John Oswald brings up the ever-popular debate of music (or sound) copyright laws in "The Ethics of Debt". As far as I'm concerned, the entire idea of musical copyrights is a pointless one. We as humans try to lay claim to anything and everything that comes out of our minds, but as even Oswald touched upon, not one of our ideas are original. We take influences, inspirations, from the world around us, and sound just happens to be one of those sensations that cannot be cut out of daily life. Just because a painter uses yellow slashes in their abstract, does it copy Jackson Pollack or a number of other artists? Sounds are just the tools of creating, and should not belong to anyone, no matter in what order they are presented.
It is fascinating how time changes just about everything, including the rules and regulations with who owns/ can have what in the music world. I find myself wondering and trying to pinpoint exactly why “forms of music that were not intelligible to the human eye were [once] deemed ineligible” for copy right laws but now are the paramount example of a copy righted item. Is today’s music industry run by greed instead of creativity and passion as it once was? Is the need of financial gain the crucifix of the sound world? Or is it that technology has changed the concept of music and sound all together? For this, no definite answer exists. One can only look at the past, compare it to the present, and speculate.
I really enjoyed this article. What I found most interesting is how Oswald discusses the problems with music not having a set quotation system, and how this creates a problem in distinguishing sampling from outright fraud. I can definitely understand how this can be a huge problem. In writing, it's so much easier to distinguish one source from another. In music, I think the only real way to do this is by putting in writing, in the liner notes of an album or a CD. But I think this also detracts from a piece. In writing, if you sample something, but find a way to make it your own, it is not considered plagiarism. I think the same distinction needs to be made in music. For example, Oswald states that the guitar part in Herbie Hancock's Rockit was not a live guitar part, but a sample from a Led Zepplin album. I'm familiar with the Hancock song, but had no idea at all that it was taken from Zepplin. The way the guitar part is integrated into the music makes it part of Hancock's own work, rather than Zepplin, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with sampling in this way. With more direct sampling, I think it is important to distinguish where your source material is coming from, especially if it is not being edited or integrated into your piece in a new and different way.
I loved the part about Jazz musicians doing finger " "s in the middle of a performance. I cant remember who said this (and it is much like the 1000 monkeys banging on typewriters to make Shakespeare), but there is the idea that there is no such thing as original music. There are only so many notes, and it is inevitable that someone to some extent has already played them. There was an NPR special on it, but I cant find it right now. It talked about how The Verve was sued by The Rolling Stones for Bitter Sweet Symphony.
In reading this essay, and the other essays assigned for this class, I often wonder if this type of work would continue to be made if there was no copy-write issue. In most cases, especially that of John Oswald, that the work is being done solely as a critique of the music industry. While the work is often talked about as being valuable for the originality of the conception in and of itself, I cannot help but think that this type of work would lose its relevance if there was no political tension.
My roommate just recently entered my room singing with great joy, "I fought the law, and I won." He proceeded to tell me of his success in the courtroom after being brought in and out, talking to this counselor and that, all for trying to sell art on a sidewalk somewhere (the arresting officer told him he was impeding traffic). So now, several months down the line, he finds a particular tune on his tongue, to pronounce victory. Who won? Does anyone win in these situations? "Free from the fines of society", the system spits you back out, happy to be no longer ensnared, but the leech sucks on. Gently and continuously pulling bits of your liberty, little by little, so as the parasite may not alert its host. "You pay your taxes, and you give your time. Your parents do the same, and we will all continue to feed the beast we all seem to be discontented with." He replies, "Dude, don't be tryin' to wreck my vibe with that shit, I have no say, no control over it, so i don't care about your bullshit," he continued about his way, "I fought the law, and I WON." A great celebration to ensue. The myth of the law, and the myth of our battle with it. We think we can fight, but we've never taken up a single arm. We get drunk upon insignificant victories which essentially make the monster stronger. Liberty and freedom, jumbo shrimp. In your freest freeliness of freedom, finely freeing and filleting fruit from your fresh grocer, careful not to slip, because said freedom and freeliness can be snatched from you at a moments notice, for a wrong you never did, a right you never knew how to. But in the meantime, keep one thing in mind: "I am the law, so, I win."
This article poses the idea that the sounds, themselves, cannot possibly be copyrighted. It is the physical documentation (such as written music) that are "intelligible to the human eye," and that is what makes them susceptible to being copyrighted. This, in conjunction with the previous article (wherein I found myself focusing on Burroughs' capability of describing a sensation in a purely audible sense using only abstract words) is something that I would love to further explore. The bulk of the article did not necessarily bring forth many aspects of interest for me, but nearing the end, my attention was called to the idea that "listening to pop music isn't a matter of choice." He goes on to explain that it "seeps through apartment walls" which reminded me of my apartment last year, in which I would indirectly listen to the song "Zombie" by the Cranberries. I heard this song literally every day of my life that I was present in my own living space. I would never choose to listen to this song more than once a year, but it was not my choice. It would get stuck in my head and influence my daily life. I would sit and wait to hear the recognizable and eventually dreaded bassline and accompanying ruckus that 3 (always drunk) dudes living in a house together would inevitably produce. I see this as fitting in perfectly with the point that was made in that it is "difficult to ignore, pointlessly redundant to imitate: how does one not become a passive recipient?" because I was listening to other songs that would lead up to or follow said song and pick out things that sounded strikingly similar to that of (what, to me is now known as) the most mind-numbing progression of noises that has ever existed.
John Oswald brings up the ever-popular debate of music (or sound) copyright laws in "The Ethics of Debt". As far as I'm concerned, the entire idea of musical copyrights is a pointless one. We as humans try to lay claim to anything and everything that comes out of our minds, but as even Oswald touched upon, not one of our ideas are original. We take influences, inspirations, from the world around us, and sound just happens to be one of those sensations that cannot be cut out of daily life. Just because a painter uses yellow slashes in their abstract, does it copy Jackson Pollack or a number of other artists? Sounds are just the tools of creating, and should not belong to anyone, no matter in what order they are presented.
ReplyDelete:Brianna Didyoung
It is fascinating how time changes just about everything, including the rules and regulations with who owns/ can have what in the music world. I find myself wondering and trying to pinpoint exactly why “forms of music that were not intelligible to the human eye were [once] deemed ineligible” for copy right laws but now are the paramount example of a copy righted item. Is today’s music industry run by greed instead of creativity and passion as it once was? Is the need of financial gain the crucifix of the sound world? Or is it that technology has changed the concept of music and sound all together? For this, no definite answer exists. One can only look at the past, compare it to the present, and speculate.
ReplyDelete--Tiffany Shelly
I really enjoyed this article. What I found most interesting is how Oswald discusses the problems with music not having a set quotation system, and how this creates a problem in distinguishing sampling from outright fraud. I can definitely understand how this can be a huge problem. In writing, it's so much easier to distinguish one source from another. In music, I think the only real way to do this is by putting in writing, in the liner notes of an album or a CD. But I think this also detracts from a piece. In writing, if you sample something, but find a way to make it your own, it is not considered plagiarism. I think the same distinction needs to be made in music. For example, Oswald states that the guitar part in Herbie Hancock's Rockit was not a live guitar part, but a sample from a Led Zepplin album. I'm familiar with the Hancock song, but had no idea at all that it was taken from Zepplin. The way the guitar part is integrated into the music makes it part of Hancock's own work, rather than Zepplin, and I don't think that there is anything wrong with sampling in this way. With more direct sampling, I think it is important to distinguish where your source material is coming from, especially if it is not being edited or integrated into your piece in a new and different way.
ReplyDelete-Caitlyn
I loved the part about Jazz musicians doing finger " "s in the middle of a performance. I cant remember who said this (and it is much like the 1000 monkeys banging on typewriters to make Shakespeare), but there is the idea that there is no such thing as original music. There are only so many notes, and it is inevitable that someone to some extent has already played them. There was an NPR special on it, but I cant find it right now. It talked about how The Verve was sued by The Rolling Stones for Bitter Sweet Symphony.
ReplyDeleteIn reading this essay, and the other essays assigned for this class, I often wonder if this type of work would continue to be made if there was no copy-write issue. In most cases, especially that of John Oswald, that the work is being done solely as a critique of the music industry. While the work is often talked about as being valuable for the originality of the conception in and of itself, I cannot help but think that this type of work would lose its relevance if there was no political tension.
ReplyDeleteKierstin
My roommate just recently entered my room singing with great joy, "I fought the law, and I won." He proceeded to tell me of his success in the courtroom after being brought in and out, talking to this counselor and that, all for trying to sell art on a sidewalk somewhere (the arresting officer told him he was impeding traffic). So now, several months down the line, he finds a particular tune on his tongue, to pronounce victory. Who won? Does anyone win in these situations? "Free from the fines of society", the system spits you back out, happy to be no longer ensnared, but the leech sucks on. Gently and continuously pulling bits of your liberty, little by little, so as the parasite may not alert its host. "You pay your taxes, and you give your time. Your parents do the same, and we will all continue to feed the beast we all seem to be discontented with." He replies, "Dude, don't be tryin' to wreck my vibe with that shit, I have no say, no control over it, so i don't care about your bullshit," he continued about his way, "I fought the law, and I WON." A great celebration to ensue. The myth of the law, and the myth of our battle with it. We think we can fight, but we've never taken up a single arm. We get drunk upon insignificant victories which essentially make the monster stronger. Liberty and freedom, jumbo shrimp. In your freest freeliness of freedom, finely freeing and filleting fruit from your fresh grocer, careful not to slip, because said freedom and freeliness can be snatched from you at a moments notice, for a wrong you never did, a right you never knew how to. But in the meantime, keep one thing in mind: "I am the law, so, I win."
ReplyDeletePHL
This article poses the idea that the sounds, themselves, cannot possibly be copyrighted. It is the physical documentation (such as written music) that are "intelligible to the human eye," and that is what makes them susceptible to being copyrighted. This, in conjunction with the previous article (wherein I found myself focusing on Burroughs' capability of describing a sensation in a purely audible sense using only abstract words) is something that I would love to further explore.
ReplyDeleteThe bulk of the article did not necessarily bring forth many aspects of interest for me, but nearing the end, my attention was called to the idea that "listening to pop music isn't a matter of choice." He goes on to explain that it "seeps through apartment walls" which reminded me of my apartment last year, in which I would indirectly listen to the song "Zombie" by the Cranberries. I heard this song literally every day of my life that I was present in my own living space. I would never choose to listen to this song more than once a year, but it was not my choice. It would get stuck in my head and influence my daily life. I would sit and wait to hear the recognizable and eventually dreaded bassline and accompanying ruckus that 3 (always drunk) dudes living in a house together would inevitably produce. I see this as fitting in perfectly with the point that was made in that it is "difficult to ignore, pointlessly redundant to imitate: how does one not become a passive recipient?" because I was listening to other songs that would lead up to or follow said song and pick out things that sounded strikingly similar to that of (what, to me is now known as) the most mind-numbing progression of noises that has ever existed.
shit, that last one was me... Steph Hedges. SRY
ReplyDelete