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.
4 comments:
Hi Simon, just letting you know that I drop by your blog to read your posts from time to time, and I enjoy them!
This is a great topic. I'm thinking of plundering it and writing about it myself…
No, but seriously, the ethics of plunderphonicking (what do you mean that's not a word?) are a contentious matter, to put it mildly. My own opinion is that in my ideal world, artists would obtain permission from other artists to "plunder" their music, and any such borrowings would be attributed. I personally would find it cool to have someone do that to my music (someone did, a year or so ago, and I thought it was a blast!).
That said, I strongly believe that artists need to follow their instincts and creative impulses, and obtaining such permissions when borrowing from others could easily be a damper on creativity… so, I guess I'm actually wishy-washy on the topic. At the very least, I think borrowed material should be attributed, though.
Where are you taking this electronic music course?
Thanks for dropping by and leaving a comment! I'm doing my master's of composition at UVic.
Absolutely, I believe attributing the original artist/composer is key. Just as band wouldn't cover a song without crediting, or you wouldn't play a Chopin prelude and claim you wrote it, I think it goes without saying that any intentional use of someone else's material needs to be acknowledged.
Having said that, I will admit a teeny-tiny exemption in the case of quoting/referencing famous public domain works. I would liken this to writing an academic paper and not having to cite "common knowledge." The difference between quoting some part of Mozart's Requiem within a larger context, versus re-interpreting the Requiem as a whole.
It's funny how even covering someone's music respectfully doesn't always work out as planned. Two examples come to mind, both having to do with Nightwish covering other music. Their version of Gary Moore's Over the Hills and Far Away was used as the main track for an EP and was done very tastefully, with full respect towards the original author. However, even though they had permission, Moore was not crazy about it because it sounded too much like the original he thought.
In the other case, Nightwish fought for years to cover Michael Nyman's The Heart Asks Pleasure First (from the movie The Piano). In fact, they'd already gone ahead and recorded the final track, but Nyman refused to give them permission because he hated it. It was about four years before he finally changed his mind and they released it as a b-side to one of their singles. Tricky business, music is!
Hi again, I missed your response to my comments 'till just now… I realize that I must not have checked the "Email follow-up comments to…" box.
I guess I don't understand copyright law enough to know why you have to get someone's permission to record their music (this is in regards to your mentioning that "Nightwish fought for years to cover Michael Nyman's The Heart Asks Pleasure First").
My understanding is that when I write something, I own the copyright on that composition, but anyone who wants to purchase a copy of my music (or just get it from my website) can perform it without permission from me. The fact that it is registered with SOCAN means I get some money whenever it is performed, broadcast, or (I think) recorded, as long as I am acknowledged as the creator of that composition.
So I don't really see what the issue was when Nightwish wanted to record Nyman's music, but, as I say, I don't know much about copyright law. Maybe Nyman's publisher has a contract clause stating that you need his permission to record his music.
Anyway, glad to learn you're doing a master's at UVic, and I hope you're getting a lot out of the experience!
Cheers, CR
I'm not quite sure what the deal was exactly vis-a-vis Nyman vs. Nightwish. Especially considering Nyman had himself played The Heart Asks Pleasure First for an Italian metal band's re-imagining of the piece. There aren't many details surrounding the Nightwish situation, but it's quite clear that Nyman was against the recording and then eventually gave his permission.
There was a similar situation more recently that also was a little confusing. Kazzer wanted to sample Neil Young's "Old Man" and this became the first time Young ever allowed someone to sample his music--though it's clear his permission wasn't needed before as there are a dozen covers going back at least to the mid-90s (as seen here).
My only guess is that there are perhaps different restrictions on using recorded music, as opposed to sheet music. But I also do not know all the ins and outs of the copyright business.
Post a Comment