Friday, April 17, 2009

Aisukuri-mu: Tuts my Barreh

Big subject of interest.  In the context of cross cultural musical interpretation, when does one Culture A's consumption of Culture B's music amount to Culture A's ownership of that music?  

To get a sense of what I mean, consider the Japanese term for "ice cream."  "アイスクリーム" in Japanese script.  "Aisukuri-mu" in the latin alphabet. Aisukuri-mu is an example of gairaigo, or "loan word" in Japanese.  Put briefly, along with the importation of the food product, the term "ice cream" was imported into the Japanese language.  Because of the differences in pronunciation rules and phonology between English and Japanese, importation led to linguistic adaptation.  For instance, what was once two syllables is now five.  Pronounce the term (like EYE-soo-koo-REE-moo) over and over out loud and you'll see.

The interesting part is that even though it's a borrowed term, aisukuri-mu is nonetheless a Japanese word with a unique significance in Japanese culture.  I'm willing to bet that asking for "ice cream" in Japan will earn more than a few confused looks.  Likewise, asking for "aisukuri-mu" in America will earn you nothing more than an even louder "Can I take your order?" than the last.  In this way, "loan word" is really a misnomer.  The Japanese own it now.  There's no way we can take this one back, nor is there any reason to take it back since we'd be getting something completely different.

So what about music?  What happens when music crosses national boundaries?  When it's imported into a new culture?  For instance, does "Korean Boy" (so dubbed in this popular YouTube video) now own "Touch My Body"?



I know what you're thinking.  Who gives a flying fuck?  I mean, "Tuts my barreh"? "Ram it in my thigh?"  Am I hearing this right?  Is he?  

By the by, he is Dong-won Kim, or Dawn Air to his American fans.  Yes, fans.  He has actually has a YouTube profile (265 friends, last I checked) and a website.  With regard to whatever the hell's coming out of his mouth, I don't think anybody really knows for sure (but that shouldn't keep you from checking out some of the attempts to subtitle Dawn's valiant interpretation).

It's probably not even all that important, anyways.  I don't think it really matters that Dawn Air's interpretation isn't that faithful to Mariah Carey's initial hit.  What matters is Dawn Air's treatment of his recording.  His website labels the video (posted July 21, 2008) "Kim's mobilization," which suggests that he claim's some level of ownership.  What's more important is when you consider the fact that the video has probably been viewed close to 300,000 times.  Having seen the video, anybody interested can easily make their way to Dawn Air's profile.  From there, they can purchase his CD's.

Yea, CD's.  Apparently, this guy's a real singer songwriter.  And he takes advantage of the traffic generated by "Touch My Body" to push his merchandise.  Now, I'm not saying this guy's stealing Mariah Carey's audiences away.  But Carey probably did a lot to generate global publicity for "Touch My Body."  And since Dawn Air has released his own "Touch My Body," he's certainly enjoyed way more publicity than he otherwise would have had he never "rammed it in his thigh."  This publicity likely translated into increased CD sales.

The situation is further complicated by South Korea's recent crackdown on the web.  South Korea's three strikes policy on internet music piracy, though previously considered in other states including France, represents a bold move in internet regulation.  It's been suggested that online piracy doesn't carry the same social sigma in eastern states (Singapore for example) which would work to suppress that kind of activity.  It may be in the place of stigma, South Korea has chosen a harsher regulatory regime.  What this means for consumers is a more limited access to "Touch My Body" and other great hits.  

If pirated music isn't available, I'm sure Dawn Air would be happy to step in with "Tuts my Barreh."  And the legitimacy of his doing so will depend much on the legitimacy of his ownership rights.

No comments:

Post a Comment