead" and their works are now "ours". If we have the right to interpret a text, don't we more or less "own" our interpretation, which is all a text can really stand for to us? This may be a flimsy argument. I just think that if we have the right to interpret, don't we have the right to use in a way that shows our interpretations. This relates directly to music sampling.
Also, are you (Kaitlyn) arguing that something fairly graspable, such as music, can't be "stolen", but something hard to grasp like a "message" can? I don't think anyone should have the rights to words or chord progressions and even more so a message. How can one own a "message", or claim "intellectual property" to something as vague as a message. Jon Lennon certainly doesn't own the idea of "Revolution" as a message. Homer doesn't own the "journey" message. A message is something that transcends and constantly reoccurs. If messages could be owned than we'd have long ago run out of new music, writing, and film. The term "my message" just sounds odd. A message is no ones, especially the single author or artist, who contrived the "message" through social action and influence in a way that makes those same potential "stealers" of the message the ones who influenced the message in the first place.
My personal standpoint on music is that it is indeed a shared creation. If composers did not want you to experience and keep their music alive then they we would not have sheet music and scores to play!
ReplyDeleteI said in an earlier post that the genre dictates the protocol for whether or not to label something as plagiarism. In my experience the creation of music is a much more communal and shared concept than writing.
Text is an invention that we have taught our brains to understand. It also can be expressed without sound, and must be read from the pages of a book. Music on the other hand, is released vocally and received through our ears. There is not a more natural process of communication than through speech and hearing.
This is why certain genres appear in music, because different people are drawn to different sounds. It's funny, you can take the 1564 chord progression and apply it to Don't Stop Believing, I'm Yours, Can you Feel the Love Tonight, and believe me, hundreds of other hits. This shows that when working in a genre like music, you deal with an art quite different from writing.
While it is true that the song no longer belongs to the artist and that, once it is released, it takes on a life of its own, it is still a product of the artist and the artist does deserve some sort of compensation from its use, in the same way that the poet deserves some sort of compensation for their poems. Poets sell books of poetry and if one were to walk out of the store with a book of poetry that would be considered stealing or using the poem without giving credit to the poet would be considered stealing in the same way that acquiring a song without paying for it is stealing or sampling a song without giving credit to the original artist. I don't think that musicians are against the sampling of their music, as long as credit is given where credit is due, but they would have to be against the piracy of their music.
ReplyDeleteMiranda, it's a good comparison to make between text and songs. It's actually a little frustrating, even. If I wrote a book or an essay or (good lord) a research paper, I have to cite, get permission, blah, blah blah, for every word I use that's not my own. If I want to use song lyrics, that's even more trouble (even though I can do God knows what with it on the internet for free). It's so much easier to reuse music and songs than it is to reuse words in texts. Music is so accessible that anyone can do anything with it with minimal red tape.
ReplyDeleteHow do you tell someone with internet acces, "No, you can't do that"?
Good Copy, Bad Copy mentioned that issue of, well, just because an American artist gets copyright doesn't mean someone from Switzerland has to acknowledge that. And, thanks to the internet, if someone in Switzerland puts an American song on the internet, an American (who is supposedly bound by these copyright laws) can easily download it.
Someone in Good Copy Bad Copy noted this impossibility early on, but I think that before you see the moral side you have to see the logical side. If you can't prevent music sharing, then what on Earth are we talking about?
I think your question at the end of your post is the ultimate reason that musicians get upset about copyright infringement. I do not think that musicians and bands see themselves as authors of a literary text when they write and produce a song. They do not see a song as a form of literature because of the added element of music and sound, which is not perceived as a form of language. We have talked about how pictures and words act as language, but can sound alone that is not making any words be seen as a form of language as well? Does the sounds that different instruments make tell the consumer something or send a message? I think that a lot of people would probably say yes to this question, and I think that is what leads to the discrepancy as far as copyrights go. Music does have different genres based on how certain instruments are played, and that can be noticed by simply hearing the sound. If another artist like Girl Talk can change that genre by mixing a certain song with another, then it would seem that that would be enough to toss the copyright problem out the window, but for some reason it is still a problem in the music industry.
ReplyDelete