This year I'm taking a course in computer/electronic music. One of our projects is to create a piece using plunderphonics; that is, use a known piece of music and digitally edit it to create a new piece of music. This is something I did during my undergrad, but it got me thinking again about the ethical implications of plunderphonics, to which I don't believe there is a clear answer--even for someone who generally plays it by the books when it comes to ethics in music (such as myself).
To an extent we were already doing plunderphonics long before the advent of modern computers or any kind of electronic means of manipulation. At some basic level the (re)interpretation of a piece of music is a type of plunderphonics. We take the music a composer has supplied and export it as something uniquely our own. Instead of manipulating it digitally we're doing a much more primitive form of manipulation that must, necessarily, be closer to the original intent of the composer than anything we could do with the modern style of plunderphonics. There is of course a large difference (several actually): with traditional acoustic composition the idea is that the composer gives out his works willingly with the intent that the performer will reproduce it according to the score. With plunderphonics, on the other hand, it is implied that the composer releases the recording as a finished product without any further thought or intention of manipulation or appropriation (of course these ideas have changed somewhat over the years, but this is the general idea).
So whether we are playing a Chopin prelude with our own dynamics, articulations and tempo; or we're doing a rock cover of a Miles Davis tune; or we're digitally editing a Michael Jackson song, we're weaving a thread of commonality. We're creating something that was never intended to exist, and which may be at odds with what the composer wanted.
So if it doesn't belong to us, are we allowed to play with it? Gradually, it seems, the answer is shifting towards Yes. In the 1950s and 60s Glenn Gould was vilified for his interpretations of Bach and Mozart, while now his recordings are largely seen as revolutionary and refreshingly unique. (Even farther back, before recordings, baroque composers "sampled" each others' works as a sign of respect). And with the growing culture and community of remix artists, and the way artists accept--even embrace--remixes, we seem to be on the move towards a society of free-exchange art.
What is our responsibility as musicians when it comes to using someone else's music? The name 'plunderphonics' itself suggests that we know we're doing something "forbidden," and, by nomenclature, differentiates itself from a 'remix' or 'cover.' The latter two suggest "homage," while the first tends towards "parody" or "mocking." I think plunderphonics can be a useful tool for critical commentary. There is a lot you can say by re-organising someone's music vs. writing a scathing review. But if that's our goal then we need to be careful with our message. It's not constructive to write a review saying "this song is terrible" and neither is it useful or even necessary to plunder a piece of music just for the sake of destroying it without really saying anything. Panning music you find loathsome might get you a few heads nodding in consent, but it will be soon forgotten. Carefully editing someone else's work to make a point is much more effective and might draw more attention. A well-made point, even contrary to my beliefs, will keep me engaged, but someone smashing their keyboard in a YouTube comment will either make me leave or laugh.
On the other hand we have the chance to use digital editing to create something powerful and positive that is not derivative. For a plunderphonic to be 'anti' something, it must necessarily be dependent. It has to stand in opposition to the original work for it to be effective or even relevant. But positive-driven editing can stand either in support of the original or on its own as something significant.
I've been slowly writing this over several months, and every time I come back to add some more thoughts I'm still torn on how I feel about non-consented appropriation of art. However, the more I think about it, the more strongly I feel that remixes (whether they fall under the category of plunderphonics or not) should be able to stand independently and make a positive contribution. I can't make a grand conclusion to this entry because I feel this is such an open issue with potential for much more discussion. I welcome any thoughts on the matter.
