About two weeks ago web sites observed Grey Tuesday. Grey Tuesday protested EMI's refusal to allow DJ Danger Mouse to use the Beatle's White Album for remixes with Jay-Z's Black Album. Something like 170 sites hosted the Grey Album for free download on February 24th.
While DJ Dangermouse's work was technically a remix, the controversy has drawn mainstream attention to an underground phenomenon called the 'mash-up', culminating in a feature on ABC nightly news last week.
Jay-Z's Black Album especially lends itself to mashups through an active fan base. The Grey Album has sparked a bunch of new mashup's here's one of my fav's. Done by a self-proclaimed hipster, Jay-Zeezer is a combination of Weezer's Blue Album and the obligatory Black Album. Right now it's only 4 tracks, and they aren't nearly as professional as Danger Mouse's work, however, my hipster self reaches out to the work of another hipster.
But beyond mere sentamentality. The behavior of the EMI record label, which holds copyright on the White Album, troubles me. Is there a large difference between a mash-up and a cover? Technically, sure, a mashup is illegal without permission and a cover isn't. But artistically, are they birds of the same feather? An obvious argument would be that they aren't because a mash-up is using the "music" of other artists. However, is the "music" the recorded notes or the composition? Why can we use someone's composition through covers at will, but not their recordings, provided their part of some larger artistic statement? The question needs further examination.
Its one of the stranges things I've ever heard, J-Zeezer & DJ Danger Mouse, but dang, it's oddly mysteriously appealing.
Posted by: JosiahQ at March 16, 2004 3:33 PM