subscribe to this page
This article focuses on the rhetorical strategies employed by The Roots and ?uestlove in relation to hip hop authenticity. Specifically, Marshall finds that "sampling," connected as it is to the roots of hip hop, has come to stand in for "authenticity" in hip hop. ?uestlove and The Roots, privileging live, recorded instrumentation yet seeking legitimacy as hip hop, deliberately quotes, invokes and yet criticizes sampling in his music. The Roots' more recent has included more electronic tones, presumably to recall sampling and position their music more firmly in the hip-hop tradition. Yet the business of sampling -- the licenses fees only major artists like Jay-Z and Kanye West can afford -- makes ?uestlove question its presumed authenticity in hip-hop: "B
etween paying the record labels, who typically own the mechanical rights to sound recordings, and the writers and/or companies who own the publishing rights—none of which, of course, necessarily goes to the samplee—most hip-hop artists with limited (if not nonexistent) budgets could never hope to afford such a pricey but prized production technique." ?uestlove for that reasons often mocks copyright law and practice in his music, an "underground," subversive move that further confirms his authenticity among his fans, who privilege The Roots' idiosyncratic status in hip-hop. Thus by playing to both sides, The Roots complicate notions of what is real and authentic, trying to make room in hip-hop for a variety of expressions.
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"?
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.
