Remix Shot Me: Bang Bang!

The inspiration from lecture today led me to a very interesting discovery.
The program that we watched, "Copyright Criminals" made a lot of bells go off
in my head, not only for Remix and Hip Hop culture, but also for all articles of
Popular Culture. The video that I am posting below is all about Quentin Tarantino's
remarkable film Kill Bill Volume 1. The five-minute clip posts a montage of Kill Bill's
clips, shots, action sequences, and famous phrases and then juxtaposes them with
EVERY possible reference. The pattern of references is bizarre, and considers that
Tarantino could have purposely remixed his well-studied resources. The references
that he uses are of previous Samurai films, Westerns, and action clips; Tarantino also
remixes his own material by using characters in his other films, and similar character
responses from other movies in general.

What I am wondering is: was Tarantino hoping that his audience would notice these
obvious remixes? Although some of the material is seemingly difficult to trace back
because of the wide variety of sources, the similarities still reamin...remarkable!
Kill Bill is a favourite to many of Tarantino's fans, but does the film lose a sense of
aura because we are now aware of every influence of his work?
Or, should we respect his work more because it takes what has already been deemed
a "complete project" and just adds to it (such as DJ's and music producers do).
Essentially he is creating something new and renown, and it is possible that by
combining SO many other sources in his remix film, that he is making those
small parts better all together, and cascading them in a way to highlight their
importance in his work as a whole.

When dealing with the medium of film, it is difficult to find originality, because
so much has already been done; however, aspects of film such as genre, famous
actors, true-to-life motifs, and soundtracks including previously recorded songs
are also aspects of remix and copies. As Adorno would agree with, we are giving the
audience what they already know and want. We are easily able to measure the success
of what popular culture produces, so why not make small improvements to blind
the viewers in order to gain success?

Here's the link to the video on youtube, however the sound fails to work.
I believe it is also available on tmblr, if that's more helpful!
Enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5_cWAOGI3k&feature=fvst

Remixing the hyperreal (or... remixing a presentation?)

I don't know if it counts as cheating to issue a follow-up post from my presentation today on the blog, but in the anarchic spirit of cultural studies I'm doing it anyway! We didn't get as much time at the end of our presentation today to have an en-masse discussion regarding all of our articles as I would have liked, so I thought anyone interested could partake here. Also this gives me the chance to post some of the content from today for anyone who's interested, so enjoy!

At the beginning of our presentation today, when I showed that clip from The Matrix I asked everyone to consider, in light of this week's readings, why films like it, suggesting the very fabric of our reality is an illusion, tend to be so popular. You'd think this kind of subversive idea would elicit the same kind of anxiety as what Baudrillard claims people trying to process the idea of there being no 'real' experience, but instead cultural texts like this tend to be rampantly popular (see: Total Recall, Vanilla Sky, etc.). Moreover, I pointed out with the Escher images and Bach's Neverending Canon that this kind of idea of infinite return, a-la simulacrum have tended to be popular in the past too, so this isn't even necessarily an unfamiliar idea. So why would this kind of idea in popular culture be such a hit when the concept itself seems to make people so uncomfortable and anxious?

I think Baudrillard would argue that overtly presenting such 'subversive ideas' in the context of entertainment (circa fantasy) would be the most overt way of distracting people from internalizing the ideas presented in reference to their own lives. Ironically, by explicitly stating that 'reality' might be a fabricated concept in favour of people living in a real of perpetual simulations in a film or novel, people would be less likely to apply such ideas to their own lives, due to the association of it with a fictional text. It's also worth pointing out that The Matrix in particular also contains the narrative strand outside the Matrix itself, thus still offering audiences a version of 'the real' as a concept to cling to.

With this in mind, I wondered: does Baudrillard's article itself, paradoxically, achieve the same effect (people read it, think "oh, it's only philosophy" to reassure themselves that reality is in fact concrete and tangible)? Is his a fundamentally self-defeating argument? Or does the change in medium and lack of a juxtaposition with fantasy or entertainment somehow help his claims ring true?

Finally, all three of the readings this week seem to imply that some widespread paradigm change is in order for people to deal with "the times" as they are. I also wanted to discuss, assuming such widespread shifts are even possible, who exactly would they be benefiting? Is a major shift towards embracing convergence culture helping the individual or strictly in the interests of big businesses who can make a killing selling their new gadgets (or both)? And what if we all did take Baudrillard at face value (I'm assuming most people don't...), and accepted that there is no 'real', but only a series of simulations. How exactly does this realization benefit the quality of peoples' lives?

Anyway, apologies for the dense post and for tacking this onto my presentation alike, but there are my two cents, and I'd love to hear what people think about any or all of this stuff. Discuss?

Cross-Dressing as Remix Culture

The idea of cross-dressing as remix had not crossed my mind once until I came across the photos below. Cross-dressing is not a recent phenomena, but one that has taken place throughout history, although it is much more accepted in today’s society. Here is a photo of the famous Anna Wintour (Editor-in-chief Vogue) and Grace Coddington (Creative Director at Vogue) imitated by Andres Borque and Luis Venegas and shot for Candy Magazine by Bret Lloyd and styled by Ana Murillas. I think that these lovely lady men look completely spot on and I probably wouldn’t have even known the difference if the spread wasn’t done for a transvestite fashion mag.

Drag Versions:

Candy Magazine, the style mag, which is completely dedicated to celebrating transvestism, transexuality, cross dressing and androgyny, did a great job at trasforming editor Luis Venegas and model Andrès Borque into the biggest names in the fashion industry. The first thought that came to my head was how this is a remix of people, style and imitation. As I did further research on the topic I was quick to learn most drag queens always have someone in mind when they dress up, such as a celebrity. Popular imitations are Cher and Madonna. Using out outlines from our remix class to imitate/impersonate someone else or a different gender is a form of copying and remixing, but I bet no one thought to attach a copy right to this act. Is it because visually the referent is much easier to identify? Or is it because the drag queen is not using tangible items taken from the original to remix their look? This is just a thought? Any comments? I tried to research on copyrights and drag and found nothing let me know if you find anything!

Original Anna and Grace:
Source for images: Google
Source for story: Candy Mag & Coco Perez

Hip Hop Culture Remixed?

Every different form of remix comes with a cultural history that informs how we understand and view the remix, whether we recognize its influence or not. For me, the process of music sampling is deeply embedded in the emergence of hip hop in New York in the 1970s and brings to mind artists such as Public Enemy, Run DMC, Dr. Dre and N.W.A. who have all used samples in their music. Even using the word "sample" instead of using terms such as remix or mashup changes how we think about certain instances of remix, because the words themselves have inherent cultural histories that they carry with them, even as concepts of remix expand.

Music sampling carries with it a history of African-American identity and culture, born out of issues of racism, class and violence. When I think sampling, one of the most obvious examples would be "Mo Money, Mo Problems" by Notorious B.I.G featuring Puffy Daddy and Mase, which uses a sample of Diana Ross singing "I'm Coming Out" repeated on loop throughout the whole song. There are millions of other examples, some with samples that are nowhere near as recognizable, but it is an example of a song where the sample is easily identifiable. It also serves as reference to the violent history of hip hop, as Notorious B.I.G was murdered in a drive-by shooting in Los Angeles in 1997.

But what if that history is disrupted? Is it possible to remix the cultural history of hip hop?

In December 2010, Swedish band jj released the album Kills, a mixtape full of samples from popular hip hop and R&B songs. The track "New Work" samples the identifiable beat of "Empire State of Mind" by Jay-Z and Alicia Keys, while "Angels" samples Notorious B.I.G's vocals from "Angels" by Diddy-Dirty Money featuring Notorious B.I.G. But the members of jj are not rappers, they are not R&B artists, they make music which can best be described as "dream pop", which combines electro, synth and alternative to make eerie, haunting music. (To hear some of their original music, check them out here)

However, it was the song "Still" off Kills that got me thinking about the possibility of remixing the history of hip hop, using the very same technique of sampling which helped to define it as it emerged in New York in the 1970s. "Still" samples the very distinct beat from "Still Dre" by Dr. Dre featuring Snoop Dogg which was released in 2001, with the haunting vocals of jj band member Elin Kastlander sung over top.

Does this change how the process of sampling is culturally understood if jj has used the very same cultural practice that defined hip hop culture in its beginnings? Is this an example of a historical remix, as well as a musical remix? Take a listen to both "Still Dre" by Dr. Dre featuring Snoop Dogg and "Still" by jj below.

(WARNING: Offensive Language)

Fred and Ginger Revisited

A close friend of mine is an artist, and a talented one at that. For Christmas this year, she gave me a print of two of her favorite people of all time: Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. The piece is a recreation of a well known photo of the two in a (possibly?) waltz pose. Only, she remixed her piece to truly capture how well these two move together.

I think its great example of a remix that brings to light questions of ownership. In class last week, we were talking about infringement laws, especially surrounding music. Music files are protected by harsh laws to protect who can share music files, and what constitutes pirating. I know art work has similar laws regarding who can recreate and use images. But what about a photograph such as this? I have a hard time believing my friend has done anything wrong in her remix. To me she is a fan showing appreciation. But if she had done a similar remix with a copyrighted piece, would she be considered a theif for using a copyrighted image?

Her piece reminded me of Andy Warhol's remix on Marilyn Monroe's image. I don't think he was considered a theif, so what makes a person a theif, or a pirate?

Any thoughts?

"Tchaikovsky would be rolling in his grave! No Oscar for you!"

We’ve been discussing at length the notion of originality as either being largely subjective, ‘dead’ or that a reconfiguring of the term relative to necessary prior influences is necessary. Bearing these issues at mind, I ran across yet another interesting clash between the notions of remix and originality.

It seems the “Best Original Score” category at the Academy Awards this year has been eliciting quite a bit of controversy in terms of what they’ve deemed eligible or inapplicable to be nominated. Many found composer Clint Mansell’s score for Black Swan and composer Carter Burwell’s True Grit score to be among the best musical offerings of the year, yet both were disqualified from being nominated due to their drawing “too extensively” on pre-existing music: Black Swan from Tchaikovsky’s Swan Lake, and True Grit.

Here's a good overview of the debate.

Is this a fair decision? Matt’s suggested that there are contexts where remixing a text should be considered less appropriate than others, which I agree with, but in this case, both pieces of music which are here remixed into cinematic scores are done so to reinforce poignant, artistic themes of their respective films (Mansell in particular twists and inverts Tchaikovsky for the sake of amplifying director Aronofsky’s ‘inversion’ of the practice of ballet into something familiar but sinister). Is his decision to do so through playing off associations with a known piece of music any less ‘original’ an idea than composing a score that had nothing to do with Swan Lake whatsoever?

In class we discussed the idea of ‘originality’ as more prescribed to the intent rather than outcome of a cultural product. In this particular instance I’d argue that the decision to remix a familiar piece of music was a far less orthodox (and thus ‘original’) artistic decision, but the academy’s exclusion of it from the awards ceremony suggests an underlying cultural aversion to remixed texts in favour of the elusive, romanticized notion of total originality.

Thoughts?

Is everything a remix?

“Everything is a remix.” This is the sentiment expressed in Jordan’s post of the same name. I’m having trouble wrapping my head around this concept for one simple reason. What if something is not a remix? What if it looks like a remix or it sounds like a remix, yet intellectually we know that technically it simply is not a remix?

I want to focus on music here. To me, a remix needs to be based on the original textual or recorded material. If the original material is not partially present or maintained, at least to the point of being recognizable, then it is not a remix. Am I wrong?

What about cover songs where an artist creates an entirely new recording, often vastly different in style, of another artist’s song? This does not involve remixing or including the original audio tracks in any way. In fact, I am hard pressed to think of an example of a cover that includes any portion of the original recording of the song (excluding any posthumous duet involving Elvis, Nat King Cole, or Michael Jackson).

Let me illustrate with an example that I assure you is NOT a remix. Marilyn Manson’s rendition of the Eurythmics “Sweet Dreams”, while musically and lyrically the same (with due credit to the Eurythmics on the album sleeve) has absolutely no remixed relation to the Eurythmics recorded version.

Eurythmics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ9zycElysU&feature=related

Marilyn Manson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tm-1yRZtQg

I feel we need to be more careful of our labeling things as remix. Cover songs can be an art form unto themselves. I’m sure we have all heard countless remixes and samples from Michael Jackson’s “Billy Jean”, like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQWn9U985IM

In conclusion, here is a cover of “Billie Jean” that should be recognized as such and not a remix.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epXN1eUkFGU

Tabulous Keyboards

A while back I came across a blog where the creator observed that the 'tab' key on the standard Mac keyboard looked a lot like the word 'fab' due to the similarities between the 'f' and 't' in the font that is used. He suggested then for a novelty key replacement be sold so that the consumer may substitute their 'tab' key out for a 'fab' key at their will.
Knowing that the tab key actually read 'fab' would be a clever kind of inside joke between you and anyone observant enough to look close enough at a keyboard to notice one misplaced three millimeter tall letter. This would also be a means of remixing the otherwise very standard and common Qwerty keyboard. The observer and creator of the blog found a new way to participate with and change an aspect of culture that is otherwise taken for granted and overlooked, offering it new meaning and attention. It reminded me of the statement made in one of the articles that we read in class that stated that "without the ability to remix we simply cannot be human because culture becomes a passive rather than participatory interaction with the external world." As simple as it may seem to swap out a key on our keyboards, it is still a form of remix.
Remixes don't have to be huge undertakings created with the intent of having the world see, hear or experience it. A simple little remix of something, anything, is what I believe makes us 'human'. Ideally, culture asks that we be active participants, but active participation doesn't have be to a giant undertaking. Participating may be done with something as simple as re-inventing our keyboards.

To Glee or not to Glee

Here’s what I want to say about Glee:

Clearly, the success of Glee says a lot about the state of remix in popular culture. For a generation raised on televised karaoke contests judged by failed record industry insiders, and Paula Abdul, Glee is the latest filter from which they are exposed to music. The thing about Glee is that its cast sings popular songs and thus re-contextualizing their meaning in order to address the themes presented in a given episode. While many TV shows incorporate popular music into their soundtracks, Glee does so by stripping the song’s association with the artist who made it popular. By releasing the cast’s recordings, even before they appear in televised episodes, Glee serves to remix all cultural connotations associated with the original versions of these songs.

Obviously, this is a problem!

Clearly, the success of Glee indicates that people like their brand of musical remix. Except Kings of Leon. For those that are unaware, an all out war ensued in the media between Glee creator Ryan Murphy and Kings of Leon. See an excellent recap of the verbal feud here:

http://exploremusic.com/wtf/glee-vs-kings-of-leon-it-gets-better/

We often talk about our freedom to create within remix culture as empowering. Clearly, Ryan Murphy has grown accustomed to the power of re-contextualizing popular music to benefit his own show. For all intents and purposes, Glee is one of the voices of a generation raised on the ideology of free music, Guitar Hero and American Idol, unable to fathom an artist exercising their copyright and limiting the remixing and re-contextualizing of their art. Murphy’s public reaction towards Kings of Leon, whose music he clearly admires, really says a lot about the state of popular music and a generation entrenched in remix culture.

Posting Posted Posters

When I was young, my Mom (who was a photographer) used to bring home packages of developed photographs for my sister and I to look at.
For logical reasons, she would always order doubles of every take, and I often wondered why.
I would take both copies and place them side by side to find any significant flaws to differentiate them from one another. I would ask her "are these identical?", "how are they exactly the same if they're two different pictures?" It was a concept I simply didn't understand, because I had a strong belief at a young age that nothing was ever the same.

This post is in reference to Copies, and Copying. The way I see it (and the way we tend to discuss matters in lecture) originality is dead. Everything is a copy of everything. Nowadays instead of flipping through photographs, I sit and look around at the posters on my walls. Being a university student, decorating your living space becomes routine. No matter where you move, you have to leave your mark, as though posters and references to popular culture objects is a way of defining yourself in such a judgmental environment. Every year, the poster sale that is held in the Concourse is loaded with students yearning for posters, that have been slightly altered from the previous year to appeal to the new audiences. Why is it that someone can be judged on such a deep level if they choose to purchase a copy of a Salvidor Dali piece, instead of a Fight Club poster complete with the eight rules of fight club along a half-naked Brad Pitt. With popular culture persuasion aside, wouldn't it make more sense to judge someone for spending a hundred dollars on large pieces of paper to fill their empty walls? In this sense, I see copies as a form of grouping students together, and putting automatic labels on their heads to make them find commonalities with others.

I suppose in a sense that mass-produced pictures and images are soulless copies, and although they make a strong statement, they tend to overlook the original image and perhaps the message all together. However, I find it ridiculously fascinating that the copies have the potential to create more of an impact on us than the actual artifact itself. Perhaps it's the fact that copies rely on circulation to gain popularity; but I can't help but wonder: Do we actually appreciate copies for retaining as much relevance to the original? Or do we appreciate copies because in a way it has a bit of originality in itself?

Remix as its own artistic entity

After reading a previous blog post by Jorden “A Different Kind of Remix.. or Remake?” I was inspired to continue the discussion on the connotation that remixes hold. Remixes are stereotypically known to be ‘much faster’ or ‘heavier’ then the original song beat. This stereotype is not true, and I want to bring awareness to remix culture, as it’s own entity. A remix of a song should be seen in its own entity. I am not saying it should be completely free of its referent, but it should be judged on its own. The referent is still important to compare the differences and similarities.

Using the ‘Specificity Thesis,” explained by Philosopher and theorist Noel Carroll, can be beneficial to explain that remix is a different art form from the original song because of its formal and physical medium. She explains the thesis is in place to correct the vagueness of tendency to reduce all art forms to their common denominator. The idea that there is something each medium does best, and in this case, remix is the formative building on ideas, beats, pictures, clips and formats that already exist.

Here is a song created (remixed) from all the sounds and voices heard in Alice In Wonderland to form an “original” song. I think it is actually such a pretty, calming song:

Here is the source for Noel Carroll:

Nonfiction Film and Postmodernist Skepticism." Post-Theory: Reconstructing Film Studies. Eds. David Bordwell and Carroll. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996. pp. 283-306.

Fair Play for All

After our in-depth conversation about remix and plagiarism on Monday, I found a very useful website and video that supports our discussion and final conclusions. For example, going back to the presentation on Monday and the issue of Rhianna using similar ideas and images from artist, David LaChapelle’s artwork . We questioned whether this is considered to be copying him or is it fair game because it is in a different context.

This video explains the code of best practices for online videos, the issues that it is trying to resolve while attempting to prevent further issues in copying and copyright. Watch the video to learn more about “The Code of Best Practices.” I think that this relates to everyone no matter what your copying (eg. Text, music, art etc.) http://www.centerforsocialmedia.org/fair-use/related-materials/codes/code-best-practices-fair-use-online-video

As stated in class I think it is an important issue in the online world because the internet has made it very accessible to easily copy and paste something and make in your own. Otherwise society is just going to be creating and re-creating without having anything that is new.

Any other suggestions on how to prevent people/artists from recopying art or music online?

Remixing Power

The ability to create something new out of an existing work creates a great amount of power in the user. The choice of referent and message can have a great impact and can convey a message so clearly and intensely.
For example, I watched Live Free and Die Hard over the weekend. The ‘bad guys’ in the film create a kind of supercut of various presidential speeches to convey their own message. A poor quality video of this can be found here :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SHd1wkF8Uo&feature=related

As you can see, the message is intensified in its delivery from the actual mouths of American presidents. Rather than delivering the message themselves, they use the power of remix to reinforce the message. In using the referent of the presidential speeches, the remixers make a completely new, opposing message to that of the originals.

This can work to take power away form the authority of a figure. For example, this supercut of a speech by Sarah Palin shows only the parts where she is breathing,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9kfcEga0lk

This makes her look silly and takes away anything that she might have said that could be relevant or credible. This kind of remix takes power away from the speaker, and delivers only the message that the remixer intends.

Can you think of other ways that remix can add or subtract the power of a message?

A Different Kind of Remix ... or Remake?

Most of the time when I think of a musical remix, I think of something that is faster than the original with more bass. Something that is louder and in that sense, more fun.

Sometimes when I am studying, I go to this website called Stereomood. On this website, there are a bunch of activities or 'moods' that you can click on and when you click, a playlist will pop up to suit that mood or activity.

I clicked on 'Reading,' and when I did a playlist popped up that included a Jazz version of Britney Spears' Toxic, which you can listen to here. At first as I was reading, I didn't even recognize what I was listening to because the context of the song was so different. Instead of the song being a pop song, it was now turned into a jazz piece.

I almost like this remake of Toxic more than the original because, as you can see in the video, one could probably argue that more talent is demonstrated in terms of musicianship. The idea that remix can combine existing songs but also completely transform them into something that is almost unrecognizable from the original is quite intriguing!

Due to the new context and the completely different categorization of this piece of music, I think that issues of plagiarism and intellectual property are not present because the song is being introduced as something completely different and is now being exposed to a new audience, that is potentially part of 'high-culture.' For me, this piece acts as a way of connecting different audiences and different worlds of music in order to expose new ideas and innovative techniques.

Just in case you don't remember the 'original' version of Toxic by Britney Spears' to compare, here's the video!

Norwegian Recycling

By far, my favourite mashup: Norwegian Recycling - Miracles

A combination of several recognizable songs, mashed up together to create a completely different song with new meaning. Artists such as Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, Justin Timberlake, Jason Derulo, Snoop Dogg, Gnarles Barkley, Survivor and the list goes on. I just love how they take rather 'meaningless', non-inspiring pop songs and turn it into something of a rather inspirational song. Here are some of the lyrics:

I see miracles, miracles so many times
Does that make me crazy?
I see miracles all over the world
In this moment now, capture it, remember it

Do you feel any different about the original songs? Does the new meaning speak to you at all or is the knowledge of the original artists and songs too overpowering, not allowing you to enjoy it?
Let me know what you guys think!

Remix: a story of love and hate

So folks, I am currently listening to a remixes album of one of my favourite artists. I am left thinking about how entire albums of remixes can leave us with feelings of love or hate. To further this idea, I remembered the entire remix album brought forth by the artist Ciara which featured several remixes of the hit song 1-2 step. For those of you who don't recall the album, here's a link to youtube's version of one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBHNgV6_znU particular (probably the original) version.

The amount of disdain towards Ciara's entire remix album, contrasted with my own personal love of the Nine Inch Nails Year Zero Remixes (and APC's Remix album, both really good) is one experience of remix culture that I wanted to share. To break down the difference: the Nine Inch Nails album was released long after the artist was 'established', and all the remixes were created by 'established' Djs and other artists. The reason why I use the word 'established' in scare quotes is to show that establishing oneself as an artist is arbitrary. In this case it just means that they've been around for awhile, whereas Ciara had only recently debuted on the music scene.

So the question remains, for you as listeners/participants in remix culture: can a remix album make you love your chosen artist even more? Is there anything better to hear a great remix to your favourite song?

You can sometimes find new ways to enjoy particular songs: see here, two versions of A Perfect Circle's The Outsider. It's a little heavier than the aforeposted Florence and the Machine, but the remix is actually more popular than the original song (as it is in Residence Evil Apocalypse, hence the remix name)

The original: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzyNWyZhUS0
The remix: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzrWETIc28M

Hide Yo Kids, Hide Yo Wife

Although this may be old news, I'm going to assume that most of you have listened to or at least have heard of The Bed Intruder song. This YouTube video is a great example of the simple definition of remix that we discussed in lecture; to take an original and alter it in some way. To understand the remix, you must first be able to understand the reference, but my roommate is a prime example of why this is not necessarily the case with The Bed Intruder song. Apparently the song made it onto the Billboard charts (what is this world coming to) and she had downloaded the song and had been listening to it on her iTunes without knowing anything about it. Once I showed her the news story and explained to her how hilarious it was that she thought it was a legitimate song, she no longer listened to it in the same way. In terms of what type of remix this is, I think that it could be considered 'transformative storytelling'. The characters in the news story are the same in the YouTube video, but they are being placed in a different context. Check out the video below and let me know what you think!

Everything is a Remix.

I was looking at a friend's blog last night and I stumbled upon this video called Everything is a Remix. You can access Part One here and Part Two here. My friend stated that she would have loved to study the art of Remix in her undergrad and potentially wants to go to grad school to study this subject so I thought it would be great to share and to know that this subject has growing interest as more remixes are being made in music, art, fashion, politics, etc.

I find thinking of everything as a remix as a really cool concept as remix in this sense is a tool for connection and binds us to one another. Then again, with remix, it can become very difficult to be yourself and express opinions and ideas that perhaps have not been expressed before. This might be going a bit far with the whole idea of remix, but, if everything is a remix, would it be possible that your life is a remix as you may be experiencing the same things as other people have just at a different time? Or would living your life serve not so much as a remix but as a translation of the past into the present?

Destruction of Legacies

This has to do with last week’s lecture and the “The cut up method”. I am appalled that people can use remix to depict and belittle people of greatness and make them look like they are nothing but worthless. With regards to the “The price is creepy” video seen in lecture where Bob Barker was portrayed as a disturbing man, this depiction of greatness can be witnessed in dominant sports athletes. It just surprises me that people are so self-centered to create remix videos to question the careers of professional athletes and other people of higher stature. Peyton Manning arguably one of the greatest Quarterbacks to play in the NFL is portrayed as one of the worst quarterbacks to ever throw a football.

In this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QbtNYC0-FM

They only show highlights of Payton Manning’s mistakes and miseries. Adding insult to injury they have a sinister voice mocking Payton in a way where this person is speaking for Manning in a scrutinizing way. People who have seen this video but have never seen Payton play or know of him will think Payton’s career was a joke. When I first saw this video I was boggled that someone would actually go through all of Manning’s highlights and find mistakes, which he rarely makes, and create a collaboration of all them to make it seem like that this video summarizes Payton’s football stature. There are many of these remix videos belittling the careers of great people out there, and I wonder why people would ever do so. Then I realize it can only be because of jealousy and envy because these remix artists haven’t won a Super Bowl themselves. Using remix as a weapon to destroy someone’s integrity and hard work is immoral and unjust.

Comparitive Collaboration

With reference to yesterday's class, and to the video speech featuring DJ Spooky
I would like to focus on the popularity of remixes/mash-ups/collaborations and their circulation.
Last year I met and made good friends with someone, and our entire friendships is based on our filters and our separate abilities to discover new artists who offer content fitting the basis of this course. Although we rarely agree on who has found the better bite, looking back I see us (and everyone else who does this) as what DJ Spooky defined as "artists." We research, keep ears open, and regurgitate what we hear, in other words we stream the content of the archives. Once we find something very appealing, we bring it to life, and share share share until the next one comes along. I believe that the artists behind remixing/mash-ups/collaborations are always searching for that muse to make their work better; it is ever-changing, and this is why most remix work can develop mass-appeal and respect from listeners.
I have become a big fan of the project, "Blakroc." For those who are unfamiliar Blakroc is a collaboration between the band The Black Keys, and various rap/hip-hop artists. The interesting remix presents a completely new sound with the base recordings of a blues/rock band, and the words of artists such as Mos Def, Ol' Dirty Bastard, Ludacris, Hoochie Coo, and Jim Jones. Once the recordings were released, other artists have jumped at the opportunity, such as The Brothers of Chico Dusty.
I decided to explore the essence of such sound projects, and came to a rough conclusion that although they are unique, they are still about mass-appeal and target audiences in more than one genre. However, I do think it is relevant to say that although it is essentially remixing, they are still creating something completely new in both genre and musical history.
No matter what the music, I often wonder if people become so keen on finding the next-best-thing because they truly appreciate it, or simply because of the status.

I will include two links, the first is a Blakroc original, featuring Mos Def
AND the second features The Brothers of Chico Dusty (Big Boi vs."Everlasting Light" by The Black Keys)

Enjoy!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKLToXOdv9E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxeBFg1fQtw

Technical Reproduction: Remix of Past and Present

- In the Walter Benjamin reading for this week he claims that technical reproduction can put the copy of the original into situations, which would be out of reach for the original itself (i.e. the photo of a mountain in someone's home). Along side this note he also points out that technical reproduction is a disruption to aura. Do these two points describe remix culture? Taking the representation or reproduction of an original object and bringing it to a geographical area the original object would never be able to go, is this in itself a remix? If so then photography and film are both remixes in our culture today. Benjamin claims everyday the urge gets stronger to get a hold of an object at a very close range by its way of image or its copy. Holding a photograph from years ago in your hand can be a remix: a mix of the preservation of a moment combined with the present time (able to be done because of photography & film's faithfulness to realism).

Horkheimer and Adorno would claim that a photograph results from the notion that power and money allows people to control technology, and the technology controls the public society, through media and propaganda. Would you agree that photography and film are a remix art? Or would you agree with Horkheimer and Adorno to claim that photography is just a way dominant ideologies control society?

To read the full Horkheimer & Adorno article CLICK HERE