Remix: The Ultimate Alternative

A reflection on Matt Mason’s chapter “We Invented the Remix” in The Pirate’s Dilemma

“Remixing is about taking something that already exists and redefining it in your own personal space, reinterpreting someone else’s work in your own way” (71), as Matt Mason explains in his book, The Pirate’s Dilemma (2008). Although the concept of the “remix” is relevant in the areas of writing, video, fashion, gaming, food and more, the first remix-able material that comes to mind is often music. Combining new technologies and old ideas about freedom of expression, remixing music is more readily accessible for anyone who wishes to try it. This blog post will present Mason’s arguments in backing up the liberal remixing of music along with oppositional arguments about the practice.

In support of mash-ups and remixing music at one’s free will, Mason presents the social implications of democracy in media as well as freedom of expression. Many remixes are made strictly out of recreation and taking pleasure in creating a new kind of music.  Mason writes that remixing is “nothing less than a new way to communicate” (80) and is a “recipe for creativity” (81). In this case, people should have the right to liberally reinterpret the work of others into something new.

Mason also argues that remixing is indeed aiding the music industry by allowing new perspectives to make an artist’s material “suitable for a new audience” (82), by “extending the product’s lifespan” (90) and by giving the industry some healthy competition.

Photo courtesy of Darren Barnard

In order to gain insight into musician-consumer perspectives, I conducted a number of short interviews over the Web. By interviewing real musicians and artists who are also consumers of music, I received answers that varied from being very supportive of remixing as a new form of music, to strict accusations of disrespect. However, few answers were completely one-sided. Many discussed criteria for remixing properly and ethically. The common criteria include: the quality of the remix, the permission and involvement of the original artist and the intentional use of the final product.

         Many musicians explained that they could only appreciate a remix if it is done right- the music must fit together and sound coherent. Nearly all of the musicians I interviewed mentioned something about asking permission from the original artists- allowing the artist to overlook, be involved and have credit in the project were necessary. The intentions of the re-mixer must also come into question- whether he or she intends to use other musicians’ work for personal profit or simply for pleasure.

         Even Mason has his criteria for remix ethics in saying that “originality should outshine the borrowed elements” and that the mix should be independent of the original (88).

         Overall, it appears that the musicians I interviewed who are making money and hope to live off of their music in the future are the ones more inclined to be against the idea of remixing. One serious musician answered: “no one will ever care as much about the music as the person who wrote it.”

 Traditionally, musicians create their songs the way they want people to hear them. Musicians create their songs to be directed at a specific audience. If he or she aims to appeal to a popular audience in a dance club, the musician would perhaps take a new direction with his or her music, not leave it to be manipulated without receiving credit.

Traditionally, musicians pay top dollar to work with record producers and audio engineers to tweak and perfect the original work. This process may include simply recording the tracks or more complicated mixing, mastering and leveling. In a way, this process is a manipulation of the musician’s raw work, but the musician is able to oversee all that is being done for the sake of their own work and image.

People have argued that re-mixers must be considered musicians because they create music. However: I believe that musicians are the composers and players of music in real time and the producers are the editors and manipulators of music that has been previously recorded by musicians. Therefore, re-mixers should not be considered musicians, but rather producers or audio engineers, and computers should not be considered musical instruments.

         As a musician myself, my initial reaction to remix culture in music could be considered quite negative. In fact, I have yet to come across a remix of a song that I have genuinely enjoyed. Many remixes, I feel, have little compositional value and lyrical coherence. However, I have come to agree that remixing music allows wider and newer audiences to experience songs they may have never heard before, and that remixing promotes democracy and creativity in the industry. With this being said, I still believe that there is nothing more creative than the original composition of a song, even if it does draw on influences from the past. I still firmly believe that there is nothing better than experiencing live music played in real time.

         The music industry is in constant reinvention. Music is being recycled, revisited, rekindled, redone and remixed for the sake of personal and commercial gain. “Outsiders bring a fresh pair of eyes [or ears] and a new perspective” (97) that opens music up to a new generation through technological and cultural changes such as Web 2.0 and it’s freedom to share and collaborate on remixes of music online. However, the musician must still thrive in order for remix culture to survive. If creating original music were to die out, the re-mixers would, over time, run out of material to work with, without sounding redundant. Overall, the respect for musicians and their work is critical in order for remixing to be further accepted into the evolving industry.