Innovator or pirate? Creator or thieve? Experimenter or cheat?
With seven basic musical notes is it fair to call someone a thief for copying, transforming and/or combining original works with new creative ways?
In my personal opinion, I think not. I believe that music and all art for that matter, should be explored, pushed and prodded. From probing and testing, new and inventive effects and results emerge.
The beauty of art is its ability to evoke emotion from the observer, and I believe no two emotions are the same. The link between music and emotion is extraordinary. Therefore, the sentiments drawn from a piece of music is different for each person. Mashup artists and DJ’s are simply exploring and delivering a unique response from someone else’s work of art.
Take these two songs as an example.
Zimbabwe by New Navy evokes happy, upbeat feelings, whereas Flume’s remix derives a completely different emotional response.
I believe it is unfair to consider Flume’s song as theft. It is a completely different take on concept on the original work. It is work similar to this that will be greatly affected by laws and restrictions on originality.
I do agree that there are some forms of art and innovation that should be protected from outsider’s interpretation and thus copyright, patent and trademark laws should be in place. However, when it comes to music mashups and remixes, I think diverse versions complement the original work. It is creativity at its finest. It is news ideas stemming from old. It is appreciating someone’s work and helping it grow and expand.
I believe introducing copyright and piracy laws into the music realm would be detrimental to the expressive form of art. It would squash creativity and restrict imagination and vision. It is after all, the observer’s emotional response that makes each piece unique and dissimilar to the other.
“Art is the most intense mode of individualism that the world has known” – Oscar Wilde
Hi there,
ReplyDeleteI really liked how you looked at the two different versions of new navy and the different emotional responses that result. I thought this was a really great idea, as while seeing that they are inherently based on the same song, they are individual in their own right.
Also, the comment about the seven basic musical notes was very interesting and was a great opener to the piece. That statement, combined with the opening questions meant I was immediately drawn in to read further into your work.
The only suggestion I would have is perhaps put a few references in to make it more scholarly.
Otherwise, a great post!
Thanks
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with this post. The two clips you used are excellent examples of what great results sampling original works can achieve.
I also do appreciate that you agree with copyright laws to an extent. It is after all there for a reason. Personally i believe that copyright should be weaved to the artists preference. If New Navy does not want Flume to do a remix of their song, Then Flume shouldn't be allowed to remix it. This is of course my personal opinion.
Good Job!
Hi India,
ReplyDeleteI do agree on you that people have their own unique take on how they interpret art, depending on their emotions, culture, value etc. And your example on Zimbabwe by New-Navy and the remix by Flume is a really great example. It really shows that a single piece of art can be translated into a totally different take but still has its basic components. Although art should be allowed to be explored and translated differently, to some extent copyright and IP law shouldn't be left behind.
I agree on Julia that perhaps you can add more references for this post. Good job anyway! ;)