The Copy Fetish

This is more of a cultural argument and only marginally has something to do with copyright but I found it interesting.

I ran across this concept in an article I was reading on the cultural transformation of Mp3s.

Walter Benjamin argues that mechanically reproduced art destroys the sense of authenticity, and dissolves the rituality historically attached to traditional arts…

Originally the contextual integration of art in tradition found its expression in the cult. We know that the earliest art works originated in the service of a ritual - first the magical, than the religious kind…but the instant the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applicable to artistic reproduction, the total function of art is reversed. Instead of being based on ritual, it begins to be based on another practice - politics.

This concept of original art being subservient to the copy is a great analysis of the digital age. Both the music industry and the public originally craved the production and consumption of ‘the copy’. Indeed these arguably false realities - etching in time forever what was either a once off recording or a meticulously crafted and distant layered piece of musical art- can be seen to be deified in the acts of vinyl collecting where the mere physical presence of copies lends a certain aura and prestige to the music listener. But this is merely a certain cultural point in time as Kasaras argues.

Perhaps now MP3s are merely the ‘ultimate copy’. Something which can be stored, replenished and copied at will - the ultimate warholian one upmanship of an industry which thrives on selling copies of things. Therefore following Benjamin’s argument one would have to argue that using mp3s is the ultimate political act.

Once again the notion of ‘the spectacle’ rears its head. The ritual is played out in concerts, movie theatres and festivals. Although I remember rituals involving buying albums, flicking through covers and listening to it in one hit, that ritual (for me anyway) has gone. So I guess that proves that rituals aren’t absent from consumption of the copy (see movie theatres and listening to albums) but are perhaps more susceptible to change than consumption of original works like visiting galleries and seeing concerts.

What do you with CD’s?

EDIT: I wrote this post in a rush but realise now that this concept subconciously grew from two sources. So here’s kudos. One was a witty quip from a Cory Doctorow podcast and another was this post.

 

Recently I’ve started producing for a local community radio program and have fallen into the wonderful position of scoring free CD’s, which has been a life long dream of mine.

If I ever had a career counsellor who bothered to ask me what I wanted to do when got older, my fifteen year old self would have said ‘Work somewhere where I get stacks of CD’S for free!’. Who doesn’t like free music? Especially when at that time it cost me more than my weekly income to supplement my music collection with the latest offering from Unwritten Law or Blink 18..*cough* I mean early Miles Davis and Slint.

But what’s the big deal? I mean music is free these days anyway. You can download it or buy it at a ridiculous mark down price from itunes (even if you are horribly restricted with what you can do with your music after purchase). 

Well because this has lead to a weird situation. It means I’ve been taking actual, no joke CD’s home with me regularly (something I hadn’t been doing prior to this production job) and at the moment it’s a bit wtf?!? 

Now I listen digital. Even though my CD buying hasn’t stopped completely, all I do is upload the music and ditch the liner notes, artwork and casing. And they drop out of my radar completely. 

I used to take so much pleasure in re-organising cd’s by genre, title or artist in a Cusack-ian sort of manner only a few years ago and now they’re basically rubbish, to the point that I’ve sold or thrown out any CD’s which I don’t have a long standing attachment to.   

I remember being shattered if instead of liner notes there were weird photos taken by the ‘arty’ lead singer, or if song titles were written on the CD so that the only way you could work out what song you were listening to was to take out the CD, look at the CD then put it back in. 

I also remember awesome cover designs like Sonic Youth’s Goo and Neutral Milk Hotel’s In The Aeroplane Over The Sea. CD’s which had designs which were so evocative they almost became part of the music.  

Yet even though I feel like I’m casting down a billion awesome album covers to a fiery death, I think good music should be like penguin classics. Even if the album’s got a crappy cover (or in the case of digital music - no cover), the music and even the imagery of the music will shine through. Hearing Goo and Aeroplane, I knew what the covers would look like before I even saw them. That’s how good the music was. I didn’t need the physical embodiment of the music, I already had the imagery in my head. The covers just re-enforced that imagery.  

I’ve come to this belief more through practice than belief. But is it wrong? What should I be doing with CD’s

Net Rock Godz to Rock Once More

Trent Reznor and Radiohead, the darlings of the wired crowd and anybody who’s so totally against the record industry are teaming up once more to take on record moguls, japanese super villians and parking inspectors.

Reznor V. Radiohead

Or, Reznor Vs. In Rainbows, if you will. As you all know, they’ve both found success experimenting with album price points in a big way, and debuting music online. And rumor has it they’ll both be headlining Lolla ‘08. On top of that, they’re both using online video networks to commission fans to create visual pieces for their records.

From stereogum.com

And despite their similar philisophical bent it still hasn’t stopped Reznor from getting all angsty, claiming to be way more down with mp3’s and the interwebs than those Radiohead dudes.

“I think the way [Radiohead] parlayed it into a marketing gimmick has certainly been shrewd,” Reznor said when speaking to Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Michael Atkin. “But if you look at what they did, though, it was very much a bait and switch to get you to pay for a MySpace-quality stream as a way to promote a very traditional record sale.”

Reznor is referring to Radiohead’s release of In Rainbows as lossy 160kbps (max) MP3 downloads, which many would argue are sub-par when compared to DRM-free offerings from Amazon and iTunes Store (both of which offer 256kbps DRM-free music). Furthermore, Radiohead’s album is also no longer offered as a digital download, as the band openly stated that they were still going to rely on traditional labels and distribution channels for the rest of In Rainbows‘ sales.

“There’s nothing wrong with that,” Reznor continued, “but I don’t see that as a big revolution [that] they’re kinda getting credit for.” In addition to the quality of Radiohead’s MP3s, NIN’s frontman also took issue with the band’s omission of artwork and altogether not taking care of the fans. “To me that feels insincere. It relies upon the fact that it was quote-unquote ‘first,’ and it takes the headlines with it.”

From Ars Technica

It’s just not fair Trent.I’m thinking this might also be the work of our ‘me first’, conspiracy theorist NIN friend.

IT’S SCIENCE PEOPLE.