The aim of this term paper is to identify shared basic principles and aesthetics of any remix or mashup product, and to understand its related practices in the framework of remix studies. The approach of this paper thus is transmedial. It will investigate if observations in remix studies made for a specific medium can be usefully adapted to other media. In a first step, different practices will be contextualized within media history to understand contemporary remixing practices as the result of an evolutionary process. As will be shown, general characteristics for a broad definition of remix products can be derived from this approach.
This is the first part of a series of papers on remix and mashup, laying the theoretical foundation for approaching any type of remix or mashup product through relevant criteria rather than fixed categories.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction: The Net Generation and Remix Studies
2 Approaching Remix and Mashup
2.1 Remix: Discourse, Culture, Practice, and Product
2.2 From Recording to Sampling to Remixing
2.3 Definitions and Categories of Remix and Mashup
3 Conclusion: From Definitions and Categories to Criteria
Objectives and Topics
This paper explores the multifaceted nature of remix culture by examining the evolving definitions and categories of remix and mashup products. It aims to transcend specific media limitations to establish a set of universal analytical criteria that can be applied to evaluate contemporary remix practices within the broader framework of remix studies.
- The intersection of Net Generation culture and modern remix studies.
- Distinctions between recording, sampling, and remixing as evolutionary media processes.
- Critical analysis of existing definitions of remix and mashup.
- The development of transmedial criteria for analyzing remix and mashup products.
- The relationship between remix as a creative practice and as a broader cultural discourse.
Excerpt from the Book
From Recording to Sampling to Remixing
Recording may quite generally be defined as the practice of “capturing material” (Navas, Remix Theory 12). It thus creates a mechanically produced media representation of an outside world. Sampling, in turn, refers to “copying in material form, not by capturing from the real world, but from a pre-existing recording” (ibid. 14). While early recording practices mark the beginning of the media history of mechanical reproduction, sampling introduces a second stage after recording had established an archive of representation. Photography and photomontage, for example, illustrate the relation between original recording and sampling (ibid. 17). In music, sampling means “[t]he extraction of portions of sound –‘samples’– from recorded media, and their reuse as material for new recordings” (Rutherford-Johnson, Kennedy, and Bourne Kennedy n.p.). For a transmedial understanding of recording as a precondition for sampling, this quote can be extended to other media formats simply by using “text” in the broadest sense of the term instead of “sound”.
Henry Jenkins broadly defines sampling as a “practice of borrowing […] from an original work” as opposed to allusion, which stresses a “conceptual link between two works” (109). His definition of sampling subscribes to a contemporary notion which takes the initial recording practice for granted. Fragmentation as a feature of sampling may point to the fact that the recording itself is only a sample of a larger world. Yet for the purpose of this paper, recording and sampling will not be used synonymously; they represent the distinctive practices of initially capturing versus subsequently re-using material.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: The Net Generation and Remix Studies: Introduces the concept of remix culture in relation to the Net Generation and establishes the paper's aim to investigate remix practices beyond legal copyright concerns.
2 Approaching Remix and Mashup: Clarifies terminology by discussing the discourse of remix, the evolution from recording to sampling, and the various definitions and subcategories of remix and mashup.
3 Conclusion: From Definitions and Categories to Criteria: Critiques the limitations of existing narrow categories and proposes five universal criteria for analyzing remix and mashup products across different media.
Keywords
Remix, Mashup, Remix Studies, Sampling, Digital Culture, Intermediality, Appropriation, Media History, Net Generation, Cultural Discourse, Transmedial, Mechanical Reproduction, Aesthetics, Creative Practice, Originality.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental subject of this paper?
The paper examines the contemporary remix culture, focusing on how remix and mashup practices function as creative activities and as a broader cultural discourse.
What are the primary themes discussed?
Central themes include the evolution of media production, the distinction between remixing and mashups, the role of appropriation and sampling, and the critical analysis of cultural artifacts.
What is the main goal of this research?
The primary goal is to move beyond limited, medium-specific definitions of remix and to establish a set of transmedial criteria that can be effectively used to analyze any remix or mashup product.
Which scientific method does the author employ?
The author uses a comparative and critical literature-based approach, reviewing existing definitions within remix studies to synthesize them into a more flexible and applicable analytical framework.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The body analyzes the levels of discourse regarding remix, traces the historical transition from recording to sampling, and debates the utility of sub-categories like the "regenerative remix."
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key terms include Remix, Mashup, Sampling, Intermediality, Appropriation, and Digital Culture.
How does the author differentiate between a remix and a mashup?
The author distinguishes them primarily through the source material: a remix typically uses a unique or coherent source, while a mashup combines diverse, often distant source materials.
Why does the author argue against using fixed definitions for remixing?
The author contends that remix culture is in a state of constant change, and forcing new phenomena into rigid, pre-existing categories makes those labels quickly obsolete.
What is the role of the "five criteria" mentioned in the conclusion?
They serve as practical guidelines for researchers to evaluate remix products, covering aspects like intermediality, appropriation techniques, validation, effect, and discourse level.
- Quote paper
- Rüdiger Thomsen (Author), 2016, Approaching Remix and Mashup: Definitions, Categories, and Criteria, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1158114
