Remixes, as in the particular musical form, are importantly different from mash-ups and sampling. Remixes are reinterpretations of a single song, often quite significant departures from the original work, but nonetheless grounded in that one work. Mash-ups, in contrast, are combinations of multiple songs (though the individual pieces often resemble the originals far more closely than remix versions), and sampling involves the use of small slices of one work in another mostly new work (such as the use of a horns hook from a funk song in a hip-hop song).
The same questions that fill the discourses surrounding free downloads, mash-ups, and sampling apply here. Do remixes increase sales of the originals or undercut them? Do remixes constitute fair use or don’t they? The most important issue, though, is whether or not remixes constitute new or derivative works, which has important implications for whether or not remixers are free to distribute their art.
Self-administered remixes (i.e. artists and/or labels remixing their own songs) have been around for a while. They were thrust into the mainstream by (then-called-)Puff Daddy’s hip-hop label Bad Boy Records in the mid-90’s, who recycled and re-recycled their popular singles with remixes, and proclaim in multiple songs to have in fact “invented the remix.” In the past year, though, this conception of the remix has been challenged.
In the Fall of 2007 British alt rock juggernauts Radiohead made history by self-releasing their new album In Rainbows on a “pay-what-you-want” scale that started at “free.” They followed up this stunt, which was hugely successful — interestingly leading to far more legal sales of the record than of their previous record, by encouraging remixes of their work through selling the “stems” of one of their songs (“Nude”) for $0.99 a piece on iTunes. Aspiring remixers could purchase these stems, which are the individual main components of a song (in this example: vocals, guitars/synths, drums/percussion, string/fx), and remix them for their own pleasure, or to submit to a Radiohead-sponsored contest. This project led to the song, Nude, abruptly jumping up to #37 on the Billboard Hot 100 singles charts. It was so successful that they decided to sell the stems of another song of their album (“Reckoner”) in the same way.
The terms and conditions of Radiohead’s competition, though, are a little unsettling (terms). They specify that any remix submitted to the contest (or not, for that matter) is wholly owned by Radiohead’s US distributors, publishing company, and the band, even though Radiohead self-released this album. Despite Radiohead’s apparent progressiveness, their remixers fall into the same quagmire facing all other remixers: should people that push the boundaries of remixing to create something profoundly new be rewarded with the basic freedom to distribute their work?
Californian pop-rockers Third Eye Blind took notice of Radiohead’s experiment, and are currently engaged in a similar project. They’ve offered two tracks of their upcoming album Ursa Major, before the album is released, to be remixed by fans. It will be interesting to see whether or not this ploy increases the exposure for, and ultimately the sales of their new record when it is released this spring.
As remixing, both band-sanctioned and not, has spread throughout the internet, many websites have popped up to service this growing community. One such website is CC Mixter, which enables (and encourages) people to remix music under non-commercial Creative Commons licenses. In the FAQ’s section of the site, though, the webmasters are quick to point out that posting remixes under CC licenses on the site doesn’t necessary grant the remixers any distribution rights to their works. This is, from a common-sense perspective, a little perplexing, when you actually listen the remixes, many of which are near-unrecognizable from their original sources, and in many ways far more “transformative” than many mash-up and sample uses (to borrow a term made famous by the 1988 Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music Supreme Court ruling that a parody of Roy Orbinson song “Oh, Pretty Women” was indeed “fair use” and did not violate copyright law, even despite of its commercial use, because of its “transformativeness“).
Artists encouraging the remixing of their own content is obviously uncontroversial. The implications, though, are. Ultimately, I think the only long-term solution is to redefine copyright law and fair use to fit the realities of the 21st century. In the meantime, however, does Radiohead’s success point to a potential solution for the music industry, not only for curtailing unsanctioned remixes, but also for dampening the similar supposed threats of mash-ups, peer-to-peer file sharing, and illicit sampling:
If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?