First off, I want to apologize for all the dry and abstract, academic history. However, at the same time, I want to underline the fact that this theory truly does seem important in order to fully understand the terms of the debate over copyright that we are having today. If we didn’t have this academic background, we might not be able to fully understand the importance of this epochal shift, and to eventually put it into action. So with that disgruntled concession, let’s begin…

In the 1930s, Walter Benjamin’s seminal essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” told us that the mystifying “aura” and monetary value surrounding the original piece of art would be destroyed as the work was mechanically reproduced, allowing it to be  appropriated, added to, and recreated by anyone according to their subjectivity and context. Roland Barthes even went so far as to claim “the death of the author,” saying that the individual genius of any work was always co-authored by the particular effort and sensibility of the active reader.

Off of their model, we can conceive of copyright and intellectual property in the following way: as an institution built on particular notions of the Romantic, individual genius and “original ideas” which are totally ahistorical, and which have historically been shown to limit, rather than “protect,” the progress of knowledge (more on this in the coming weeks). Barthes and Benjamin would say that you can’t truly own an idea or call it your own or original, because ideas always build on a tradition of the past. Likewise, the artistic work is never a piece of original genius, but an amalgamation of choices from a distinct set of languages or codes, with novel juxtaposition producing the impression of what we call “originality.”

Helping to pull these valuable concepts from what he calls “the academic book store ghetto,” Henry Jenkins saw many of these same aspects in the activities of fans working within the Web 2.0 context of the internet. Terming them “prosumers” (a hybrid producer-consumer), he later expanded the breadth of the concept to describe the current “fan-ification” of the general audience that we have today. From Harry/Malfoy slash videos on Youtube to a DJ’s mash-up of her favorite songs to Shepard Fairey’s infamous appropriation of an AP photo as fodder for his Obama Hope poster, there are numerous examples of everyday consumers taking the “found objects” of pop culture and the ideas of the public domain, and creatively using them as elements of their self expression.

But then again, isn’t all creativity appropriation? How is this practice any different from the pastiche of any Quentin Tarantino film, or the tropes of any genre film for that matter? Or Picasso paying homage to African art, and making it a paradigm of modernist painting? Or even a student citing the ideas of an author as the building blocks for the rhetorical argument of her paper, much as I have done here? It would seem that, when it comes to the visual, aural, or artistic, people have a tendency to think of these works as if they were thought up out of thin air. Thus, I would argue that we need to see them not as whole pieces of raw, original expression issuing forth from the unconscious of an artist, but as texts consisting of historical tropes or codes juxtaposed in novel or interesting ways. If we can just get away from this romantic notion that every thought or art work is somehow the product of one individual, we might just realize that we are building on the foundations of our histories and each other, and that a language exists for anyone and everyone to use –not just the rarified artist of essential genius. Perhaps too, if it is acknowledged that we speak through images and music just as we speak with words, we couldn’t brand a generation that has finally taken a hold of their culture with the pejorative label of pirates or thieves….More on this next week.          

Before I dive into this subject, here are a couple of examples of what I mean by
“orchestral electronic” music.

Hybrid: Keep It in the Family

Rob Dougan: Clubbed to Death

Teargas and Plateglass: Arkhangelsk

The thing that strikes me the most about this genre is its capacity to both cause emotional movement and emotional intensity. Here it is assumed that music does have an epic effect, or rather, communicates in a unique way with our emotions. What I mean by the first part of my statement, that this genre causes emotional movement, is supported mostly by the electronic aspects. For example, a hard hitting electronic bass line, or an equally forceful synthesizer, these things cause movement through repetition and digital aura. What I mean by “digital aura” is simply a connection to the digital age, and furthermore, a connection to the ever-changing, ever-improving, human mind, body, and soul, with the digital age being the contemporary marker of progress made. The combination of repetition and metaphorical human progress creates movement in a spiritual, mental, and physical sense, and it is this observation that I make, that contributes to what I think is one part of orchestral electronic music’s connection to contemporary life.

On the other hand we have the emotional intensity, the strings, the brass, the timpani and so forth. We might even include the piano in this group, no matter how much reverb we add to it. The significance behind the orchestral aspect of this genre is its ties to an “old,” a “foundational,” relationship with music. It adds, even if in a conservative way, a significant amount of importantance or intensity to the music. It is also important to mention how the interaction between the fundamental and the moving aspects of orchestral electronic music serve as a contemporary dialougue between tradition/values and innovation/technology, creating a balance from both and trudging on to the next day, not in compliance or sedation, but in contemplation and purpose.

Orchestral electronic music serves the purpose of motivation in my life. It keeps me looking forward with the prerequisite that Ive looked backward at the past and contemplated in order to better myself.

10 ½ . You know the hacks for check out lines at your local Target.

10. The employees at the Starbucks next to that Target know you.

9. Every single xmas and birthday present you have received for the past four years is a Starbucks gift card, and you now own the ENTIRE Starbucks gift card line-up.

8. You met one of your best friends at a Starbucks (a barista of course).

7. A barista working at a Starbucks forty miles from where you live asks how your apartment move went (from a month ago).

6. Starbucks employees from multiple stores IN A DIFFERENT STATE know you.

5 ½ . About half of the Toast staff knows what you will order before you even walk through the door.

5. The Toast staff starts recognizing certain outfits from your vast clothing repertoire.

4. You freak out because Starbucks temporarily ran out of their custom sleeves and lids and is now using “common” supplies.

3. You have out-patronized seven cycles of employees at about five local Starbucks.

2. The medium-newb Starbucks baristas ask you how to make a Marble Mocha Macchiato.

1. You have a long-standing arrangement with a certain Starbucks store IN ANOTHER STATE to remain open until your arrival… like ten minutes after close.

This tactic is far from new, but each time it rears its ugly head, the sheer sneakiness of all of it never fails to astonish me. The latest manifestation is, of course, John McCain’s “Internet Freedom Act” – an attack on Web 2.0 participatory culture and all it has done for media democracy. Despite the egalitarian connotation, try not be fooled: it’s not freedom for you or me, but for big media, and its specific focus is taking down net-neutrality.

Although the concept deserves a far more complex discussion than I can give here, net-neutrality can basically be summed up as a set of regulations put in place by the FCC to ensure that bandwidth distribution and consequent access to all sites on the web is equal. Under his “Internet Freedom Act,” McCain wants to kill net-neutrality by completely de-regulating how much bandwidth is allocated to each website. In the faux-neutral spirit of the “free market,” he thinks download time should be based on purchasing power. Therefore, in his model, sites owned by big corporations would download much faster, while little, blogger sites owned by the Average Joe or Josephine would take something like 10 minutes to come across.

Unfortunately, we have seen this same logic at play just 15 years ago within the entertainment industry, with television as the battleground. Just as the FCC’s Fin-Syn (Financial and Syndication) rules were instated in 1970 to curb the power of the “Big Three” networks (NBC, ABC, CBS) and their monopoly on the public airwaves, they were then repealed in 1996, allowing media corporations to merge into the international, vertically integrated giants they are today. True, many more cable channels exist on contemporary TV, but these channels are still owned by a few, massive corporations (much bigger than the Big Three). The case of net-neutrality and the internet may be even more dire: corporate site dominance may make smaller sites inconvenient to access, decreasing the opportunity for the bottom-up visibility that had made the internet unique.  

Do we really want a repeat of this history on the internet, which, unlike TV, was built on the shoulders of little gals and guys? You may not miss the opportunity to visit asinine fan blogs on Paris Hilton, but what will come of the citizen journalist and grassroots politics with the death of net-neutrality? When trying to wade through all the bs “freedom,” I’d suggest subjecting yourself to a simple, one question, litmus test: whose freedom are we advocating for, and whose freedom comes as an expense?       

10. Alcamy; Origin: American; Meaning: Alternate spelling of Alchemy; Guaranteed: Your kid will fail chemistry.

9. Cloud, Cricket, Denim… Please refrain from naming your child after the first random object that pops into your little brain.

8. Butch

7. Aim; Origin: American; Meaning: Direct toward target… or “My parents are social networking whores.”

6. Dude; Origin: American; Meaning: Man, Cowboy; Alternate spelling: Bro

5. Independence—Contrary to what you might believe, your child is not a boat.

4.Hummer and Humvee

3. Espn; Origin: American; Meaning: Television Sports Network; Guaranteed: Your kid will hate sports… and you.

2. Do not name your daughter Mary if your last name is Hary. Actually, have a heart and just don’t have kids; they are screwed.

1. Abcde; Origin: American; Meaning: First 5 letters of the alphabet; Don’t believe me? http://babynames.com/name/ABCDE

And that’s just the first half of the alphabet.

www.pandora.com

www.last.fm

It is important to be exposed to different music because new music enhances our perception of our lives and the world around us.

The possibilities of musical influence.

10. The Flowers… Changed Daily.

9. The Doheny Book Stacks.

8. The Over-the-Top Cinema Building, à la George Lucas.

7. The DPS Tri-Motor-Scooter-Mobile-Things.

6. The Construction.

5. The Squirrels.

4. The Finger Fountain.

3. The 29 Plus USC Fountains.

2. The Globe.

1. The Ghetto.

  - Mark Fowler, FCC Chair, 1981-1987

Although I originally intended for this blog to have a specific “film” focus, in the age of convergence, hyper-conglomeration, and incestuous horizontal integration, I’m finding that this narrow distinction is becoming less and less pertinent. After all, when film companies are teaming up with (or incorporating) music, TV, and video game producers from across the world, it’s hard to just look at a film text when a graphic novel, an online virtual world, a TV spin-off, and a soundtrack are also vying for your attention.

To recognize the scope of how big “big media” really is, you have to resign to the fact that you may end up sick to your stomach. Consider the following: the same parent company (NBC-Universal) that oversees Jay Leno’s train wreck of a talk show also produces your telenovella weepies (on Telemundo), your “Top Chef” quick-fires (on Bravo), and even artistic, so-called “indie” features like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (through Focus Features), which, in the popular imagination, would seem to be anathema to the mechanized logic of a Hollywood narrative assembly line. But it doesn’t stop there. NBC-Universal is also owned by GE, which as we all know, is a leading producer of both microwave ovens and missiles for the war in Iraq. (NBC’s show “30 Rock” deals with this conflict brilliantly). With a kind of unsettling absurdity, the quote above, one of my favorites from Ronald Reagan’s FCC Chair Mark Fowler, is increasingly coming true.

But what are the consequences of having one super-company produce television, toasters, and missiles according to the same, bottom-line logic? Can all these products be produced as if they were the same, or should we look at TV as a special product, that informs our ideologies, our identities, and our collective culture? In fact, how does being a leading producer of weapons for a war effect the reporting being done at a news station under your conglomerate’s umbrella?! These questions deserve book long studies devoted to them, rather than the random musings of a weekly blog post. So, instead, I thought I’d just point you in the direction of some of the more blatant or unexpected synergies I’ve noticed while watching television recently, so that you too can watch with (empowering) suspicion. And who knows: awareness of these incestuous going-ons may just be that little bit of micro-political poison that can make the system begin to crack.

1)  Ever wonder why champions of the Super Bowl seem unanimously pre-destined to “go to Disneyland?” ESPN owns Disney. Chilling, I know.       

2) One of my favorite movie websites, rottentomatoes.com, is owned by Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation, producers of the right-leaning Fox News network.  

3) I recently encountered an episode of “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody” entitled the “That’s So Suite Life of Hannah Montana.” That’s right: Disney cross-promoted three of its shows (“That’s So Raven,” “The Suite Life…,” AND “Hannah Montana”) within the context of a single twenty-minute episode.  

4) The other day, when snuggling up in front of a marathon of “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition,” I noticed the conspicuous (AKA random) presence of Jim Henson’s Muppets showing up to help with house construction in episode after episode. I also noticed that, like the aforementioned super bowl champs, the homeowners were often sent to Disneyland/world while their house was being demolished. Sure enough, I checked and Disney owns the rights to both the Muppets and “Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.” They also recently acquired Marvel….I took that one really hard.  

So in the immortal words of Public Enemy: “Fight the power! Fight the powers that be!” and don’t be duped! In fact, check out this super-handy site (freepress.net) for a useful chart detailing “who owns what.” There’s still time – you can still save yourself from becoming a hamster in their marketing maze! J  

10. That one time his scooter was trashed…

9. “Come live the nightmare of your choice… Tales from the Darkside: The Movie”

8. That one time he plays a troubled teen… Oh wait, that’s every movie.

7. Young rookie lawyer working Alcatraz row.

6. Once upon a time when he was a sexy, almost naked man-fairy.

5. That movie when he wore tights and bro-ed up with Morgan Freeman and Kevin Costner.

4. Hard Harry gets the girl.

3. “He’s got a way with women, a way with words, and a very special way… with a gun.”

2. He interviews a vampire.

1. Drug slayer for his one True Romance, a prostitute… Only a 110% statistical probability that he would eventually share the screen with Christopher Walken.

The language of music is abstract of course, well for the most part.  Music can convey both lofty ideals and passionate emotion.  Is this then the reason why we aren’t “forced” to engage in its performance and study?  Because it isn’t practical in our daily lives?  One might argue that the only practical reason why we should be required to study music would be for the ability to talk about music in certain situations.  One might limit the language of music to the realm of music itself.  But then I would ask, what good is Chinese language in a neighborhood that doesn’t speak it?  Isn’t foreign language limited by the same constraints?

Music should be a requirement.  I mean if we want to produce well-rounded students, I can’t think of any better way to top it off than with some good classical training.  And not just a music history class; that might be fun, but come on.  We should be performing, even if we drop it like so many of us do with our foreign language requirements once we are done.

In relationship to the broader theme of this blog, requiring music in our education would give us another lens through which to look at the world.  It would give us another way to construct narrative and emotion and philosophy.  It might even give us spiritual enlightenment as we contemplate the echoes of our universe’s birth.  In the words of Hans Christian Andersen, “Where words fail, music speaks.”

“Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and life to everything.”
[Plato]

Teaching music is not my main purpose. I want to make good citizens. If children hear fine music from the day of their birth and learn to play it, they develop sensitivity, discipline and endurance. They get a beautiful heart.

[Shinichi Suzuki]

Music is the harmonious voice of creation; an echo of the invisible world.

[Giuseppe Mazzini]