This article seeks to deconstruct underlying myths and assumptions about what mash-ups mean. It begins by saying, after The Grey Album scandal/triumph, histories of mash-ups "take on a kind of 'paradise lost' feel, and critics lament that the revolution has lost its initial bite, the innovation has become somewhat trite, and the practice risks becoming just another short-lived, pop-culture trend." Yet, Gunkel says arguments that industry co-optation has killed the mash-up are predicated on the same notions of originality and authenticity the mash-up deconstructs. Mash-ups deconstruct authorship and originality not only because they mix two or more disparate artists to make something new but also because they are created on machine-bsed production, like one of its antecedents, Jamaican dub. Moreover, mash-ups are "copies of copies" thereby dismantling the connection between writing/sound/original event.

Gunkel emphasizes the mechanical nature of mash-up production: on The Grey Album, he states:

"...there is nothing original in the technique, elements, or results of any particular mash-up; it is derivative to the core." Furthermore, "...it does not contest repeatability and interchangeability with arguments that still, in one way or another, validate and value originality as such." Mash-ups are unapologetically derivative, and therefore theoretically prove the theories of Adorno, Benjamin, Zizek, Baudrillard and Derrida that question the notion of the author, of original writing and music, and the "real" itself.

 

Shiga in this article seeks to describe how mash-ups became "listenable:" both how a culture of listening is grown and maintained and how the culture deems certain tracks listenable.

Mash-up culture is based on three premises/trens: (1) the shifting "locus of musical expertise, creativity, and skill to listeners of pop music;" "the changing character and institutional status of remixing in the dance music and hip-hop industries;" (3) "the use of illegality as a way of distinguishing and valorizing artifacts, styles, and remixers within the broader field of popular music culture."

To prove point (1), he talks about how remixers debate the quality of sound (wav vs. mp3, for instance), and how those qualifications are not absolute: "…mash-up remixers disregard the authority of sound-engineers in determining the quality of a sound recording." Furthermore, participation in the community is key to gaining legitimacy, Shiga argues, as an important status marker in one’s ability to hear connections between different songs. This act of listening is not removed, however, and is intertwined both video (accompanying remixes) and branding (creating an image behind the music).

In response to point (2) he states that mash-up culture is a response the mainstreaming of DJs and remixes by the entertainment industry: "

The emergence of mash-up culture is in this sense a backlash against the cultural authority of professional DJs, who assume what Adorno (1991) called an administrative view, ‘‘the task of which, looking down from on high, is to assemble, distribute, evaluate and organise’’ (p. 93).

To prove point (3), he discusses the rise and prominence of Danger Mouse’s Grey Album, within the mash-up community. Though this aura of criminality might be, in some ways, fabricated, as the record industry at times collaborates with the underground mash-up community, as when Jay-Z released a vocal-only version of the Black Album: "

Jay-Z’s sound engineer, Young Guru, admits that the release of vocal-only versions of the Black Album was intended to allow DJs to ‘‘remix the hell out of it.’"

This article is an excellent survey of the history, theory (Adorno, Benjamin) and literature of music mashups.

*It discussed notable cases of mashups: Danger Mouse’s The Grey Album; Evolution Control Committee’s ‘‘Rebel Without a Pause,’’ Freelance Hellraiser’s ‘‘A Stroke of Genius,’’ 2 Many DJs’ ‘‘Smells Like Teen Booty,’’ Negativland’s ‘‘I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For,’’ and Party Ben’s ‘‘Boulevard of Broken Songs.’’

*It explicates the antecedent of current-day mash-ups and shows how artists are conflicted about the "democratization of music:" Some like David Bowie and DJ Moby welcome it, while others dislike it's ability "to deconstruct (and mock) the arbitrarily divided and cherished pop canon."

*Is relatively agnostic on whether digital technology "empowers" users; merely states that technology has changed audiences' relationship to music and made explicit the meanings behind the music: ‘‘Copyright is about control: the right to control the way your work is used.’’ The industry is fighting a battle over image in an era when mashers target sources precisely because of their image: what Nirvana signifies; what Destiny’s Child signifies; and how apparently hilarious it is to bundle them together."

*Locates mash-up culture as a symptom of youth growing up surrounded by media, but maintains skepticism that there is any political power in their deconstruction of the media: does it "really produce anything more than superficial, ironic combat"?

Herman argues in this paper that DJs are in the music industry "seen as the creative authors of their work" – "brand-name author–god" – thereby conferring on them social capital that turns into economic capital in the sale of CDs and merchandise. The causes for this are manifold, but include the "increasing anonymity of dance music producers."

*DJs started to become authors as audiences began to confer on them the status of informed editor, and their remixes, sold on CD, soon became hot commodities. The industry snapped them up.

*Aside from "author-god," DJs are represented as men; the marketing language is patriarchal and "leaves women as merely the angel in the club—powerless over their lust for the big (name) DJ."

*DJs are brandnames, whose status is "is always closely tied to the aura and excitement of the live performance of mixing records."

*DJ’s virtuosity is closely linked to progresses in technology and their prominence is celebrated as a milestone of technological development.

This is an ethnography of "mod" music producers online. The author argues that mod music producers are musicians and composers because

"it involves a much closer contact with musical sound than conventional composition because every aspect of each sonic event must be coded: from pitch and duration to exact volume, panning, and the laying in of numerous effects (such as echo, tremolo, and fades)." These mod sites feature original compositions and remixes, and are locii of various communities and subcultures in which active participation is necessary to gain social status (so listening is as important as producing). The aesthetics are rigorous, "...based on a kind of geek adolescent techno-machismo—music coding is damn hard and not suited for the technologically handicapped."

Remixing and sampling are popularly practiced in Lysloff's community. "Ripping," or sampling bits from other tracks is more popular, and generally encouraged as a form of sharing and community engagement, becoming "public property." Giving credit is considered good practice, as some producers do consider sampling theft. Plagiarism, Lysloff acknowleges, has become an issue as the community has matured. The meanings of remixes is different: "remixing is considered a form of homage to a particularly outstanding piece of music or tribute to a renowned artist."

On the heels of the Grokster case, Lessig explains that he is not for file-sharing, but that it is a distribution system that needs to be protected because of its potential to encourage and make easier a culture around remixing.

*On the Grokster case: "…if you make the courts the arbiter of whether a technology should be allowed or not, then the courts become a tool, a weapon to be used in the marketplace."

*The purpose of Creative Commons is to create "…a norm around people being free to remix and build upon, to sample out of, to supplement, to criticize content that otherwise."

*Argues that freer licenses under Creative Commons are economic incentives that can drive development – discusses the case of Brazil at length.

*Discusses how young people today think about writing in different ways, ways that are increasingly based not on text but on video and sounds, this makes freeing up the culture around image ownership and licensing all the more relevant and necessary.

This is an interview with Owen Gallagher, who runs a web design and development business in Ireland and wrote a thesis 'Video Recuts and the Remix Revolution: Whose Rights Are Being Infringed?'

Gallagher says that there is a middle ground on the issue of copyright and remix culture: "The balanced approach enables copyright owners to make money from their work, but also enables other artists to freely use samples from the entire pool of creative works to express themselves." Gallagher gives the example of how, as a child, he would play with toys from various shows and franchises (Transformers, GI Joe) and mix them together, as evidence that there ways to use copyrighted material that does not hurt producers of that content. Thus, his website, Total Recut, allows artists easy access to public domain and CC licensed work so they create remixes of their own; provides a space for people to access remixed work; and offers a forum of "remix artists" to show their stuff. Lastly, he claims that no work of art is completely original and that people who make remixes are practicing a legitimate art form.

In this talk, Lessig purports to prove that, because remixing is a part of culture and they way live, not all cultural products need to be copyrighted in the way corporations need copyrights. Looser, more open and lawyers licenses allow for more cultural production.

Good points:

*"This issue is not free music." File-sharing is wrong and illegal, but also disruptive to the potential of this technology, because it inspires insanity on the part of the industry. He is against extremes in the debate: those that would make kids into terrorists and those that would break the law.

* Demonstrates how a song – "My Life" – under creative commons license was remixed by at least seven people without ever meeting and, most importantly, without lawyers.

*Cites Danger Mouse’s Grey Album and Jonathan Caouette‘s Tarnation as examples of the fruits of remixing.

*States that most acts of remixing we do without thinking about it – criticizing or praising a film we just saw, for instance – and it is done for free and allowed without government intrusion.

An annotated bibliography of some journal articles and other sources addressing the issue of remixing, mash-ups and sampling in the digital age.

Thesis: Samples, remixes, and mash-ups have all been affected by the interpretation and application of copyright law....... I am doing a creative project where I will produce four songs--a mash-up, a remix, and two beats that contain samples. I am choosing to do two samples because they are of different natures. One beat has samples of substantial similarity, whereas the second has a sample that has modified enough to make the original work unrecognizable. I will then discuss the relationship and implication that copyright law holds with samples, remixes, and mash-ups while using the songs I created as bases for comparison and analysis. The legal copyright implications will be addressed and critiqued.

    “Into the Grey” provides an excellent overview, history, and analysis of The Grey Album. This album stands as arguably the most famous and most controversial instance of mash-ups. This text covers what The Grey Album was, how it was produced, the response of record and publishing companies, and the subsequent response by disobedient mash-up and fair use advocates. Further, legal implications and defense possibilities of sampling are discussed, but in the specific context of mash-ups.
    The Grey Album, produced by Brain Burton a.k.a. DJ Danger Mouse, is a mash-up album that uses the full vocal content of Jay-Z’s Black Album mixed with instrumentals that can all be traced to the Beatles’ White Album. Every drum hit and instrumental chord was sampled from the Beatles’ album and used as beats for Jay-Z’s vocals to seamlessly rap over. Burton’s mash-up album caught like wildfire, popping up in record stores and on countless websites. The issue, however, was that Burton never received permission from any copyright owners of the Beatles or Jay-Z.
    As a result, the Beatles’ record and publishing companies sent Burton a cease and desist letter, explaining how he was infringing their copyrights. He complied and was never brought to court. After only a brief look at the exclusive rights of copyright owners, it is beyond doubt that had the case been brought to court, The Grey Album fully infringed on their rights. Discontent fans didn’t take kindly to this realization though—they organized a day of “civil disobedience” called “Grey Tuesday,” in which hundreds of websites hosted The Grey Album for download.
    The author suggests using de minimis laws as a defense, but as we know, this might no longer stand up. Instead, the only viable defense is fair use. This would unlikely be successful because although The Grey Album is highly transformative, it is a commercial product and not intended to criticize or parody. The core artistic work is also appropriated. And since copyright owners enjoy the rights to control adaptations through licenses—where they can make money by choosing to license—The Grey Album might negatively affect the ability to license further samples, and therefore is of potential harm.
    This comment is an excellent resource for my project. It first provides a thorough overview of The Grey Album and following episodes. This albums stands as an example of what would potentially happen to me if I chose to release my mash-ups. More important, however, is the discussion of fair use defense for mash-ups and the opinion that it would never hold up in court. This addresses a potential defense for my mash-ups and why it might not work.

    “15 Megabytes of Fame” explores the rise of the new genre called “mash-ups.” This comment covers the definition and historical background of mash-ups, an analysis of mash-ups in comparison to traditional digital sampling and appropriation art, a discussion on the simple discrediting of mash-ups, and lastly an analysis of mash-ups under fair use precedents. In particular, the Bridgeport Music court decision is used to assess the standing of mash-ups and what the decision means for the genre’s future. While, as a producer of mash-ups, I have a clear understanding of what mash-ups entail, it was nice to get a standard definition by legal review. More importantly, as a producer, I would potentially call upon fair use, the Bridgeport case, and my differentiation from appropriation art to help defend and support my music. At the same time, counter points are addressed, which only help my project by examining every perspective on mash-ups.
    This piece defines mash-ups as distinct derivatives of sampling. Instead of incorporating a sample into a new work, mash-ups usually consist of two preexisting recordings. The remixer, in the most common cases, lays the vocal track from one song on top of the instrumental of another. This amalgamation leads to a unique song. A key element to a mash-up is the easy and immediate recognition of the prior recordings.
    It is pointed out that in the Bridgeport case, the court stated that samples are used solely to “1) save costs, or 2) add something to the new recording, or 3) both” (pg. 4). This rests only on the economic aspects of sampling—the artistic value isn’t counted. Mash-ups sample out of necessity; they don’t attempt to hide prior recordings nor attempt to claim ownership. Mash-ups are created in a manner as to require listeners to immediately recognize appropriated works; the creator never intends to portray any notion of “new” originality.
    Sound copyrights are protected in terms of its fixed medium, originality, and expression. A copyright owner must approve all derivative works that rearrange or remix. Mash-ups, therefore, should fall as infringing under all of these counts. The only way, it is argued, to defend mash-ups is through fair use. This piece explains how if the transformative nature of mash-ups comments, criticizes, or parodies the underlying work, fair use can be successfully employed to defend them.
    All of these points, as aforementioned, have relevance to my project, adding value and different points of view.