Well, you can find out the info here. This isn't a new topic in the music industry but for many mashups are still an unknown genre.
Listen to a mashup. This one is "Bodies Hit The Floor" by Girl Talk.
Last week we watched a documentary called 'RIP a Remix Manifesto' in school. I had seen it once before but I have no idea when and where! Great memory.
As Wikipedia says: "RIP!: A Remix Manifesto is an open source documentary created by Brett Gaylor and Greg Gillis (Girl Talk). The film consists of a remix of clips submitted by numerous contributors to the Open Source Cinema project. It focuses in particular on the legal grey area of remixing existing copyrighted works."
Today it was time for discussion. Here are some of the questions we discussed:
I find mashups exiting. Of course they are a mixture of other people's work but I do find it as an interesting new art-form. What about, who is the right one to earn money for mashups? Yeah, tough one. The artists behind the original tracks have done a lot of work but so has the mashup artist. Everyone deserves a share? But what share and how? Everything has its' pro's and con's but one idea heard in class sounded reasonably good to me: "Mashup artists should stick to live performances and forget about recordings, this way copyrights would be much easier to solve." Then again, is it the restriction of creativity? Creative commons, creative commons...
Tough one, though. The discussion in class was nice but of course we couldn't get any final answer - there is no wrong or right.
Listen to a mashup. This one is "Bodies Hit The Floor" by Girl Talk.
Last week we watched a documentary called 'RIP a Remix Manifesto' in school. I had seen it once before but I have no idea when and where! Great memory.
As Wikipedia says: "RIP!: A Remix Manifesto is an open source documentary created by Brett Gaylor and Greg Gillis (Girl Talk). The film consists of a remix of clips submitted by numerous contributors to the Open Source Cinema project. It focuses in particular on the legal grey area of remixing existing copyrighted works."
Today it was time for discussion. Here are some of the questions we discussed:
- Do you think that if you manipulate an existing song enough you can eventually claim it as your own creation?
- Where do you draw the line between copying and creating?
- Do you think sampling can be considered an instrument akin to guitars, drums etc?
- What do you think is more important, the creative process, or the final product?
- Do you believe there are forms of music that are not built on past works?
- Do you think you can argue your creativity when it's based on other people's work?
- Copyright laws were originally intended to encourage people to create. Do you think that intention has changed in recent years?
- Lars Ulrich states, "If artists aren't profiting, you're profiting illegally." What do you think of this statement?"
- How do you think the Internet, with the advent of Myspace and music blogs, has changed your chances of being a successful musician?
I find mashups exiting. Of course they are a mixture of other people's work but I do find it as an interesting new art-form. What about, who is the right one to earn money for mashups? Yeah, tough one. The artists behind the original tracks have done a lot of work but so has the mashup artist. Everyone deserves a share? But what share and how? Everything has its' pro's and con's but one idea heard in class sounded reasonably good to me: "Mashup artists should stick to live performances and forget about recordings, this way copyrights would be much easier to solve." Then again, is it the restriction of creativity? Creative commons, creative commons...
Tough one, though. The discussion in class was nice but of course we couldn't get any final answer - there is no wrong or right.
We also started to discuss about opinions of what is going to happen in the future now that artists get less money from record sales (as they are decreasing), what is the value of social medias for artists and so on. Then an opinion was made that 'nobody will be willing to make music if no profit can be made'.
This made me think.
Okay, maybe not - the music business is a BUSINESS, right? But do you really think the making of music will totally disappear if you don't get paid for doing it? I doubt it.
Things in life change. Companies are formed, companies die. Cassette-players are a hit, cassette-players are hardly in use. CD's sell, then they don't. Something will come next. Brains can make profit.
But.
Could anyone ever believe that the music business could change from a money business to a music business?
We'll see about that. Probably not, though. The music business is so huge and everyone wants money - the more the better, hhu? Most likely new inventions will come and people will do anything to keep the business alive. And yes, as in keep the business alive.
I'm not saying artists don't deserve money from what they make - not at all. I'm not saying that any the music business is a huge terrible money-monster nor that money shouldn't streak around it. Neither am I saying I don't want money. I'm just thinking. Thinking of possibilities in the music field and I find it interesting! Yet...remember that I am studying Music and Media Management and want to make a living out of it, too. ;-)
Anyhow, how and where do you see the music business in a few years? What do you think about mashups? Is it misuse of someone else's property?
XOXO,
L
PS: Mosh-up your world. Part: 2:48, great fun!:-D
No comments:
Post a Comment