It was during an average week in February that two guest speakers with different perspectives came in to talk to us about their work and opinions. Andrew “DJ Freshkills” Kilgour and Don “the man” Hogarth each spoke of new concepts and ideas, unaware of the other one’s visit. After these combined two and a half hours of explaining and debating, I can safely come to the conclusion that at least part of my musical perspective has changed.
Andrew Kilgour, or DJ Freshkills as he is called, talked to us first about his style of music. One that involves splicing tiny sections of records together, dating back to DJ Kool Herc’s massively trippin block parties. He showed us how his use of a mixer can turn an ordinary Bo Hanson organ track into a very danceable club song. When it came to copyright, he vividly expressed his support for the artists. How sampling is not a crime, and how a “totally legitimate” art form becomes a problem once money is involved. For example, he told us of funkmaster George Clinton, who was sued for sampling himself, or when Lupe Fiasco stole one of Freshkills’ very own beats. Sometimes artists will be forced to destroy the masters of a song and pay a fine for “hurting a brand”. The issue stigma remains, but the producers continue to stick to their guns, and talk of making ‘em the way they used to make ‘em. When shown with this, we are left with two questions. Is there an original idea left? Is it easier to create from the subconscious? The world may never know.
Don Hogarth was the next one up, a PR man who started out as a reporter. He’s no stranger to trouble, as every camera was on him during an infamous Bell meltdown. I initially pictured him as “the man”, but I soon found that he was very open in terms of personal opinions. Throughout the class, he told us many informative things about both sides of the story. About how many artists are harmed by piracy and have to work two jobs to make ends meet. Also about various types of copyright laws, problems, and the 2 million artists on Myspace. Perhaps the most damning thing that he told us was about the perception and fact of the record companies themselves. While they are seen as beasts who rank below the tabaccoo companies in terms of public opinion, the true story is much different. The workers are very passionate about music and they’re not always driven by financial gains (especially the indie labels). He also talked of the shades of grey in remixes and sampling, and the principals that are always in black and white. The owner of the rights deserves to be respected, how you implement it is where the shades are grey. It’s a cool thing where someone makes something new, but something should flow back to the original (a right which they hold, a formula for sharing).
The combination of the two visits has taken my opinion to a 50/50 split. While I do think that copyright is good when it is protecting the , it is a dangerous weapon when being used by greedy CEOs against average mashup artists.
The disconnect that Deborah Scranton hopes to bridge is the lack of total understanding between the soldiers and the general public about the extent of the war in Iraq. This is proven evident when many of us watch/listen to a news report about the war. Often what happens is when we hear about what goes on, we think "oh, that's not good" (or something to that effect) and go back to our daily lives. Through her documentary "The War Tapes", Deborah Scranton hopes to give us a better understanding about the war and its effect on the soldiers.
The media as a whole contributes to creating this disconnect by only showing bad news, while rarely showing anything good about the war (eg. those soldiers who went outside the wire to help injured Iraqis). This is because the major news agencies know that after many years of reporting, it is the horrors of war that earn them the top spot in the daily ratings. As such, the increase in ratings will result in a direct increase in ad revenue, giving them more money (the root of all evil as they say). Although it is good for them, this picking and choosing will only serve to further increase the disconnect between the soldiers and the general public.
A documentary like "The War Tapes" helps to remedy and bridge this disconnect by getting closer to the truth than your average CNN report. By giving the soldiers cameras, we are not only able to see the complex sense of fear and uncertainty that they go through on a daily basis, we also see their innermost emotions. For example, right after we see footage of Sgt. Stephen Pink's cleanup of a car bomb attack, we hear him read pages from his diary (proof of trust in the filmmaker). Deborah Scranton also gets a more accurate emotional state by getting another soldier to interview Sgt. Pink as soon as possible. Through clips like these, we gain a greater understanding of the soldiers' predicaments, and are able to better comprehend what goes on while we view the world through a television.
When it comes to fixing the world, we tend to ask ourselves a lot of questions. In addition to "How can we do it?", another possible thought would be "Can two men with limited financial resources dupe the biggest corporations in the world?". The simple answer to that question is yes, as demonstrated in the 2009 Andy Bichlbaum / Mike Bonanno / Kurt Engfehr documentary "The Yes Men Fix the World". The film chronologically follows the exploits the titular Yes Men (Andy Bichlbaum and Mike Bonanno) as they raised awareness to key issues by playing various high profile pranks on the world's largest corporations (Dow Chemical, Exxon Mobil, Haliburton, ect). These pranks help showcase the the theme and message of the film, which is globalization, the influence of the "corporate cult", and what we can do to change things (which is very effectively conveyed by the theme's chronological structure).
This film is an expository documentary with a hint of expository elements (the hidden cameras during their pranks) as seen from the perspective of the Yes Men, with some input from various corporate big wigs seated in front of unflattering green screen photos. Conventions that lead me to this conclusion include the use of archival footage (news clips), a narrator, staged shots during the opening (swimming), and a multitude of interviews with a plethora of friends and foes. Although some may accuse the film of a too heavily favouring toward the perspective of the anti-corporation Yes Men, I did not find the film to be biased in any way.
I enjoyed every aspect of this film as a whole, and I think that the major strength of the film was all of the zany stunts that the Yes Men pull of at these gatherings of Milton Friedman's free market disciples. The stunts range from the scary (Dow's Golden Skeleton), to the gross (Exxon's Vivolium Candles), to the completely silly and absurd (Haliburton Survive-A-Ball). The sheer amount of preparation that goes into these stunts with little financial resources is truly amazing, and the presentations are pulled of with micro precision. They are able to realistically portray a multitude of characters, and never manage to arouse suspicion (except for the Vivolium candles, they were discovered mid-presentation). I also found it kind of interesting how gullible these free marketeers never suspected a thing, and even loved the ideas. That was a complete surprise to me, and it was also surprising to see how much they got away with (including subtly referring to then New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin as a "well dressed lie"). It is also interesting to note that these pranks are also ingenious in the sense that they can make the media work for them, and further spread their cause.
In our nearly globalized world, a film like "The Yes Men Fix the World" holds tremendous value. It is positive in the sense that it raises awareness about what these big companies have done and are doing in order to make more money (eg. intensifying Hurricane Katrina by gradually destroying the New Orleans wetlands, which they called "progress"). The only downside I can think of is that some Joe of the street may decide to replicate these exploits with more disastrous results, or they could become so well known . We may never know for sure, but I'm now certain that after viewing this film, anyone can fix the world.
"BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU". Those words will conjure up visions of totalitarianism, disregard for privacy, and living in public. Although we will try to avoid this dystopian future as much as possible, our efforts may be slowly disintegrating in the viral world known as the internet. With the abundance of social networking, anybody can become an overnight celebrity with videos of you screaming at a double rainbow. To the average prole like you and me, the internet is our world of tommorow, and our Big Brother is seldom known internet pioneer Josh Harris.
This interesting foretelling of the future (and the chain of events that go with it) is none other than Ondi Timoner's "We Live in Public". Using a chronological chain of events in Josh Harris' life (from Pseudo.com in the late 90s to present day Ethiopia), this film was shown from his perspective with parallels from his friends, family, business partners, and residents of "Quiet". This film is a mix of expository and observational styles (archival footage, interviews, no narrators, ect), and was able to tell an unbiased tale of the potential world of tomorrow.
I found that the strengths of this film include the sheer magnitude of interesting information presented. My favourite information tidbit was the exposure of the many parallel sides of Josh Harris' television raised personality (eg. Luvvy the Clown), and all of his intricately complex "art projects". It was very interesting to deconstruct his way of thinking and enter the mind of a futuristic (if not somewhat weird) internet genius.
In terms of value, "We Live in Public" can have very high ranking in our modern day culture. Much like "1984", it shows us what can happen if we let our future (weather it be in technology or politics) spin out of control. Positive outcomes could be a raising of awareness for the results of a dystopic future (or the life of a crazy genius), while the only real negative is that someone else might try living in public, only to have it go horribly bad for them. When all is said and done, we are left with one important statement regarding the effects of the internet. Will we use the internet to connect, create, and inspire, or will we end up living in the basement of a Manhattan apartment filled with cameras, drugs, and mindless promiscuous sex. It all depends on what we let happen.
As you could probably tell by the title of this blog post, I recently saw a documentary called "Rip: A Remix Manifesto" by Canadian filmmaker Brett Gaylor. It is an interesting and intricate story about the "culture jammers, mouse warriors, and remixers of the world" and their battle against the harsh control tactics of big media. The point of this whole 86 minute joyride of information was to show the issue of copyright, and how it affects us as a whole. This film also uses a semi-linear structure that alternates between the story of Girl Talk, and the chaotic history of artists vs the man in a quest for free speech, and it works very well in getting its message across, which that the rules of the game are up to us, and the era of passive-consumerism is over. Blended into all this is the titular remix manifesto, devised by Mr. Lawrence Lessing. It states that culture is always built on the past, the past always tries to control the future, our future is becoming less free, and to build free societies you must limit control of the past.
This specific documentary is a combination of both expository and reflexive. While it does have a narrator, present a POV, and is structured like an essay, the film focuses on Brett Gaylor as much as Girl Talk and the other artists. Despite some brief snippets of the so called "copyRIGHT" (big media), the film's POV is sided with the "copyLEFT" (the general public). Some conventions that this type of documentary film uses includes fast editing when appropriate (during the concerts), archival footage/music (during a highlight of a historic copyright moment), interviews (scattered throughout the movie), voice overs (whenever the filmaker wants to express his POV), and montages (at the beginning of the film, and interspliced between the rest of the film).
Both in terms of information and visuals, I liked everything about this film. From the animations to the testimonials of average hard working people, and everything in between, this film was able to perfectly showcase the copyleft and the remix manifesto. I also though it was very clever how Brett Gaylor ended the film by encouraging people to remix his movie (tailed by a funny remix of the Colbert Report), and putting public domain music over a Girl Talk concert to show how after you've shown a point with fair use, you cannot legally justify using any more. But nothing in this world is perfect, and there are two things I do not like about this movie. The major problem was with how far the copyright holders would go to persecute innocent people (including a church pastor and people on welfare) in order to prove a point and fuel their endless greed, unless of course you lived in Brazil. This in itself shocked me, and made me aware of how much power the MPAA and the RIAA really have (what was dark became light). The minor weakness was a part earlier in the movie where Girl Talk explained how to make a mashup. It seemed to be very drawn out, and it got redundant after a while (possibly because I am not interested in that sort of thing). Despite these 2 detriments, the film was able to keep me on the edge of my seat for a full 86 minutes.
To summarize it perfectly, this film was a compelling and eye opening saga that helped me to comprehend the magnitude of the issue at hand. Maybe this film will be viewed remixed by a new generation of artists (just like that free Radiohead album), and it will show how the future can build the past without the possible fear of repression.
By September of 1969 , the Beatles were slowly grinding to a halt as the emerging solo careers of the members and internal struggles that had surfaced one year earlier began to take affect. However, they decided for their last album to put their differences aside and make an album "the way they used to". The result was a phenomenal and interesting album simply know as "Abbey Road". In addition to being called the 14th greatest album of all time by Rolling Stone Magazine (and having rock's most iconic road crossing), it featured a solid line up of tracks that included everything from the wonderfully whimsical ("Octopus' Garden") to the beautifully sentimental ("Something"). However, it was "Come Together", the lead song from the album, that ended up putting John Lennon in a lengthy and controversial legal battle with a very intimidating opponent.
Morris Levy was his name, and he was singlehandedly the greediest man that ever existed in the world of music. After a very rough early life, he was able to use money extorted from the Genovese crime family, he opened Birdland, an iconic New York City jazz club. However, he got his start in music when a representative of ASCAP (The American Society of Composers and Publisher) went to the club and told him that he had to pay a monthly fee for all of the songs played there. Thinking it was a scam, Levy threw him out, but later learned from his lawyer that owning the rights to songs can be a very lucrative investment. With that in mind, Levy founded a publishing company (Patricia Music), co-founded a record label (Roulette Records, which he would later take over), and cheaply bought the rights to hundreds of old songs while cheating the composers out of royalties. He even went so far as to list himself as a songwriter on several of hit oldies ("California Sun", "Why do Fools Fall in Love?", ect), and was suspected of pressing pirated albums using his legitimate "Big Seven inc." corporate umbrella. However, the extent of his greediness would be shown when he heard the Beatles song "Come Together".
Musically, "Come Together" was similar to a 1956 Chuck Berry hit "You Can't Catch Me" (owned by Morris Levy), and even had somewhat imilar lyrics. The most prominent example of this was the first line of "Come Together" (Here come old flat top, he come groovin' up slowly), and its similarity to a line in the middle of "You Can't Catch Me" (Here come a flat top, he was moovin' up with me). Even though the Beatles made it much different by slowing down the tempo, increasing the volume of the bass line, and changing most of the lyrics, Morris Levy sued John Lennon for copyright in 1973. This was possibly because John Lennon admitted to using the line from "You Can't Catch Me", and Levy could not resist making a quick buck.
Luckily for Lennon, Levy dropped the case on October 12, 1973, but on one condition. Lennon's next album after "Mind Games" must contain 3 songs owned by Big Seven Inc., with part of the profits going toward Levy. Coincidentally, Lennon was planning on making his next album a collection of oldies that he often would listen to called "Oldies But Mouldies". This was because his 1972 album "Sometime in New York City" flopped (due to the controversy over the anti-sexism song "Woman is the N***er of the World"), and other troubles in his life (tensing marriage, possible deportation, pending lawsuit, ect). Both of these factors would end up providing a perfect atmosphere for the project, but more lawsuits were on the way.
After enlisting the help of famed producer Phil Spector (who worked with him on the albums "Imagine" and "Let it Be"), dozens of other famous musicians, and A&M studios in Los Angeles, Lennon set to work on his new collection of "Oldies but Mouldies". Although he did manage to record the 3 Big Seven songs and 8 of 12 intended songs (including "Be My Baby", "Sweet Little Sixteen", and "You Can't Catch Me"), problems began to persist. Lennon would routinely drown his sorrows in alcohol and get hammered with the rest of his bandmates (and kicked out of places), Spector shot a gun at the ceiling while wearing a surgeon's outfit, and whiskey was poured on the mixing console. However, the most sudden moment was when Spector pointed a gun at Lennon, stole the master tapes from the studio, and would not give them back, effectively halting the album.
By the summer of 1974, Spector still had not given back the master tapes, and John Lennon moved back to New York to sort out his problems record a new album, "Walls and Bridges". In the fall, Capitol was finally able to get back the tapes for $90,000, but there was a major problem. Lennon's drinking had made his voice so bad that only a handful of the tracks were usable (with "Angel Baby" being the only useable Big Seven song). "Walls and Bridges" was released instead, and Levy was not pleased with the album or the snippet of Big Seven song "Ya Ya". When he threatened to sue for breach of agreement, Lennon explained to him what had happened with the Spector tapes, which allowed him to use Levy's farm and mail-order record label (Adam VIII) to finish the album, now retitled "Rock and Roll".
Trouble started again when Levy asked for a copy of the Rock and Roll's rough mix (which included new songs like "Stand by Me", "Peggy Sue", and "Beep-Bop-A-Lula"), but Lennon felt as though there was too much contrast between them and the Spector tapes. When it couldn't be shelved in December of 1974 (spring 1975 release date), Lennon met with his lawyer Howard Seider, and Levy, to see if they could get clearence from Capitol/EMI for a release on Adam VIII, citing a verbal agreement. However, Capitol outright refused, and Levy had no right to use Lennon's name, image or recordings.
By early 1975, Lennon's life had improved drastically. He quit drinking, got together with Yoko, and his songs "Whatever Gets You Through the Night" and "#9 Dream" were big hits. But Levy refused to take no for an answer, and released the rough mix of Rock n' Roll as "ROOTS: John Lennon Sings the Great Rock and Roll Hits" on Adam VIII in February (notable for the very bad cover art). This caused Capitol to rush release the finished Rock n' Roll album with a reduced price, threaten prosecution against any media outlet that advertised the "illegal bootleg" album, and legally force Adam VIII to stop production (resulting in a few late night commercials and only 1270 copies sold). However, one of the Big Seven songs, "Angel Baby", was left off of Rock n' Roll, and Levy was furious. He ended up suing Lennon for a breach of oral agreement, while Lennon countersued for unauthorized use of his name, likeness, and recordings, as well as reputation due to the overall bad quality of "Roots".
The case was presented to US District Court judge Thomas Griesa in January of 1976, with Lennon's attorney's arguing that the master tape used by Levy for Roots was a poor quality unfinished studio dub, and therefore reputation damaging. They furthered their point by showing how the bad 1960s photo of Lennon did not reflect his mid 1970s appearance nor evoke the 1950s spirit of the songs (Lennon even showed up to the trial with short hair). William Schurtman (who later asked him to sign his "Two Virgins" LP), Levy's attorney rebuked by claiming Lennon only got a haircut for the trial, to which Lennon replied "Rubbish. I cut it every 18 months." (causing the whole room to erupt in laughter).
Judge Griesa issued his 29 page opinion on February 20, 1976. In his opinion, while Lennon had indeed promised Levy the right to issue the album on Adam VIII, the agreement was declared void because Lennon had no right to negotiate distribution deals (Capitol Record's job). After hearing the argument's concerning Lennon's countersuit, Lennon had to pay $7000 for breach of oral agreement (covering the cost of Roots). However, Levy had to pay Lennon $110,000 due to loss of income from Rock and Roll's sales that were harmed by Roots, and an additional $42,000 in punitive damages for harming his reputation. In the years following this case, Rock and Roll would go gold, John Lennon would be murdered in New York City on December 8, 1980, and Morris Levy would die of liver cancer on May 21, 1990, while awaiting trial on charges of extortion.
Based on the evidence that was presented, I did not think that John Lennon did anything wrong, but Morris Levy was almost completely to blame. In addition to suing Lennon for modifying a line from a song he intended as a homage to the rock n' roll of yesteryear, he released a rough mix of Lennon's songs without his permission (and plastered it with bad artwork). This case is a perfect way to show that while copyright can be a burden, it can also be a blessing in disguise (all thanks to good old "Rock n' Roll).
