Rethinking the RhetoRic of ReMix
How did ‘remix’, a post-production technique and compositional form in dance music, come to describe digital culture? Is it an apt metaphor? This article considers the rhetorical use of remix in Lawrence Lessig’s case for copyright reform in Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008). I argue that Lessig’s understanding of remix is problematic, as it seems unable to accommodate its musical namesake and obscures the particular history of media use in recent music culture. Drawing on qualitative analysis of popular music cultures, I argue that the conceptualisation of remix as any media made from pre-existing media is problematic. The origins of remix, I argue, provides a lens for thinking critically about the rhetorical uses of the term in current discourse and forces us to ponder materialities. My aim is not to dispute the word’s contemporary meaning or attempt to establish a correct usage of the term – clearly a wide variety of creators call their work remix; instead, this article considers the rhetorical work that remix is asked to perform as a way of probing the assumptions and aspirations that lurk behind Lessig’s argument. How did ‘remix’, a post-production technique and compositional form in dance music, come to describe digital culture? Is it an apt metaphor? This article considers the rhetorical use of remix in Lawrence Lessig’s case for copyright reform in Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy (2008). I argue that while Lessig makes a persuasive argument about the over-reach of US copyright law in an era of digital and network technologies, his use of remix as a general descriptor of culture is problematic, as it seems unable to accommodate its musical namesake and obscures the particular history of media use in recent music culture. The origins of remix, I argue, provide a lens for thinking critically about the rhetorical uses of the term in current discourse, forcing us to ponder materialities. My aim is not to dispute the word’s contemporary meaning or to establish correct usage – clearly many creators call their work remix; instead, this article considers the rhetorical work that remix is asked to perform as a way of probing the assumptions and aspirations that lurk behind Lessig’s argument.
Lessig’s extended remix
For Lessig, as for many other scholars and commentators, remix is a digital media practice and expression made by copying, editing and recombining pre-existing digital media. It describes a variety of sample-based and digitally manipulated music, video, text and mixed media. As such, the meaning of remix has expanded beyond its origins in audio post-production, where since the 1970s it has described the process of making an alternate version of a song – usually a dance version – by manipulating the tracks contained on the multi-track master. Remixes are often considered a contested form of expression because many contemporary examples violate the copyright of the work they sample. The student who edits together
No. 141 — November 2011 17
2009: 1242–43. Sinnreich et al. The assumption that technology develops in an inevitable and progressive fashion merits closer inspection. one that marks a return to Jeffersonian ideals of democratic discourse. Lessig claims that this remix culture marks a return to something that was lost in the twentieth century. we should think of the children.
Media International Australia 18
. his claim that remix is new – that it is a new kind of speech. is in violation of Disney’s exclusive right to copy their work (unless the student has licensed the work). Lessig writes: I worry about the effect this [copyright] war is having upon our kids. the idea that remixes represent a return to a flourishing culture of amateurs (and. 2000). and believes this evolution is made possible by technological progress. at the very least. a figure who is poised to protect civil society from the corrupting interests of established business models (and presumably aging rock stars). is threatened by copyright laws that are based on the technologies of the twentieth century. He argues that remix is a new form of expression. Lessig thinks this new form of expression marks a return to core American values such as free speech.g. like many media scholars (notably Vaidhyanathan. Manovich. 2008: 18). This evolution of expression. In Remix. one made possible by technological progress and enabled by the mass uptake of digital and network technologies at the turn of the twenty-first century (Lessig. they should be recognised as a kind of speech (Lessig. 2003. moreover. and finally. Lessig (2008) claims that Girl Talk’s compositions – his ‘remixes’ – should be recognised as a new form of expression and. But. a new kind of writing. Girl Talk stands in as the Yeoman farmer. second. to a folk ideology of participation). 2003: 29). 2005. Fagerjord. associated with the current generation of teenagers and young adults. By comparing Lessig’s understanding of remix in Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy with the technique’s history and status in dance music. by association. the concept of ‘remix culture’ is commonly attributed to Lessig in cultural scholarship (e. the idea that remix should be understood as a generational practice. 2010: 190). But how did remix – a production technique whose origins are intertwined with the marketing and promotion of popular song and a form whose greatest ambition is to ensure that Johnny can get his groove on – come to represent such heady aims? How did it come to describe so much more? Although the use of ‘remix’ as a descriptive metaphor of digital culture predates Lessig’s use (see Schultze. the notion that remix is digital. third. he argues. For Lessig. a new form of political expression. and as such Lessig’s conceptualisation of remix deserves special attention. 2007.. as this assumption leads to the conclusion that remix is new and digital. something natural into which remix has breathed new life..1 for instance. remix is not only a form of individual expression. Lessig rightly asserts that the regulation of expression was not the intention of copyright law. who composes using hundreds of recognisable samples from pop songs. it is a participatory mode of communication. His concern is that current copyright law criminalises artists such as Gregg Gillis. 2007). I tease out four problematic themes: first. What is this war doing to them? Whom [sic] is it making them? How is it changing how they think about normal. right-thinking behavior? What does it mean to a society when a whole generation is raised as criminals? (2008: xvii) Lessig’s rhetorical use of remix often hinges on his plea that. Lessig argues that remix should be seen as a new old thing. a laptop DJ/producer known as Girl Talk. Bourriaud et al.
new media: new scale or new meaning?
Throughout Remix. and thus worthy of Constitutional protection in the United States.snippets of Disney’s Winnie the Pooh and replaces the soundtrack with audio clips from Apocalypse Now. Simultaneously.
say Berry and Moss (2008: 29) in their critique of Creative Commons. it seems reasonable that this perceived break c. Lessig sees radio as giving way to TV (2008: 30).
No. 1999: 14). 2004). Vaidhyanathan has pointed out that the incentive assumption is not only untested but untestable (McLaren. and culture will be pushed forward in its wake. that old technologies are rendered obsolete by new-fangled ones – for example. all thanks to improvements in digital and network technologies. Technological determinists. with what we might want it to be … We find an organisation quick to accept the specious claims of neo-classical economics. Remix allows him to imagine a future in which individual expression is unfettered by corporate interests. Friedman’s analysis of cyber-utopianism offers another insight into how technological determinism functions in an argument such as Lessig’s. c. Indeed. a space where ideas about the future ‘can be projected and discussed without mockery or scorn’. Elsewhere. the amateur with the professional. When computers and networks became cheaper. It tends to conflate how the world is with what it could be. Berry and Giles Moss (2008: 8. 2000 marks the improvement of existing digital and network technologies and the mass adoption of affordable high-speed broadband rather than the introduction of technologies per se. often speculate about the future by ignoring the past (Friedman. 2000. No doubt Lessig is aware that digital computers were popular and common personal and business technologies before 2000. if a technology is possible then it is inevitable. The rhetoric of remix shelters Lessig from a key libertarian dilemma. Lessig’s understanding of remix as an inevitable consequence of technological progress constructs what Friedman (1999: 5–6) calls a ‘utopian sphere’. and that the advent of the World Wide Web and related technologies in the early 1990s is understood to have marked the rise of popular and commercial adoption of the internet (Flichy. one that copyright seems to bring to the fore: how to simultaneously protect free speech and free markets. despite evidence to the contrary (1999: 105). he argues. 29) and advocates of ‘thin’ copyright such as Siva Vaidhyanathan are sceptical about claims that copyright acts as an incentive to create. The envisaged future also looks a lot like the present. In his view. Friedman (1999: 7) writes that ‘technological determinism functions as a cover. What the turn of the twenty-first century represents is participation on a larger scale. with its myopic ‘incentive’ models of creativity and an instrumental view of culture as a resource. just as vinyl gave way to eight tracks then cassettes and so on (2008: 39. Both copyleft scholars such as David M. where the little guy can compete with the multinational. 2008: xvi). more people were inclined to use them. easier to use and more efficient. They argue that it: fails to confront and look beyond the the logic and power asymmetries of the present. Lessig (2008: 18) dates this shift in production and distribution to ‘the turn of the last century’ – that is. Ted Friedman (1999: 27) argues that technological determinism is typical of the libertarian ethic that dominates popular thinking about the internet and that it has become computer culture’s ‘common-sense theory of history’. authorizing a safe space in which to articulate utopian values’. While he is not explicit.Lessig (2008: xviii) describes contemporary life as ‘a world in which technology begs all of us to create and spread creative work differently from how it was created and spread before’. a tendency that is a problem for Lessig’s understanding of remix as new in the face of its own lengthy history. 2007: 61–62). and where markets remain beyond question (2008: 121). Understanding remix as an inevitable consequence of technological change assumes that technology is progressive. while still envisaging a future in which copyright exists as an incentive (even an inspiration!) to create (Lessig. given the existence of cultural works that pre-date copyright and non-market production today. 141 — November 2011 19
Lessig’s preoccupation with the production of meaning as a way to understand ‘remix’ suggests that his definition is not informed by the history and continued use of ‘remix’ as a musical production or with dance remixes as cultural artefacts. ‘The twentieth century. or video. and he contrasts it with the ‘read only’ media of the twentieth century (2008: 20–31). and the structure of technologies prevented modification.’
Speak memory: the generation of meaning and a history of reuse
Remix is new for Lessig because it exemplifies this shift towards a read/write culture. or music. causes a shift in ‘cultures of creativity’ (2008: 18). Lessig (2008: xix) explains: ‘These alternatives would achieve the same ends that copyright seeks. then his rhetorical use of remix as a signifier of the new and the digital is compromised. If Lessig’s definition of remix is unable to accommodate its namesake. Natural rights are not to be tampered with as they underpin the defence of free speech in the US Bill of Rights. it succeeds by leveraging the meaning created by the reference to build something new’ (2008: 76). And a kind of freedom that will feel inevitable. as new and improved technologies enabled and prompted users – ‘begged us’ (2008: xvii) even – to participate in a ‘read/write’ culture. Lessig attempts to persuade us that remix is not so much a new cultural artefact as it is a natural one.’ (2008: 69) For Lessig. but the practice of commissioning and using alternate versions of a song owes its origins to Jamaica in the 1960s. a time when culture was made by professionals (think Disney and EMI) and passively consumed by everyone else. and represents. my aim is to draw all these forms [of remix] together to point to a kind of speech that will seem natural and familiar. He writes that ‘remix is collage.’ As Lessig understands it. and when the people were taught to defer to the professional. the mass adoption of digital and network technologies undermined the privilege of professionals. Lessig describes this ‘new’ culture of remix as ‘read/write’.So it is under the cover of technological determinism that Lessig (2008: 69) begins to foreground the idea that the tools of cultural production and distribution are now in more hands. Writing on copyright reforms. without making felons of those who naturally do what new technologies encourage them to do. but once digitised we can manipulate the video and audio in The Wizard of Oz – we can use the scarecrow to ‘speak’ or the man behind the curtain to ‘write’. and marks the return of the amateur’s influence on culture. He writes: ‘Using the tools of digital technology … anyone can begin to “write” using images. we could merely watch Dorothy skip down the yellow brick road. The origins of remixes in the discos and streets of New York are closely associated with the ascendance of a new dance culture that used recorded music in tandem with playback technologies to create non-stop dancing. and dance remixes
Media International Australia 20
. coupled with the increased scale of technological adoption. For Lessig. when ‘versions’ or dub-plates were commissioned by sound systems and record labels to create excitement on the dance floor in advance of a record’s release or to get customers into the clubs (Toynbee.’ Elsewhere he writes (2008: 56–57): ‘In the end. This ‘new’ culture of creativity is seen as the inevitable result of technological progress. it comes from combining elements of RO culture. a new way to speak. The first ‘remixes’ were released in New York in the 1970s (Lawrence. 2000: xvii). this possibility. these technological improvements alter our relationship with cultural products and production. a new world constructed of the digital ‘tokens’ of the ‘read only’ culture of yore. Yet remix has a history that predates digital technologies and thus troubles Lessig’s understanding of remix as a digital phenomenon. ‘was the first time in the history of human culture when popular culture had become professionalized. In the past. anyone can share that writing with anyone else. a generator of meaning. 2003).’ writes Lessig (2008: 29). And using the facilities of a free digital network.
the tracks can then be recombined and balanced with other tracks and the final mix sent to another recorder … it also creates new musical possibilities. referencing via juxtaposition and superimposition. tempo. the new mode of production therefore begins to turn the recording engineer – the mixer – into a musical creator of a new kind. Each track can be manipulated separately. Most of the works cited by Lessig combine fragments or samples from two or more media sources rather than from a single song or video. playing time. seems crucial to his understanding of remix.also became a way to market a song to a different crowd. on the other hand. 2010). He writes (2008: 82): ‘Remixed media succeed when they show others something new. for instance. Remixers and edit-makers worked with a different set of sonic possibilities as they had access to a different set of sounds. dynamics. we find that it is not necessarily dependent on quotation. Second. a fact that expanded their aesthetic options. editing and processing sound pieces to be incorporated into a larger musical work’ (Rodgers. Access was a key distinction between early edits and remixes (Borschke. Musical remixes work with the nature of ‘modern popular music as processive … It is constructed in a sequence of multiple takes. 141 — November 2011 21
. When a remixer drops out the vocals. not only could parts of different takes be edited together but individual parts could be altered without changing others played alongside. on the other hand. or filters the horns. and extended mixes were versions that made it easier for a DJ to mix that track with other records (that is. or almost any other aspect of the various musical components’ (Wikipedia. shape the aesthetic. As Tim Lawrence (2009: 129) writes: ‘DJs had been using their specialist knowledge of the dance floor dynamic to remix twelve-inch singles for the commercial market since the summer of 1976. it conflates the mixing of layers with the technique of sampling – that is. alter ‘the equalization. Acapellas. such as a drum break. Lessig. different effects can be added. recording.’ (Toynbee. First. if we consider the musical practice of remixing. there are occasions when only the remix is released (some remixes attempt to save bad songs from themselves) so there is no ‘original’ for the listener to reference. Remixing is not about the music. they fail when they are trite or derivative. There are two problems with this conceptualisation. as Lawrence has argued. understands remix as equivalent to quotation that occurs at different layers to ‘produce something new’ (2008: 69). to play them simultaneously) while other remixes appealed to certain styles or genres of music – for example.’ Or ‘good’ remixes build new meaning by playing with the meaning of old. Michael Chanan (1995: 147) explains: With multi-track recording. Lessig’s emphasis on the generation of meaning via referencing and his preoccupation with creating conversations between media are accompanied by a judgement about what constitutes a ‘good’ remix. dubs and bonus beats. a practice that would. Remixers.’ Not all alternate versions were commissioned and paid for by labels – some DJs made unauthorised edits of songs and released them on acetate. had access to the multi-track master recordings and thus were able to isolate and manipulate individual layers in a mix. Dance remixes are derivative by nature. it just is the music. The point is not that
No. as well as knowledge about the primary source. 2010). a label might commission a house version of a song and a drum and base mix – or might seek additional attention (and sales) by choosing a well-known remixer. 2004: 312) or the creation of a copy of a fragment of some media source. ‘selecting. they are not referencing the song’s tracks. 2000: 55) Remixers can add or subtract. or adds a percussion track. overdubs and editing. DJs were instrumental in the development of the technique and aesthetic. Edit-makers were constrained by the mixed sounds of the commercial release and would listen for certain sonic elements in a song. Complicating matters further. they are using them differently (or not at all). They began as DJ tools and the aim was to make a song easier for a DJ to use: a remix might make a song more danceable or better suited to radio play. pitch.
(2008: 38) Analogue formats such as vinyl records were ‘naturally’ constrained (2008: 37). He writes: With the introduction of digital tokens of RO culture and. It doesn’t apply. Lawrence (2009: 125) writes that ‘as the social ritual of nonstop dancing began to take shape. they only make it more complex. Complexity and difficulty do not make a cultural phenomenon better or more valuable. RO tokens were to be played. the technologies that enabled copying were rare. more important.
falling down the analogue hole (or why we were never read only)
For Lessig. Lessig tends to value complexity as a way to justify the worth of the practice. and it is tied to his faith in copyright and its reform rather than its abolition. Remixing was driven by the pleasures of the body. These ‘natural’ constraints of the analogue world. Lessig leads us towards the established notion of fair use in copyright. a remix and an original are on equal footing. remix is quintessentially digital. with the widespread availability of technologies that could manipulate digital tokens of RO culture. Nor does the idea that it takes ‘extraordinary knowledge of a culture’ to remix well (or to listen). hopelessly naive) view about ‘original creativity’ … The form makes demands on the audience. He writes (2008: 93): anyone who thinks remixes or mash-ups are neither original nor creative has very little idea about how they are made or what makes them great. By aligning remix with commentary and referencing in art and literature. by definition. By making the production of meaning central to his understanding of remixing. the desire to make a body move to the music and with other bodies. were destroyed with the advent of digital technologies. digital technology removed the constraints that had bound culture to particular analog tokens of RO culture. There is a rhetorical reason for Lessig’s focus on the generation of meaning instead of a change in use – but this tactic. unless the listener is familiar with the song being reworked. DJs realized they had to “follow” as well as “lead” their newly energized crowds’. not original. may leave behind other kinds of creative use. they hinged on use. It takes extraordinary knowledge about a culture to remix it well. because consumer-generated copies were inferior to the original. Valuing complexity over simplicity is a matter of aesthetic preference (as is Lessig’s preference for Girl Talk over Britney Spears). I fear. he explains. and builds a case that their use is transformative. Sonically. But there seems to be more than taste at play in Lessig’s preoccupation with the generation of meaning. more radio friendly).this technical meaning of remix has priority over the extension of the metaphor (and the techniques used to remix are indistinguishable from those used to mix). So how does a popular dance remix fare when held up to these standards? Dance remixes are. Remix as a form was shaped by reception. they may not be aware that they are listening to a remix. they return the demands in kind. remix was not predicated on a change in meaning – it was a change in use (more booty shaking. That said. not manipulated’ (2008: 38). there is nothing about the technique per se that requires knowledge about anything other than the song being remixed and the technology used to do this. and remixes in dance music stand as a counter-example to the claim that remix as a form makes different demands on an audience. While a highly trained ear and experience with DJing to a dance floor will help a remixer make good decisions. Remixes in pop music didn’t leverage meaning. and ‘for the ordinary consumer. but this ‘new’ extended understanding of remix must be able to accommodate the technique’s origins and continued use. he believes. The artist … learns far more about his past than one committed to this (in my view.
Media International Australia 22
by media made with analogue formats and technologies in Jamaica in the 1960s and in the nascent hip hop and disco scenes in New York in the 1970s. While Lessig rightly asserts that the tools available today cost a fraction of what they once did. he reaches back to the turn of the twentieth century to argue that ‘remix culture’ can be understood as a return to what was lost when culture became professionalised. These real-time sound collages in fact inspired and shaped the aesthetic of many of the earliest remixes and edits (Lawrence. Lessig never acknowledges that the origins of remix as a production technique and as a cultural artefact were first shaped by analogue technologies and formats – a fact whether it was a record label granting a remixer access to an expensive analogue studio. clean master tapes and a flat fee or a DJ making cheap tape edits without permission by recording vinyl to reel-to-reel tape and manipulating the recording. consumers not producers – who in tandem with playback technologies developed innovative techniques that liberated sounds found on fixed recording to make on-the-fly compositions. these situations of using whatever technology was to hand. by his assertion that ordinary consumption or reception is passive.This analysis fails to acknowledge the innovative use of analogue technologies. ‘couch-potato stupor’ (2008: 254). I contend that the practice of remixing was forged by these strategies of use. When he writes (2008: 38) that vinyl records ‘limited the consumer’s ability to be anything other than “a consumer”’. But while Lessig seems blind to recent history. Indeed. It is also troubled by the sample-based music made by both professionals and amateurs (including artists who. 2008). this characterisation of culture as ‘read only’ is troubled by the particular music cultures that gave rise to the strategy of remix – that is. ‘just consumers’ (2008: 25) and television viewers being channelled into following one programming mix over another (2008: 43). scholars like Paul Thébege (1997) and Jason Toynbee (2000) have argued that the advent of low-cost digital technologies in the early 1980s (such as samplers and sequencers) marked a moment in which a ‘key innovation’ was the ‘“production” of musicians as consumers of high technology’ (Thébege. composed their music entirely from samples) with then relatively affordable digital technologies such as samplers and sequencers in the 1980s and 1990s (Toynbee. He writes: ‘The twentieth century was the first time in the history of human culture when popular culture had become professionalized. ‘passively listening’ (2008: 106). untrained and semi-professional musicians as well their ‘audiences’ of listeners. and seems to ignore their role in the creation of the first remixes and edits (Borschke. he fails to acknowledge that amateurs and starving professionals did rent studios. like Girl Talk. he overlooks the fact that it was DJs – endusers. 1997: 70–71. Lessig’s failure to consider the particular cultures and series of events that gave rise to the remix as a larger cultural phenomenon outside of music is compounded. Music cultures present a problem for anyone who thinks that twentieth century culture can be summed up neatly by a division between professionals and amateurs. However. forged by collaborations between self-trained. He writes of ‘simple consumption’ (2008: 29). dancers and hangers on. 2000: 94.’ (2008: 29) Remix marks the triumphant (if contested) return of the amateur and the return of a participatory ethos that can rouse ordinary folk from their ‘couch-potato stupor’ (2008: 254). they did buy low-cost samplers (McLeod. These strategies and practices reveal the active nature of reception. 2004) when they came available in late 1980s. emphasis mine). His is a portrait of the
No. and active listening. and when the people were taught to defer to the professional. 2010). cited in Toynbee. or at least further compromised. 141 — November 2011 23
. and many artists (and idle teenagers) made use of cheaper tape technologies to achieve creative ends. the exploitation of music’s objectification through recording. 2000: 93–98). The music industry in the twentieth century is less about the rise of the professional than it is about the commodification of culture. as numerous popular music genres and cultures – including rock and electronic dance music – can be seen as amateur innovations. watching and reading continue to shape the aesthetic of reuse.
and his book is populated by folks who are neither amateurs nor young. It took the invention of digital media for us to be able to wake up and be creative. commerce and culture. it manifests technological determinism of the crudest kind … Lessig presents the twentieth century as a dark ages when people could only passively consume culture. but it seems problematic to mount a defence of amateur creativity by denying their role in shaping culture in the first place. Given remix’s lengthy history. film studies and the visual arts where a great deal of effort has been devoted to ideas about the work that readers. music and images – moving or otherwise. Girl Talk counts as young. If we want to understand the role played by copies in contemporary composition we would do better to think not of the meaning but of the use. Negativland formed in the late 1970s. we are building arguments on false premises. it overlooks the long-standing contribution of use and users to media innovation and creativity. the borders between amateurs and professionals. By equating remix with teenagers. It is an appeal to emotion and a rhetorical ploy. I do not dispute Lessig’s assertion that what technology enables and what copyright allows are out of sync and difficult policy battles need to be fought. But if scholars of culture proceed with Lessig’s conceptualisation of remix. where the remote has been forever lost to the couch. Johan Söderberg is a professional videographer and filmmaker. She writes: Lessig’s vision of cultural history and creative process is almost laughably thin from the perspective of anyone versed in the most basic cultural studies and communications research. musicology. young and old. Lessig entreats us to ‘think of the children’. Remix is neither new nor digital. it is arguably the least innovative. and he was born in 1962.
Apocalypse Pooh (1987) was a student-made analogue video cutup. Lessig never really backs up his generational argument.recent past in which all the VCRs blinked 00:00. Lessig’s work has raised awareness about the threat to creative practice and communication that the expansion of copyright presents.00 p. see Mackenzie (2007). and that previous generations were passive (2008: 109). and Breitz was born in 1972. Laura Murray (2009: 5) offers a similar critique in her review of RiP: A Remix Manifesto. performer and audience are poorly defined. but while his work is illegal. where warnings about home taping were heeded and at 10. we obscure an understanding of how their practices of use and consumption shaped both the technology we use today and our contemporary practices of consumption. At 25. Among the problems with the rhetoric of remix is that it shies away from dealing with (and defending or condemning) straightforward examples of replication and reuse (such as mp3 blogs and peer-to-peer file sharing) that were made possible by digital and network technologies. My concern is that the current expansion of copyright criminalises anyone who dares to use their culture by reproducing it. Lessig’s concern is that these laws ‘criminalize a generation’ (2008: 294). Like most artefacts and practices from music culture. a documentary based on Lessig’s work. This is. following in the footsteps of many artists who composed with hundreds of samples. seems to misrepresent culture. just like focusing on meaning.m. however. ridiculous. listeners and viewers do to construct texts. By denying agency and innovation to consumers/users of the past. and ignores scholarship in literary theory. It is an understanding of reception that assumes a romantic construction of authorship. simply. he says.
Media International Australia 24
. the assertion that remix culture is somehow the purview of teenagers and young adults. everyone knew where their children were. and stands as a counterexample to the claim that remix is digital. For a discussion of its influence on contemporary digital ‘mash-ups’.
1973–1992. 1242–60.ted. Organised Sound. M.-S. Remix: Making Art and Commerce Thrive in the Hybrid Economy. 22 March. 2000. S. Schultze. com/doc/1G1-172398122. Lessig. Vaidhyanathan. 313–20. ‘Samples from the Heap: Notes on Recycling the Detritus of a Remixed Culture’. Mash-ups. Hunsigner.culturemachine.doc. www. and Gluck.horizonzero. New York University Press..References
Berry. Sinnreich. ‘Disco Madness: Walter Gibbons and the Legacy of Turntablism and Remixology’. 2007.J. Borschke. L. New York. B. L. Fagerjord. 2003. pp. Pygmalion. 2009. Horizon Zero. Klastrup (eds).
No. 1995. L. A. 72. J. pp. Stay Free. Manovich. Chanan.net/index. ‘On the Process and Aesthetics of Sampling in Electronic Music Production’. 1999. Durham. New York. Mackenzie. C.html. Communication & Society. and Moss. Winnipeg. Duke University Press. Wikipedia 2010. ‘After Convergence: You Tube and Remix Culture’. Journal of Popular Music Studies. How Copyright Law Changed Hip Hop: An Interview with Public Enemy’s Chuck D and Hank Shocklee. 2003. vol. New York. NC. www. Lukas & Sternberg. ‘The Horror. PhD thesis. S. Copyrights and Copywrongs: The Rise of Intellectual Property and How It Threatens Creativity. D. 1970–1979. New York.php?tlang=0&is=8&file=5.php/cm/issue/view/11. in B. Schneider. MIT Press. —— 2007. ‘Disco Edits and Their Discontents: The Persistence of the Analog in a Digital Era’.manovich. 2010. 929–44. Toynbee. Animated Painting. Margie Borschke is a PhD candidate and sessional lecturer in the Journalism and Media Research Centre at the University of New South Wales. AMVs. 2003. Bourriaud. J. ‘Review: RiP: A Remix Manifesto.net/DOCS/Remixability_2. Culture Machine. Latonero. 20. ‘Ethics Reconfigured: How Today’s Media Consumers Evaluate the Role of Creative Reappropriation’. no. Creativity and Institutions. pp. M. TED. K. Cineaction. and the Strange Case of Apocalypse Pooh’. Allen and L. 2009. CA. Murray. Verso. G. London. The Internet Imaginaire. in J. the Horror: Found Footage. NC. New Media & Society. 141 — November 2011 25
..ca/textsite/remix. M. San Diego. 2010. 2000. Hertz (ed. C. Remix. www. vol. the AvantGarde. —— 2009. Arnold. pp. 3. Information. N. Bloomsbury. www. Hold on to Your Dreams: Arthur Russell and the Downtown Music Scene. and Herman. Libre Culture: Meditations on Free Culture. http://en. Duke University. San Diego Museum. p. M. Cambridge. New York. Copyrights and Copywrongs: Interview with Siva Vaidhyanathan. —— 2008. 2005.wikipedia. 2004. Repeated Takes: A Short History of Recording and Its Effects on Music. www. Durham. Springer. Friedman. —— 2008. McLeod. M. The International Handbook of Internet Research. Rodgers. 2007. 2004.com/talks/larry_ lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity. 276–329. A. Stay Free New York. 2004. McLaren.html. Making Popular Music: Musicians. Postproduction: Culture as Screenplay: How Art Reprograms the World. ‘Remix and Remixability’. (eds) 2008. ‘Electric Dreams: Computer Culture and the Utopian Sphere’. Love Saves the Day: A History of American Dance Music Culture. London. Flichy. 2007. T. T. 6.org/wiki/Remix. T. Lawrence. P. Piglet.). ‘Larry Lessig on Laws that Choke Creativity’. Duke University Press. vol. ‘Understating Hybrid Media’. directed by Brett Gaylor’. 12. no. 8.highbeam. MA.