pop in the age of digital reproduction

the sequel to the last post is another thought about art- this time about intellectual property rights. my mother was at a workshop being held at the thakur complex on how folk and classical music was being incorporated into hindi film songs and pop songs; and how these songs were by the nature of the market being bound into the rigid framework of copyright.

what that means is that folk and classical performers can no longer sing these pieces without the threat of getting into a long legal wrangle with a record company like t-series. well, naturally- don’t the jobs of these record companies depend on making music a commodity. i do understand the urge by the marketing moguls and accountants to control the free movement of music; but what i can’t understand is the ruckus that some musicians make when their music is freely downloaded.

now i do realize that this makes them lose quite a bit of money and this just might be my excuse to continue downloading music and feel guilt free; but does not the digital reproduction of music make the ‘original’ so much more valuable.

does it not increase greatly the value of music that actually emanates from a real body in real time? in other words, does not the body of the performer in a live concert become so much more valued? echoing benjamin in ‘the work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction’ where he talks about the ‘aura’ of the original being greatly enhanced because of the interminability of numerous copies, does not the fact of the real, unadulterated voice suddenly take on an even more magical quality? did this not happen, for instance, with the mona lisa? why cant it happen with the latest bob dylan record?