The remix I chose is a song done by Jonathan Coulton, called “W’s Duty” (here – also here in the “Thing a Week One” section). It is comprised of clipped bits of various speeches of George W. Bush set to music. Coulton has specifically found a speeches referring to “duty”, which if this song is to be believed is one of W’s favorite words. The YouTube link also has various picture of Bush that the uploader felt was relevant to the song, another layer of mixing I suppose.
The first and most obvious connection that can be found between this song and the Lessig remix is that “remix […] succeeds by leveraging the meaning created by the reference to create something new” (p. 76). In fact Lessig cites a similarly themed remix that takes a jab at our former president. By compiling these clips, Coulton highlights a feature of Bush’s speeches and acknowledges the fact that many of the American public found Bush somewhat (or a lot) ridiculous. While Coulton could have easily created a similar song out of a new recitation of W’s speeches it wouldn’t have the same impact.
The second connection is closely related to the first and has to do with remixing as quoting. Lessig describes remixing as quoting but with the possibility for a more layered creation (p. 69). In W’s Duty, Coulton is truly quoting Bush; there are no other “lyrics” to the song than dialogue from his speeches. However, the song conveys the original message (found within the words and conveyed by what we know of the speaker) as well as Coulton’s opinion of Bush and his message, conveyed through the format (sort of a faux rock tune) and the arrangement of the clips. The end result makes as clear a statement as any written work could and does so in a much more entertaining and culturally aware format.
The third connection that I would like to make is less clearly drawn and has to do with what Lessig says regarding the protections given quoting in text versus those in other mediums (p. 55). While Coulton’s work falls entirely within the legal realm (works created by a federal employee in their official capacity are within public domain), if he had decided to choose clips of a song or another person for this song the legalities become much iffier. This is an interesting situation to consider; I don’t know that you could harm anyone’s bottom line with this sort of work, and could you even slander someone with their own words? While Lessig has yet to convince me that creative works should be a shared resource*, rather than a commodity (some people, and not just the wealthy producers, do like to make $ from their works, and some people do less remixing than simple appropriation), I can see how the current legalities have become inappropriate for the modern world.
*And yes, everything is already a shared resource, nothing new under the sun and all. However, I think our ability to create nearly infinite perfect copies of creative works adds a new wrinkle to this idea, and is something that merits careful consideration. Like, how much remixing needs to be done for a "quote" to become a new work?
Bush has really been slammed by these remixed videos. In regards to your third remark, "could you slander someone with their own words", it is very easy, especially if you rearrange and cut sections out, so that their original argument was changed. We see it all the time in writing and you can do it digitally. Yes, it provides a strong statement but sometimes probably spreads around wrong information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leigh that changing someone's words and meanings seems incredibly easy in remixing, where you can cut parts of speeches out, place words in a new order, take out the parts you don't agree with, etc.
ReplyDeleteYou bring legality in, I think it's perfect considering what was discussed in class, there is a huge difference between what is a remix (and a good one) for individuals and for the law. I personally think the original creators should be compensated for when their work is used, I'm not sure if they should be paid or not, but a bit of recognition could be nice. Having your music sampled by a dj or in a video is a bit like advertising a larger product.
You are both correct about the slander thing. I'm going to blame that lapse in logic on tiredness. I would say that this particular use of quotes isn't slander, even though someone is being made fun of, but it's certainly possible.
ReplyDeleteAlthough remixes like the ones you posted are very entertaining to me, they are only so because I have a basic knowledge about the people portrayed. I have formed opinions about who they are and what they stand for. So when a remix like this comes along I enjoy it. However "cutting" and "pasting" words easily makes a new message. And I know that many people around the world are easily influenced by what they see and hear in regards to politics, so proper citations and links to original content should be a must.
ReplyDeleteI find this particular song to be a great example of Lessig's remix. It certainly uses original content, that's for sure- audio clips of Bush's speech. However, arranging them in such a fashion is obviously supposed to be a sardonic suggestion that Bush appeals to "duty" too heavily or generally lacks speaking skills. Again, like you said, this wouldn't have been as effective without the original clips, though I won't deny you could certainly use his speech without the audio clips to suggest the same thing. Using the audio clips directly and explicitly is just one particular way of making the suggestion.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand is the use of his original music as a backing track. Sure it sounds nice but it doesn't lend anything to the point of the song. It's artistic value isn't received here, and it feels like he merely just rode on the "woo Bush is stupid" bandwagon to promote his composed guitar track.
Great post. I really like the footnote:
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, everything is already a shared resource, nothing new under the sun and all. However, I think our ability to create nearly infinite perfect copies of creative works adds a new wrinkle to this idea, and is something that merits careful consideration. Like, how much remixing needs to be done for a "quote" to become a new work?
This is an important question and, I think you're right, merits very careful consideration, particularly given studies like this one (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/04/11/study_of_first_year_students_research_papers_finds_little_evidence_they_understand_sources ) which illustrate that freshman have very little sense of how/why/when to cite. It makes me wonder in what ways we need to be more nuanced about remix. Maybe Lessig is right, it's a matter of not seeing things in black and white.
As the Professor pointed out, we need to look further at how our culture understands citing work. Not just in academic settings, but in remixes as well. To me though, this boils down to getting value from a remix. No, not money, but something that is just as useful if not more so: respect. As we move past needing to just scrape enough cents together to survive (and it is important to note those with the technology to remix often have access to the resources needed to live) currency as we know it may change into accepting respect and worth beyond the dollar. Just my two cents.
ReplyDeleteI like your idea that the uploader adding pictures behind the music is another layer of remixing, that had absolutely never occurred to me before.
ReplyDeleteAs far as slandering someone with their own words goes, I am not sure how it would work legally, but taking things out of context and blatantly rearranging them to say something else falls into an ethically grey area in my opinion.