Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Reading Log: Response to Mash-Ups
When I read the Philip Gunderson article about Mash-ups i get confused. Its hard to follow along with what he is trying to say. I feel it was uneccesary for him to use all those big words because it didnt draw my attention into what he was trying to say, instead he made it so i didnt want to read it. Altough i did get some information out of it. I think the use of mash-ups, and being able to do it without recording labels getting on your back about it would be nice. The Mash-ups gives people a chance to listen to two different types of music all in one. The combination of both would bring in a whole new genre of music. I understand the controversy of doing a mash-up, and thats the issue of breaking the copywirte law. Artists or anyone at that matter cant take the work of the person that created it without their consent. Danger mouse created a mash-up, illegally, of the Jay-Z's The Black Album and The Beatles' The white album and turned it into his own. With this article i think that Gunderson is trying to let people know about how a mash-up can be illegal. Many people use peer-to-peer sharing networks so they can share music files, and i dont think that's ever gonna change. He uses information from recording labels and how they feel about illegal sharing. Another topic is the fact that they cna be disrespectful. "One could look askance at mash-ups, viewing them as puerile, disrespectful mucking about with other people's property.." I can see how one might think that. People are taking someone elses music and claiming it as their own and doing whatever with it. But i think that if someone is being creative with their talent to mix up songs then its not as bad as just saying you wrote a song when you really didnt. To me thats claiming something that isnt yours. With mash-ups Danger Mouse takes two different songs and puts them in a unigue way that makes them his original piece. He isnt saying the two songs are his, he's just claiming he put the two together to come up with that mash-up. I dont think the they should be illegal because they arent breaking any rules really.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Brianna, some interesting thoughts here. One thing you might focus on for paper 2 would be this idea about mash-ups allowing people to listen to several genres of music all at once. In my opinion, one of Gunderson's strongest arguments is when he says that mash-ups allow the genres of music to be blended and racial boundaries in music to be erased. You could focus on that argument of Gunderson's. How does he prove his points there, and why does he feel he needs to make them? How do they support his overall argument in the paper? Also, he does talk about mash-ups being disrespectful, but he almost uses "disrespectful" as a positive term there. He argues that it's good that mash-ups are disrespectful to artists like the Beatles, because they're golden calves that people consider untouchable in the music industry. So again, you could argue about how he sets up that argument, and why he feels he needs to make that argument in the larger context of his paper as a whole.
ReplyDeletebabe the reason alot of artist use "big words" is because when you use the same words over and over you start to sound redundent. i mean how many times can an artist say "dis" or "fake"?. youll find many artist carry a thesaures.
ReplyDeletelove you babe
Yea i know that im not saying he shouldnt have but he wasnt an artist though, he's a college professor just writing about mash-ups and he used the "big words" too much there really wasnt a need for it. it just made his article confusing and hard to follow trust me if you read it you would think the same.
ReplyDeletethanks for commenting on it though, love you too babe