One of the greatest powers the internet has given us is the freedom to write, rewrite, play, replay--over and over. It's an endless creative space that allows for ceaseless commentary. I'm a big fan of finding inventive musical covers on the internet. Sometimes these covers are just about rediscovering favorites in new ways, other times they make palatable to me music that I find completely unappealing.
I think the interest in all kinds of homages, from fanfiction to musical covers, demonstrates something beautiful about the creative instinct in human beings. To me, it is a demonstration that what drives creativity is not the opportunity to do something that has never been done before--but to do something in a way that suits you. Perhaps creativity can be thought of as finding the blend of our interests with our abilities. It is fun to write your own stories or songs, to perform or create a unique work--but, who doesn't just want to belt out the Beatles sometimes (or whatever music you love)?
At the same time, I think it is an interesting division to try and define between copying and covering a creative work. It seems a cyclical news story to talk about how the current pop stars are ripping off one or another musician.
This song, for example, samples from Elvis Costello's song, "Pump it Up." The only reason I discovered the original is because in the YouTube comments, some people were debating the creativity, or lack thereof, in looping the catchy guitar rift from it. The internet has also become a place for not letting such "borrowing" go unnoticed. So, in someways, the copy/cover divide becomes a matter of public opinion--a crowd arbitrating whether or not to ostracize you for plagiarism or to embrace you as a creative off-shoot.
What do you think? What is just outright copying and what is creative recasting in the age of internet media?
No comments:
Post a Comment