For my final project i propose to create a short animated video clip. I also plan to write music for the video clip. The video will be 2 or so minutes long.

https://soundcloud.com/alexroth96

The main point the creator of the “remix manifesto” is pushing is that artists that remix music that is already created should not be illegal. Originally i disagreed with this idea completely but throughout the course of the film i realized i was on the wrong side.I do believe that people should be able to recreate other artists work to express their own ideas on that particular work.  I feel that this situation is similar to artists that use photoshop. Someone may use another artists work and manipulate it to where it becomes something new. I dont believe that this act is stealing, rather complimenting the other artist. The movie references Radiohead’s  severance from their record label to release their newest album online. They let their fans decide how much they wanted to pay for it.  They also made it easily available for fans to manipulate and potentially “remix.” Radiohead then posted remixes people did online on sites like spotify and their own website.

The film mentions numerous times the consequences of copyright infringement. I did not know the ridiculous punishments that occurred for illegally downloading music or using songs to create mashups. The fines that occur seem to be way out of proportion to acts of illegal downloading.  Most of the time the artists whose music is being stolen is not even involved in the case. The record label or whoever is the owner of the copyright is normally the one suing. The director of the movie numerously accuses “Warner/Chapel” as the main corporation that is just greedy and power hungry.

I agree on numerous points the creator of the film makes. With all these laws on copyrights and patents how are people supposed to be innovative and create? No idea these days are completely original. As an artist myself  i draw from numerous influences, who also draw from various influences. In fact, during the days before copyright laws artists would take each others songs and write them in their own style as a compliment or acknowledgement to the other artist. This was common back then and  should be now, the only thing that has changed is that corporations in the music industry have grown powerful and greedy.

First off, the reason i chose Philip Glass is that i am familiar with some of his work. His work consists of some of the most obscure sounds i have listened to.  These particular pieces are no exception to his obscurity.  His works contain a lot of “noise” as opposed to warm harmonies that sit well with the listener. The “songs” that Philip Glass created such as, “a secret solo” and “Building(excerpt from einstein on the beach)” are very shrill and chaotic. In referencing Russolo’s article “The Art of Noise,” he states that music has undergone a revolution alongside rapid increase of machinery use in human labor.  I feel that this statement directly correlates with the pieces of Philip Glass. The songs have a sort of “machine”  personality to them. It isn’t like electronic dance music or any of that sort, but more like if you were to set off a bunch of alarms on different machines, Philip Glass’s songs would be the recording of those sounds.

A valid point i found in the reading was where Russolo says that we must expand our minds from the generic formula songs. He believes that if we are to experience the sounds that may be harsh and tonal at first, they might grow into something more pleasing. I completely agree with this statement, if we were to have just this “heroic” or retributive soundscape in music it would become old and boring. But this goes both ways, i feel that if there is just noise though, it will get tiresome. The main point i think Russolo is trying to make is that with out expanding our minds to new areas of sound we will not be able to innovate further into music.

http://www.ubu.com/sound/glass_p.html