He was angry and upset that his copyrighted music was being reproduced at a low cost, and he wasn't making money from it. This kind of reminded me of Metallica filing a lawsuit against Napster. Anyone remember that? They claimed that Napster encouraged piracy by allowing copyrighted songs to be distributed for free. Sousa was very much like them back in 1906. As he was the first composer to speak out on the issue of music being duplicated into "mechanical music", Metallica was the first from the recording artists to take a stand against P2P (peer to peer) sharing. Sousa probably would have had a heart attack if he knew that something like p2p sharing would come along...
It wasn't just about the money though. Sousa feared that this form of "mechanical music" would eliminate creativity and and cause a cultural emptiness. He said that "we will not have a vocal cord left." He feared the death of "amateur culture." He feared that people would be less connected to practicing and creating that same culture. The love for music would be fizzle...
Remixing faces its own set of criticisms. Taking someone else's original, not to mention copyrighted work, to make something of your own is taking a lot of heat. But remixing produces two positives: the good of community and education. People learn from each other while remixing, People learn about what's going on around them through it. People inspire others to do it more by doing it. It's connecting people to their culture and stirring more interest in it.
So does remixing bring back a sense of amateurism that Sousa once feared would be dead? Does remixing hurt further creation of original material? Or does it inspire it?
I agree with the fact that remix culture gives people another way to learn from eachother and create inspiration for others to do it, therefore strengthening community. I do not think its fair to "own" music and have the sole rights to it, and to be so selfish with it. I think that music was meant to be shared, and that people like Metallica who worry that they will not make enough money from their music need to look at where their money is coming from in the first place. Most artists don't see a dime for any music until they begin to tour. CD and single sales, as well as digital sales funds trickle down throughout the music industry, almost never reaching the oriniginal artist's hands. On another note, to claim that free music and remixing will bring "death of the ameteur culture" is ridiculous. No matter what means people use, whether it is someone else's material or their own, they will always be creating, learning, and be being inspired from what they see and hear to create for themselves. To say it is wrong to do so would be to kill off most forms of inspiration. How many artists have you heard say they were influenced by other artists to create for themselves? Many are inspired by other's works to create...how could that be wrong for society?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is definitely true that remix culture plays a part in strengthening community, but it seems as though Sousa made a very good case for his viewpoint. The introduction of the player piano and the phonograph did, indeed, kill amateur culture in a way. This amateur culture, though, was different than that of today. The fact that most people no longer had a need to actively play and read music certainly would have some changing effects on culture. This change seemed to be a turning point in music culture which is still seen today. While remix culture is interesting and sometimes provocative in society and culture, I think it is important to uphold the laws what Sousa fought for. A composer's work is the same as an author's novel or a brand new invention. Just as an inventor relies on his patents to protect him, a composer should be able to feel secure in his work. While it is true that, today, much of the music industries revenue comes from performing and touring, it is also true that many composer's primary source of income is through the licensing of their music. Sync licensing especially provides a large revenue stream for many artists and composers. For this reason (although I am not trying defending Metallica in any way), I think Sousa's work was important. I think his stance on amateur culture dying out was more of a reference to the culture of musical composition and performance as unifying tool in society. I think music still brings people together and is greatly appreciated, just in a much different way.
ReplyDeleteI do believe the remix revolution has cultivated a new commercial mainstream very different than that of the grassroots culture. Whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing is hard to say. I agree with George, that like written literature music should also have authorship. Each creation in the media had to have come from one individual, one being in a collective group or culture. You can put your name on everything that is yours, but whether to acknowledge the aid of other contexts is entirely optional- this is where the problem arises. People use other works, ideas, concepts, practices, etc; and I believe that it’s important to give those media sources their proper credit. I think remix culture is a good thing, in that it inspires creativity and gives amateurs the ability to reinvent something new, and something public. Remix culture is synonymous with the web, and I believe they’re vital components in bringing media power to an equal level.
ReplyDelete