In a similar case, Danger Mouse mixed the vocal from Jay-G’s The Black Album and the beats from the Battles’ The White Album to create The Grey Album. As a result, the original artists sued Danger Mouse and all of Grey Album was forfeited. Some people think using other people’s music to create new works is unacceptable because it is an individually owned creation. If anyone should use it for making profit, it should go to the original artist. It is argued that art should always be original, and if artists plagiarism other’s works, it destroys the original work.Order now
But I believe that artistic borrowing should be acceptable when artists use it to create something new. It can be considered as a way to modernize old works. Some people argue that art should be individually owned and considered as a product for making money, but I believe that art should be created “for art’s sake”. People become greedier and greedier each day. Hundreds of years ago, famous musicians such Schubert and Mozart died in poverty even though they created huge amount of now world-famous art. They would rather keep their works for themselves to enjoy than ailing them for money.
For example, Beethoven only wrote one opera in his entire musical life, but he edited it several times. If he did not take his work seriously and only wanted to show people his most perfect work of his, he would have created more operas. In modern times, Negatively said, “Culture is more than commerce. It may actually have something to say about commerce. It may even use example of commerce to comment upon it” (149). An Album is a physical production of people’s idea or culture, but nobody can own an idea or culture. If people believe art is made or profit, it will always be a production for money.
However, we should respect the musicians and their spirit that creating art is solely “for art’s sake”. Artistic borrowing is acceptable only when it is not used for profit making. They do earn money from selling album, but it does not mean they can always earn revenue from the music. Their purpose can be very simple, which is showing people their work and sharing their creativity. Some may consider artists borrowing as an act of stealing, but I would say that people have already begun borrowing other artists’ works at long time ago.
Just like an inventory, music is the creation and the belonging of the inventor. If people create a similar music without permission, they will be considered as thieves. However, the history of artistic borrowing tells us that the thought that borrowing equals stealing is wrong. For example, in the 19th century? the Romantic Era of music? Burlier wrote a theme called id©e fixed (fixed idea), which is dedicated to his wife, Harriet by Beethoven’s #9 symphony. Similarly, Chopin converted all of Beethoven’s symphonies into piano music. But Beethoven’s descendants never sued Burlier and
Chopin because they used Beethoven’s idea and melody without his permission. We should inherit our ancestors’ social aspect about the artistic borrowing and accept it. Some people believe that artistic borrowing is unacceptable because art should always be original and unique, but I believe that artists borrowing and reframing music can create completely original music, and it still is a creation of something new. It is true that borrowing other’s existing product to contribute to one’s own work might save time, and that it may also implies that the artists who borrow existing arts re lazy.
But they still do spend time on combining their idea with other’s to create a new style. For instance, Danger Mouse deconstructed the records, The White Album and The Black Album, and he went through every pitch that instrument made because he wanted to change the music to his own style (Par. 19). Also, Burton did not make money off his Grey Album, but lost thousands of dollars because he was unable to work while creating the Grey Album (Par. 28). Additionally, “Negatively occupies itself with re-conceptualizing captured fragments to create something entirely new Negativism’s First Press Release 150). Just because those artists borrowed some part of others’ creations does not mean that their arts should be unacceptable to the public. They are still willing to devote time and effort on the work Just to show people their new creation. Some people criticize that the act of artistic borrowing could destroy the original work, but I think it can be a way to modernize old work. Sometimes, borrowing music can cause a negative impact to the audience, but it does not mean that the borrowing of music destroys the original music.
For example, the music Negatively borrowed included some curses and rude language (Sis’s Double Trouble 139). 1. 12 did not use this kind of “negative” language/material before, but it does not mean this kind of music should be prohibited. Modern people might enjoy listening to this style of music because it expresses and agrees with what they think of their currently unsatisfied situations. Similarly, a Chinese band, S. H. E, used the same melody of Mozart Symphony #ass’s first movement, and then changed the symphony into a vocal song.
Before, the Symphony #40 only can be played by the instrument, but now it can also be sung thanks to the band. Therefore, artistic borrowing is acceptable because it can reformat the old works to be more flexible as well as helping reminding the younger generation of the old, classical music. We should accept the behavior of artistic borrowing. The music market or the record companies should not focus so much on how the music can make profit. It is meaningless to let music always be original. And there is hardly any ways for original music to be ruined.