The Whack Album
As frequent readers of this site know, I’m a huge Beatles fan. So you can understand how intrigued I was by this news item :
British record company EMI Group has taken action against a DJ’s attempt to crossbreed the Beatles’ “White Album” with hip-hop star Jay-Z, but the crackdown has not stopped the spread of the unauthorized remix.EMI, which owns the rights to the Beatles’ sound recordings, sent letters to independent record stores last week insisting they stop distributing DJ Danger Mouse’s “Gray Album,” which mixes the lyrics of Jay-Z’s “Black Album” with music from the “White Album.”
While I’m not a huge fan of rap and I’m easily turned off by Beatles sampling or covers, this is definitely something I had to hear. Having tracked down the album online, I find the whole thing a mixed bag. While some tracks (like “Encore” and “Change Clothes”) are pretty interesting, hearing John Lennon’s melancholy eulogy to his dead mother (”Julia”) interrupted with “You’re now tuned into the motherfucking greatest!” or the laughably bad “Justify My Thug” (sung to the tune of Madonna’s hit “Justify My Love”), it’s plain to see why EMI and Apple didn’t want this album released.
Of course this hasn’t stopped the bootleggers, who have this to say :
DJ Danger Mouse’s recent Grey Album, which remixes Jay-Z’s The Black Album and the Beatles White Album, has been hailed as a innovative hip-hop triumph. Despite that and the fact that only 3,000 copies of the album are in circulation, EMI sent cease and desist letters yesterday to Danger Mouse and the handful of stores that were selling the album, demanding that the album be destroyed.“EMI isn’t looking for compensation, they’re trying to ban a work of art,” said Downhill Battle’s Rebecca Laurie.
“Special interests, including the major labels, have turned copyright law into a weapon,” said Downhill Battle co-founder Holmes Wilson. “If Danger Mouse had requested permission and offered to pay royalties, EMI still would have said no and the public would never have been able to enjoy this critically acclaimed work. Artists are being forced to break the law to innovate.”
Regardless of the quality of this remix, this is a bullshit argument. Nobody’s being “forced” to break the law. Personally I think this album should be released, but the Beatles own their recordings and while they still hold the copyrights, they’re free to restrict their use in any way they want. (We can discuss how long copyrights should last and all, but at the very least I think it’s fair that they exist while the artists are still alive.)
The idea that the only way artists like DJ Danger Mouse are allowed to “innovate” is by breaking the law is absurd. Is this DJ such a brilliant artist that he’s already exhausted every other artistic outlet available to him, or is he just pissed that he spent all this time remixing this album before asking permission first? Bootleggers may see this as a case of the Beatles “turn[ing] copyright law into a weapon”, but in the end it’s a weapon that DJ Danger Mouse has turned on himself.
19 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Did John Lennon ask permission to sample those radio programs and other sound samples he used for “I Am the Walrus” and “Revolution #9?”
Comment by dAnimal — February 18, 2004 @ 2:02 pm
most of the samples used are so mixed that the original songs are hardly recognizeable.
You’d be hard pressed to argue that Change Clothes, December 4th, or 99 Problems are not new art.
Yes, the Beatles should get royalties, but there’s no way this album should be destoryed the way EMI has requested.
And have the remaing Beatles and the estates of Harrison or Lennon actually had any input into the order EMI issued? Everything I’ve seen pointed to just EMI, and left the Beatles out of it.
Comment by JoeF — February 18, 2004 @ 2:11 pm
I’m unclear about that, but there are a few big differences here :
1)John Lennon wasn’t sampling other musicians, he was sampling the BBC production of King Lear.
2) “I Am The Walrus” isn’t created entirely out of samples.
3) Samples weren’t protected by law in the sixties the way they are now.
A fairer comparison would be when the Beatles accidentally ripped off Glenn Miller in the outro to “All You Need Is Love”. Although the song was public domain, the arrangement wasn’t, so they ended up being sued. At the end of the day, the Beatles ended up paying for it.
Another example is when they put together the album cover for Sgt. Pepper’s, they had to get legal clearance from every person on the cover. At least one person objected and the Beatles begrudgingly removed their face (as opposed to publicly bitching about being forced to break the law).
Are you kidding? Every track on “The Grey Album” is built around a track on “The White Album”. Here’s a guide :
1) Long, Long, Long
2) While My Guitar Gently Weeps
3) Glass Onion
4) Mother Nature’s Son
5) Helter Skelter
6) Julia
7) Happiness Is A Warm Gun
8) Piggies
9) Dear Prudence
10) Revolution #9
11) Rocky Raccoon
12) Can You Take Me Back?
Agreed.
The Beatles recordings are the property of Apple and EMI. As such, they’re entitled to decide how that property is used. Hell, it’s not as if there’s a shortage of public domain music the DJ’s could have used.
Comment by greg — February 18, 2004 @ 2:35 pm
If the Beatles were sued for using ?In the Mood? as part of a song, it just goes further to show that sampling (or in that case, referencing) is a strong part of great pop music and has been for decades.
In previous decades before that, if we look past ?sampling? to all appropriation, we?d see artists as diverse as The Beach Boys, Little Richard, Woody Guthrie, and tons of blues and jazz greats incorporating snippets of other people?s songs into their own. In many cases, this was done to poke fun at the original, to take a lighthearted tune and use it to construct a serious, sad one, or vice versa, to poke fun at a somber tune by injecting it into a wacky lighthearted one (Spike Jones did this, not just in his out-and-out parodies but also incorporating small sections of music and lyrics of other songs and taking them on in wacky places to a different song). At other times it was done as sort of an homage: here?s our musical tradition, and now we?re taking it in a new direction (as when T. Rex ended ?Bang a Gong? with a Chuck Berry line).
It?s only in the last 25 years, with the advent of hip-hop, that people have had an uproar about this, and rarely has anyone been hurt but the fans and the samplers?certainly not the samplees. Greg, you?d probably be hard-pressed to name an artist whose album sales were hurt by a band sampling his work (which is why copyright exists?to protect the Little Richards of the world from having Pat Boones rob them of album sales and fame).
Quite the contrary, when a rap group samples ?Apache? or ?Under Pressure,? it usually causes at least a small portion of their audience to seek out the originals. If you?ve ever looked at the Rare Groove section of a record store, you?ll find all kinds of great funk, soul, and jazz records breathing new life and making new sales, all thanks to being sampled at some point by a hip-hop artist or turntablist. In fact, bands such as Aerosmith and George Clinton may never have been able to make their comebacks without hip-hop artists sampling them first.
Not that they need it, but due to the Grey Album?s release (as well as the controversy surrounding it) Beatles sales are going to go UP, not down. No one is going to mistake this album for a real Beatles album and buy it instead, which is what copyrights should legitimately protect. Though I agree that yes, more copyright laws are on the books, I think they do us a disservice by treating samplers as pirates and bootleggers. There is some legitimately great music that cannot be crafted together from public domain ditties.
-dAn
P.S. Didn?t we have this conversation nine years ago, at a Turtles show, with you taking the Beastie Boys side?
P.P.S. Despite my defending them, I want to point out that it sounds like the Grey Album is going to suck. This ain’t about artistic quality.
Comment by dAnimal — February 18, 2004 @ 7:51 pm
Almost forgot–you’re right that the Beatles did not construct an entire song out of samples (well, maybe kinda sorta for Revolution # 9) but artists such as the Beach Boys, Woody Guthrie, Ray Charles, Public Image Limited, the Ventures, and a lot of the early blues artists that you may enjoy all DO have songs that are basically other tunes stripped bare and then inlaid with new lyrics, harmonies, arrangements, etc, not with sampling but otherwise exactly in the manner of what you described for the Grey Album. And in almost every case, it made for GOOD art that could not have been done with non-popularized tunes.
Comment by dAnimal — February 18, 2004 @ 8:00 pm
The last thing I care about in this situation is how it affects the Beatles’ bottom line. I’m just appaled by the line “Artists are being forced to break the law to innovate”. I think it’s complete bullshit and not because I’m anti-sampling, but because it’s a twisting of the facts in this situation to make DJ DM look like he’s being victimized by a big, evil corporation.
DJ’s don’t have the rights to sample any music they want. Those rights belong to the bands and record companies. If they want to withold those rights, then that’s their perogative.
And with all the talk about how those being sampled benefit, you fail to mention that the one who’s benefiting the most out of this is DJ DM. He’s now seen as the underdog in this situation, when he’s just some guy who was too dumb to pre-clear his samples.
But then again, this controversy is probably what he wanted in the first place. After all, the Beatles are notorious for blocking the use of their music. It probably did wonders for DM’s cred to get the biggest band in the world on his bad side.
And in the end it’s all because of a really stupid gimmick. Mixing the “white” album and the “black” album to make the “grey” album is trite on its face. While the results are okay, this guy is just piggybacking on the successes of Jay-Z and the Beatles.
Comment by greg — February 18, 2004 @ 8:33 pm
I believe I took the Turtles side on that one as well. It was my step-sister who was screaming profanities at Flo backstage that you must be thinking of.
Comment by greg — February 18, 2004 @ 8:35 pm
I agree with your comments in general but take issue with the use of the word “bootleg.” A bootleg is an unauthorized recording of unreleased material (live shows, studio outtakes etc.). A *pirate* is unauthorized release of material that has been professionally produced elsewhere by others (for example, radio broadcasts, non-album b-sides etc.) A *counterfeit* is a knockoff of the legitimately released material, for example if you burn a copy of some CD and package it to look like the real thing.
Semantics, yes, but as a *bootleg* collector and a big Beatles fan, to me the difference is an important one. Bootlegs, arguably, do not take food off the artists’ tables, whereas counterfeits do.
Comment by Bill — February 19, 2004 @ 6:01 am
fyi:
dj dangermouse made this for him and his friends and he never planned on releasing it.
Comment by delas — February 19, 2004 @ 11:29 am
Really???
Comment by greg — February 19, 2004 @ 11:47 am
It’s my understanding that DJ DM did, indeed, make this album as a larky piece of fun. Djs do this all the time, and as has been mentioned, the gimmicky idea of mixing Black with White to get the “Grey Album” is really just a bit of fun.
But the results turned out really interesting, and stores started putting it out there. I’m a sound editor and amateur DJ myself, and my ear can hear the hallmarks of a weekend Pro Tools project on the album–it’s not studio quality stuff, and wasn’t meant to be.
Personally, I find the album pretty brilliant. Brilliant in that impressive, interesting, though not necessarily important way.
I think the whole argument is filled with some pretty clear racial overtones, as well. Which is fitting, considering the whole Black/White/Grey title concept. And the fact that generally older, white Beatles fans tend to look skeptically on the album, whereas, again generally, younger hip-hop fans tend to think it’s pretty cool.
Greg, you’re right about the “forced to break the law” comment. It’s a weak argument. But note that it doesn’t come directly from DJ Danger Mouse himself, so we can’t hold him responsible for it. He’s pretty much let the music speak for itself, which it does fairly well.
The fact that Lennon’s “Julia” is repurposed for the backing of an angry boast is the whole point: Notice that DJ DM has chosen mostly the delicate, mellow, otherworldly pieces of the White Album to pair with Jay-Z’s mostly hard-hitting and cynical rhymes. It’s a construct full of tension, perhaps a formal conceit mirroring the racial tension just beneath the surface of the whole project, musically and legally.
Setting legal arguments aside for a moment, and talking purely from an artistic standpoint, I disagree that copyright holders have a right do prescribe whatever use of their holdings that they want. They don’t. Copyright is a construct based fully in business and legal priorities, and has NOTHING to do with artistic development or innovation. It doesn’t even really have anything to do with “protecting” the artist’s work: I believe that the free exchange and re-appropriation of art deepens the import and scope of the original.
Finally, everybody’s too damn precious about the freakin’ Beatles. This is a band that rode a collection of great covers, appropriations, and reinterpretations to fame, fortune, and greatness. We shouldn’t forget that.
Comment by Jonathan Scott Chinn — February 20, 2004 @ 12:56 pm
So I don’t like this album because I’m white?
I think it belittles the sentimentality of the original by making it nothing more than a backdrop for a much weaker song.
That’s a cynical way of looking at it. I see copyrights as a protection of an artists development and innovation. (Not that I’m for 100 year copyrights or anything like that)
So then are you contending that the artists has no right to determine how their art is shared? Or that they somehow owe the world the free reign to do anything they want with their art?
I know this is a controversial opinion these days, but I think it takes a lot more artistic ability to create a work from scratch rather than re-appropriate it. As such, I think artists in any medium should be allowed to protect their art from any unauthorized use.
I’m not saying sampling should be outlawed or anything, but I think an artists should have the right to not be sampled without being treated like they’re trampling on the artistic rights of somebody who’s screwing around with ProTools.
Sure. Unlike DJ Dangermouse, the Beatles haven’t contributed anything original to popular music.
Comment by greg — February 20, 2004 @ 2:02 pm
To the contrary, the Beatles contributed a great deal to pop music, and to pop culture in general. I’d be a fool to argue otherwise. We must remember, however, that what they contributed was built on interpretations of other music: early rock, country, and R&B from the US in the early years, and then on to just about anything and everything, from British Music Hall to Indian classical music. The Beatles used direct and indirect sources to make something entirely new–just like Danger Mouse has done.
The Grey Album, and Jay-Z in particular, doesn’t seem to fit with your tastes, which is absolutely fine. But I like Jay-Z a lot, and I also like the Beatles. I think DM’s take on both is pretty fascinating.
Personally, I’m tired of Beatles music being considered somehow sacred and untouchable. By very virtue of its pan-cultural influence and popularity, its status as an agreed-upon collective of pop culture, it should be allowed to exist as such. Art is a leaving, breathing thing, and the Beatles’ music is plenty powerful enough to stand up to all manner of reinterpretations and reuse.
I am, indeed, contending that artists should allow the world free reign to do what they want with their art, short of the above-defined limits of piracy and counterfeit. It’s only fair that living artists receive an agreed-upon payment for profits that arise from this use, but that’s a legal and business concern. Artistically, yes, everyone should share. That’s what I’ve always believed, and it’s not that unusual. Writers (Richard Foreman), musicians (most rappers, Prince, many others), many contemporary visual artists. . .it’s a way of looking at things.
But the music business is driven by money, not art. We can all agree on that, I think. DJ Danger Mouse’s approach matches John Lennon’s predictions when he was making “Revolution #9,” that this kind of decontructionist studio experimentation was the “music of the future.” Judging by modern hip-hop and electronic music, he was on the right track.
And by the way, “Revolution #9″ uses not only King Lear, private recordings, and the Beatles’ own studio outtakes, but several different pieces of classical and big band music recorded by the BBC Orchestra and other bands. So John was using some samples himself.
I think it’s disingenuous for the Beatles to deny sampling rights, that’s all. Although it’s actually EMI denying the rights, the Beatles may or may not have anything to do with it. Refusing to license music for ads, that I understand. Denying another artist a shot at mining your material indicates a belief that your art is superior, of another realm, and I don’t think that’s a generous or particularly aesthetically defensible point of view.
Comment by Jonathan Scott Chinn — February 20, 2004 @ 2:40 pm
I’m not sure if I’d call what Danger Mouse has done “entirely new”.
In the end, that’s the Beatles’ decision, not yours.
Or maybe the Beatles just feel like they’re worked hard enough on their music that the don’t want it stripped for parts and removed of any context. Or maybe they’d rather be more well known for their own work than being “those guys who Jay-Z sampled”. Or maybe they don’t think they should feel compelled to “give away” the sounds that they painstakingly crafted in the studio.
For all the insinuation that the Beatles are hypocrites because they sampled sounds on some of their records, I think the hypocrisy of defending the rights of musicians who want to sample at the expense of those who don’t want to be sampled is even greater. I think it’s every artists right to determine how they wish to share their art with the world.
Comment by greg — February 20, 2004 @ 3:04 pm
I suppose we’ll have to simply disagree on this one. Although I can’t shake the sense that if you liked The Grey Album, simply as a matter of personal taste, you’d give it the benefit of the doubt. Despite both our well-reasoned and intelligent points, I wonder how much of this argument is really about the fact that I like the music and you don’t.
One point of correction: Jay-Z didn’t sample the Beatles, Danger Mouse did. And his use of Jay-Z’s vocals was just as “unauthorized” as his use of the Beatles’ guitars and drums. I find it interesting to compare EMI’s reaction to Jay-Z’s.
Comment by Jonathan Scott Chinn — February 20, 2004 @ 3:44 pm
Actually, I think a few of the tracks are pretty well done. I don’t think it’s the masterpiece that people are making it out to be (both this and this are much better examples of mixing), but it’s a fun listen. If I were in charge of EMI, I’d allow most of the mixes to come out as long as I was compensated.
My problem with this whole matter is the sense of artistic entitlement that is shared by many in the DJ and Hip-Hop community that basically sees copyrights as tool to stifle their own artistic freedom. It’s selfish to think that other musicians owe you the right to sample their music and while I disgree somewhat with EMI’s decision, I strongy defend their right to make it.
From what I’ve heard, the Jay-Z vocals come from a vocals-only mix that his record label provided the DJ community.
Comment by greg — February 20, 2004 @ 4:09 pm
I have a real problem with this statement. When you create a piece of art and release it into the world, you’re putting it forth as a more or less finished work (overlooking for a moment pressures from the studio, corporate interests, et cetera). i.e., it’s as you want it to be viewed/heard/read. This is especially true with recorded music, as musicians generally cut take after take to get the one they want, then engineer it the way they want, and so forth.
In other words, your creation exists as you, the creator, intended it. You worked hard to make it just the way it is, and you just might not like the idea of having somebody come along and fuck with it, regardless of whether or not it ends up better off. And if someone comes along and insists it’s their right to do whatever they want with it, whether you want them to or not, how is that not more arrogant than not wanting your work altered? As the artist, the one who did the work to begin with, I firmly believe the ball’s in your court. It doesn’t indicate a belief that your work is superior, it indicates a belief that one should have a say in how one’s work is used.
Maybe it’s a little selfish, and of course we could debate all day about when a work of art stops belonging to the artist. But the problem I have with this statement is that it indicates a belief that everything in the cultural landscape is MINE, to do whatever I WANT with it, and if the people who built this playground have a problem with me tearing down the Bigtoy and building an outhouse with it, that’s just THEM being selfish, not me.
Ultimately, it seems very hypocritical to me to call an artist selfish while approaching their work with such a raging sense of entitlement.
Comment by Megalodon — February 21, 2004 @ 9:18 am
I don’t think a sense of entitlement has anything to do with it, on either side of the equation. And I never accused anybody of being “selfish” for withholding their work. I simply said it wasn’t generous or aethetically defensible. And it isn’t.
I believe good art is all about taking risks, asking hard/probing/pointed questions, and being open to the breathtaking array of possibilities. Frankly, a lot of artists don’t think this way. As you describe, many artists have an ongoing sense of “ownership” of their work, but I’m sorry, I just don’t buy it. I believe that’s an extremely self-indulgent take on things. (nothing personal, megaldon, I don’t think your argument is self-indulgent, I’m just talking about the hypothetical artist…)
The point of creating a work is to share it with an audience, whether that’s a room of 10 people or an audience of millions worldwide. When you send your creation out into the world, it belongs to the audience, not you. Part of that audience is other artists, who may be directly or indirectly inspired by your work.
The free interplay of ideas between artists of divergent philosophies and styles is what drives innovation and keeps it all interesting. I think The Grey Album is a fine example of this.
“The whole world being MINE to do whatever I WANT with it” is the point of view that has given us centuries of great art. That attitude seems to be a prerequisite for genius, actually, so I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.
I stand by my assertion that copyright has nothing to do with art. It’s all business, baby, all business.
If artists don’t want to allow their work to be reinterpreted, that is their legal right. But I’m arguing that it’s more interesting and rewarding, aesthetically, to let your work go where it will, and see where it ends up.
To worry about it, you’d have to believe that if someone uses your work as an element or a springboard, it will diminish your own work. I don’t believe that’s true. I could give many examples, but in order to stick as closely as possible to the matter at hand, let’s examine The Grey Album’s impact:
If you think the album is good, then you see the White Album in a new context, and your appreciation of it deepens. If you hate the album, then you think, “Man, the White Album was so brilliant, and they just wasted it on this crap,” and you’re reminded how good the album is. Maybe you never really liked the White Album, anyway, but in Danger Mouse’s remix, you think it sounds pretty good, so you actually come to like it more than you ever have. Even if you’ve never even heard of the Beatles, you might get turned on to them for the first time, through this project. Or if you haven’t heard of them and you don’t care to, you still won’t be under the impression that The Grey Album is an actual Beatles project, one that will prevent you from buying or listening to any other Beatles albums.
So I ask you: How can allowing free use of your work hurt you as an artist? It can’t. It makes you and your work better, either by comparison, or, hopefully, an engaging new context.
Comment by Jonathan Scott Chinn — February 21, 2004 @ 3:16 pm
Not to re-open a can of worms or anything, but since this is “Grey Tuesday” and all (I’m sure Thoreau would be proud), do you guys think there would be this many defenders of the Grey Album if it were made by a rich DJ like Moby and he were sampling the entire album of an unknown band without their permission?
Comment by greg — February 24, 2004 @ 2:53 pm