[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Plunderphonic (was "disrespecting softwares")

We've fairly well beaten the software piracy issue into the ground, 
but the recent reissue (in expanded form) of John Oswald's 
"Plunderphonic" CD invites discussion of the aesthetics, ethics, and 
legalities of quotation, sampling, deconstruction, and appropriation 
of musical material as a compositional strategy.

Putting it out front - I'm a big fan of John Oswald and others who 
make new and interesting music by recycling existing recordings. I 
consider this sort of activity to be in a substantially different 
category from the sampling of bits and pieces that has caused so much 
controversy and litigation in the rap and dance music scene. I grant 
that it's a tough issue. Those familiar with Oswald know about the 
heat he took on the release of the original Plunderphonic CD, and you 
are probably also familiar with the Negativland U2  CD and the 
crushing retaliation that group suffered.

It should be clear from past postings that I'm against software 
theft, and I'm inclined to extend that position to  sampling of music 
for commercial gain.  However, when audio quotation crosses the line 
into the realm of artistic collage and recontextualization I tend to 
lock up the cash register and think more in cultura, sociological, 
and aesthetic terms.

Any thoughts?

Richard Zvonar, PhD
(818) 788-2202