Girl Talk On Remix As An Art Form
from the knock-on-wood dept
Greg Gillis (aka Girl Talk) recently participated in a live chat as part of a Download Decade series run by the Globe and Mail. Gillis makes music entirely from samples, combining existing songs in creative ways to make something new. His last album, which was offered as a pay-what-you-want download, used over 300 samples. Even though he's been held up in Congress as an example of why traditional copyright laws might no longer make sense, it seems like a lawsuit is inevitable because Gillis doesn't license any of the samples he uses. Yet, there has been no legal action to date (knock on wood!). Gillis argues that his sampling is fair use because it's transformative, but that hasn't been tested in court.In the chat, he responded to a question I raised about why he uses a noncommercial license for his music (as he makes commercial use of others' works), arguing that transformative fair use would still allow commercial use of his music and noting that his label suggested the noncommercial license as a "safe move." Gillis was also asked whether he's surprised that he still hasn't faced a lawsuit, even though his profile has been much higher in the past few years.
Kind of. I believe in what I'm doing. I do not think it should be illegal. But at the same time, if you look at the history of sample-based music, it is somewhat surprising. Biz Markie, 2 Live Crew, Danger Mouse, Negativland, etc. Those are the people who laid the groundwork. They all had issues.He notes that he was under the radar with his first couple albums, but since 2006, it's been hard for him to ignore publications like the Rolling Stone and the New York Times talking about how he's going to get sued. Yet, no lawsuits. He says times are changing.
The way the general public views intellectual property in 2009 is much different than in 1999. Look around the internet. So much content comes from pre-existing media. We're used to it now. Christian Bale goes crazy on the set of T4. That turns into a techno song, which then turns into a cartoon on YouTube, which will then turn into a T-shirt. Everyone is constantly exchanging ideas and building upon previously existing material. So the idea of a remix being a real artform is being validated in our culture every day.Certainly, artists like Girl Talk, as well as others ranging from DJ Kutiman to the creator of the "rap chop" video, have been debunking the myths about "original" content, showing people that remixing can be creative and original and that it contributes to culture. Still, there are plenty of people who believe otherwise. Hopefully, Gillis continues to avoid legal troubles, though I don't think things have changed so much that this isn't still a huge risk. But, insofar as the remix is increasingly validated as an art form, perhaps a lawsuit would end up highlighting the limits that copyright law places on artistic expression nowadays.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I want this t-shirt
Christian Bale goes crazy on the set of T4. That turns into a techno song, which then turns into a cartoon on YouTube, which will then turn into a T-shirt. Everyone is constantly exchanging ideas and building upon previously existing material. So the idea of a remix being a real artform is being validated in our culture every day.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Creativity
Why stop there? :
"The music is creative but the chords are not. Truly creative people would make their own chords"
And then :
"The chords are creative but the instruments are not. Truly creative people would make their own instruments!"
Who are you to say where the line should be drawn? And why do you think it's a good idea to place arbitrary limits on creativity?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Creativity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Uh, it is his own music.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Creativity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Creativity
There are a lot of examples of 'finished products' that are used as ingredients in other products. Have you ever made a sandwich? That bread was a finished product too.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Creativity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Creativity
Which, actually, is quite natural. When you write an essay or a non-fiction book, you are often using the end products of others as your sources to draw on as you create something new.
I think that the ThruYou project best illustrates it. The songs of others are simply the DJ's instruments.
The distinction between base and finished products isn't written in stone, nor is it objective. All artists, to some degree, take the finished products of others to use as their base products. Remix artists, even more so than most.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creativity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
the Remix Dilemma
Also you can sue the big three for every song they produce after about 6 months on a standard PC.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Follow up
Out of the 10 lines/titles from songs I had 4 hits.
Wow I am a pop star
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Creativity
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Creativity
And the day you can make a perfect copy of that Ferrari for a fraction of a cent without damaging the original Ferrari at all (in fact, you'd just be copying the copy of the Ferrari that the original owner already created and sent to you over the internet, or possibly copying the copy that Google copied from the copy that the original owner copied onto his webhost which then copied another version to send to the Google spider, which then makes many copies distributed over Google's content distribution servers*), your argument will be relevant.
Until then, physical goods are finite. Digital goods are infinite. One of them can be copied perfectly for a fraction of a cent without harming the original. The other can't. I hope you can distinguish which is which.
*There is likely more copying going on here than I indicated.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment
Add A Reply