The Grey Album: Illegal art or dadaist collage?

By: Dan Schnebly

Posted: 4/28/04

04/28/04 - Marcel Duchamp did not paint the Mona Lisa. He drew a mustache on it. He didn't invent the urinal, either. He just took one that was already made, turned it upside down, signed a name on it and put it in an art gallery.

Back in the beginning of the 20th century, this caused quite a controversy with people expecting to see what they considered legitimate painting or sculpture, something actually created by the artist. But does art require that the artist create something entirely new? Or can art rest entirely on its conceptual nature, allowing such "ready-made" objects as a urinal to become a work of creativity?

Duchamp would have agreed with the latter. He did create something new: not the physical object itself, but a new context for it. He called the urinal "Fountain" not because he wanted people to drink out of it, but to challenge the notions people had about what makes an object art.

Fast-forward almost a hundred years later when sample based music is continually setting forth a similar paradigm shift. Like found objects intruding on sculpture, turntables are being recognized as instruments and DJs as composers. This time, however, the controversy is strictly business.

On Feb. 24, dubbed "Grey Tuesday", over four hundred websites hosted MP3s of The Grey Album, a copyright infringing album by DJ Dangermouse. People online have been trading custom mixes of their favorite songs for awhile, but Dangermouse had distributed over 2,000 promo copies before being hit with a cease-and-desist order.

The popularity of his work marks the latest noteworthy example of creativity transgressing copyright law. If this is the next big thing in music, it won't be available in stores. Playfully mixing the Beatles' self-titled "White Album" with Jay-Z's The Black Album, Dangermouse has inadvertently drawn attention to a grey area around sample based music: illegal art.

Surely Dangermouse could not get permission for his chosen source material, either from the sneaker-endorsing Jay-Z or the accused child-molester who bought out most of the Beatles' songs from Paul McCartney himself. But why shouldn't we be allowed to hear it? Can intellectual property at the hands of big business suppress worthwhile art?

"I knew The Grey Album was illegal when I was doing it," DJ Dangermouse said in an interview with Spin, "But I didn't want that to stop me from trying it as an art project, I just never thought it would get to this point."

The Grey Album could not have been released at a more perfect time, when endlessly proliferating file-sharing networks have forced the music industry to scramble for ways to still wrangle in profits. With the internet on its side, the Dangermouse release brings to light an inevitable confrontation, between artistic expression and copyright law. It's worth wondering what would have happened to pop-art if Andy Warhol had been sued by Campbell's Soup.

Dangermouse might be facing legal action, but appreciation of his work persists with the millions of downloaders hearing his songs. Whether an introduction to trainspotting for Beatles maniacs or a curiosity for Jay-Z fans, the bottom line is Dangermouse shows an amazing talent for carefully constructing complicated breaks and rhythms.

He splices up Ringo Starr's simple drumming on "Helter Skelter" into a frenetic, bass heavy foundation for a new rendition of Jay-Z's "99 Problems." "Lucifer" meets "Revolution 9" in an experimental barrage of reversed pianos played forward and low-pitched vocal scariness. You don't have to be a fan of the source material to realize that Dangermouse has created a work that rests on its own merit.

But is it art? Who cares, it rocks. Listen to it while you still can.