Annalee Newitz gives her take on mash-ups as “anti-authoritarian folk music for a generation whose ‘establishment’ is represented by corporate intellectual-property owners.” Warning: intellectual analysis ahead.
-
Pages
Categories
Archives
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
One Comment
Hmm, on reading the article it seems to me that the writer has decided what they think mash-ups represent and then gone out looking for evidence to fit their theory. I don’t really think anyone is sitting in front of their computer thinking to themselves “heh - this will screw those big corporate IP mofo’s - Pink vs the Jackson 5 - take that record companies!!!”
I thought the whole point of mash-ups was that it’s fun. Fun to take one song, jam it up against another and see what you get. Fun to share it with people, fun to make watch people trying to work out what they’re listening to, fun to be creative. Oh, and under the present system of copyright, it also happens to be illegal. Which is unfortunate, but isn’t stopping anybody.
Post a Comment