RIP: A Remix Manifesto
In today’s modern era, it’s easy to forget how much the past continues to influence our present day lives. In terms of music and culture, both derive from the past and also coincide to display their importance within the world today. After watching the film, RIP: A Remix Manifesto, I was immediately impacted by concept of copyrighting as it pertains to the relationship between past and present day music genres. Gaylor mentions the fact that “copyrighting is based on the war over ideas, where the battleground is the internet.” A new idea in general is coined by the term ‘remix’, but music’s form of remix is what has inspired me to take a deeper look into the ways in which the past influences the present. The director of the film, Brett Gaylor, mentions the copyRIGHT versus the copyLEFT, where both sides display their reasons for and against remixes altogether. In this case, the right side discovered a supermarket of intellectual property, where the founders demanded to be paid for copyright instances. On the other hand, the left side promotes the sharing of ideas and the protection of the public domain to ensure the exchange of these ideas. No matter which side of the spectrum you fall back on, it’s important to understand how culture has created these two conflicting sides.
In chapter 4 of the textbook, I was intrigued by the Making, Selling, and Profiting from Music section, which elaborates on the conflict between business and artist concerns. Through these three large steps in the music process, it’s crazy to factor the impact of remixes into the initial creation of one single song. As a remix is a twist to an original song or even a short sound bite taken from it, one may easily convey their reasons against remixes altogether. On that note, reasons against may include the fact that a given original song’s publicity earned its credit, while a remix doesn’t. Reasons for remixes may say that its sampling is an instrument, where the construction of free societies must include the limited control of the past. Going off of the reasons for remixes, Gaylor states that “the past is always trying to control the future”, which is what contributes to a flawed representation of ideas. As the first federal copyright law was written under the U.S. constitution in 1790, its motive was designed to encourage people to create. Under the strict copyrighting acts of the twenty-first century, the term ‘create’ has evolved into a completely different meaning, where one cannot move forward within their production without constantly being afraid of the infringement on others.
When considering today’s current events, culture within the music industry remains at the top of the peak. Given my reaction to the film, it’s amazing to think of how far music (of all genres) has come to symbolize our current societal movements. The essence of remixes today and their relationship with current events rely on the fact that culture is always building upon the past. With that being said, the textbook illustrates the Reformations in Popular Music, which goes on to reflect a changing industry of imitation based on the British Invasion of the 1950s. Through this invasion, England’s musical takeover in the U.S. was fueled by their overnight success, which was later said to be posed as a copyright upon Chuck Berry and Little Richard. Getting back to the modern day relation between music and current events, remixed songs continue to fuel the industry, despite their well-known copyrights. In my opinion, many instances of remixed music have led to more popularity than the original song itself, where music variation represents an alternative thought. As this variation continues to influence music forms from all around the globe, society can’t help but latch onto the transgression of norms, instantly allowing for a broadcasted current event.
Reflecting back on the film, RIP: A Remix Manifesto, I was most intrigued by Lawrence Lessig’s reasoning and justification for acts of copywriting. Lessig, an American academic, attorney, and political activist, is interviewed by Brett Gaylor, and elicits the fact that there’s no way to kill copyright technology. While embracing this technology, Lessig compares the production of remixed music/film to writing an essay, where the individual would quote certain things from their culture to better tell their story. Within this essay process, the individual would then cite this quote, as it pertains to the support of their initial argument as a whole. Although Lawrence Lessig compares copyright acts in music and film to the written production of an essay, he breaks the news that it’s indeed a federal crime to copyright music and film because of their production processes. Looking back at Lessig’s wise words, I’m now more educated on the ways in which a copyright is initiated and enforced within different parts of the world. As I scroll through a plethora of remixed songs on my phone each day, I can honestly say that I’m now more aware of the continued music motives that fuel the maneuvers around the copyright industry today. In my perspective, remixed music entails more positives than negatives within society, as long as the credit is given to the original artist.
Works Cited
Campbell, Richard, Christopher R. Martin, and Bettina Fabos. Media & Culture: Mass Communication in a Digital Age. 10th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2016. 130-141. Web.
RIP: A Remix Manifesto. Dir. Brett Gaylor. Perf. Greg Gillis. Vimeo, 2010. Web. 8 Mar. 2017.