Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup makemicromusic Re: [MMM] Re: Plunderphonics

Hmmm... OK. Phunderphonia, in general, is predominantly what I would term a
craft. Taking some raw materials, one produces a woven tapestry. There is
certainly a modicum of creativity involved. But to elevate that from a "mere
craft" to an Art with a capital "A", one should also produce the raw
materials oneself.

I've done various of these kinds of "on tape" works for 30 years, starting
as a wee young-un with my first reel-to-reel tape recorder. But I always use
only raw material that I produce myself: with my own instruments playing my
own music, with my friends, or recordings of live household sounds, or my own
voice. No rip-offs of other people's recorded material.

Here is a recent example, from October 2000, right about Halloween time.
It's called "Baked Alaska". It's a very conservative piece in classic sonata
allegro form, condensed into 2 minutes 14 seconds, using (of course) an
entirely original text and my own voice. No instruments of any kind were
used; just my voice, manipulated with CoolEdit. "Baked Alaska" begins with a
brief introduction, followed by the thematic exposition. There is only one
theme, since it is, after all, such a brief movement. There follows an
extended thematic development using ONLY materials found in the exposition.
The development is rounded off by the traditional recapitulation and a brief
coda.

http://rm-and-jo.laughingsquid.org/Music/BakedAlaska.mp3

H-Ha-Ha-Happy L-Li-Li-Listening...

Rick

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

D. Stearns wrote:
> <<OK. Phunderphonia, in general, is predominantly what I would term a
> craft. Taking some raw materials, one produces a woven tapestry.>>
> Yeah kind of like a composer... <!>

Well, my comment was actually a little tongue in cheek. It's either amusing
stuff or not. But I do hold that what differentiates art from craft or even
dabbling is in the degree of workmanship and the extent of workmanship --
raw sweat and toil -- which is involved in the production of the end product.
Not in the raw materials. But there isn't necessarily much of a
correlation between the interest or beauty of an end product for the
viewer/listener and the amount of toil involved in making the product.

If I were going to argue, I would argue about degrees. Certainly there is
nothing black & white. But it's my opinion, which anyone is free _not_ to
share, that there is a difference of degree here. Art is on one end and
Chaos is on the other. But Chaos can also be amusing, viewed as Art.

> If you accept that say the turntable is an instrument (I do), then
> it's kind of counterproductive to then say but only play your own LPs
> on it, or it ain't really real

I'm not arguing whether the turntable is an "instrument" or not. Certainly
it is as much of a musical instrument as a garbage can, a file cabinet, a
block of wood, etc. Anyone is free to play it, or not; to listen to it, or
not; to like it, or not.

My primary objection to much of the "quotation phenomena" is the plundering
of extensive pieces of "works clearly and recognizably copyright by other
people". And it is purely an aesthetic objection, based in my own personal
respect for the social framework of law-making and law-keeping. It has
nothing to do with whether the end product is interesting or not.

We live in a culture which is obsessed with squeezing every possible penny
of profit out of any piece of "intellectual property" no matter how small.
It is increasingly controlled by large corporations and the lawyers thereof,
and their special interest is in keeping as much stuff -- everything -- as
tightly held as possible. So that they can squeeze out that profit and
increase their own riches. I find _that_ far more abominable a practice than
ripping off a few minutes of someone else's music -- with documented
attribution -- for amusement and artistic expression. In my mind,
attribution and credit, as well as length and recognizability, and perhaps
payment of micro-royalties, are what separates right from wrong in the realm
of quotation. And as always it is a continuum, ripe for legal sparring: in
this case "right" being entirely within respectfulness of others' property
rights, "wrong" being blatantly outside it, or illegal.

I personally believe that most musical materials are part of the culture --
the moreso the older they get -- and if, overall, intellectual property were
not so jealously guarded, and we were not as a culture so litigious-minded,
greedy, and arrogant... we would all as musicians and citizens be better off.
If people could take these snippets or samples, then pay a little to a fund
if they sold the products, that would be peachy, and everyone would probably
benefit nicely. But that's not the way it works in our modern society.
Holders of intellectual property tend to guard it over-jealously, and
over-long.

As long as I live in a culture that is so paranoid with regard to
dissemination and use of intellectual properties, I will sidestep the issue
by not becoming engaged in it. If things are copyrighted by someone else,
and the boundaries are so guarded by the rabid intellectual property-ists...
Then I'll make my own stuff, and when opportunies arise, vote to change
relevant laws. Others can do what they like, and hold their own opinions.

> I just don't get the "that's not music --
> those aren't musicians" type of paranoia!

I'm not saying that at all. Music is, stripped of all cultural biases,
"controlled sound pressure changes over a span of time", and people who
produce that kind of spatio-temporal structure, with even the most
rudimentary intelligence behind it, are called "musicians". Some of such
spatio-temporal structures amuse me more than others.

Anyway, sorry this is a bit long, but I feel justified, since _I_ have
already posted some "music" today. ;-)

Rick

🔗monz <joemonz@...>

> From: Rick McGowan <rick@...>
> To: <MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: [MMM] Re: Plunderphonics

Hi Rick,

A lot of good points in this post, and I agree with many.

> I personally believe that most musical materials are part of the
culture --
> the moreso the older they get -- and if, overall, intellectual property
were
> not so jealously guarded, and we were not as a culture so
litigious-minded,
> greedy, and arrogant... we would all as musicians and citizens be better
off.
> If people could take these snippets or samples, then pay a little to a
fund
> if they sold the products, that would be peachy, and everyone would
probably
> benefit nicely. But that's not the way it works in our modern society.
> Holders of intellectual property tend to guard it over-jealously, and
> over-long.

I was thinking here of how an alternative scenario to the one
you describe, which is what you desire, already exists with the
existence of shareware. It's a great concept, and it works
at least to some extent.

This brings the discussion full circle, back to the subject
of cracking software, which was the origin of this thread.

love / peace / harmony ...

-monz
http://www.monz.org
"All roads lead to n^0"

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @... address at http://mail.yahoo.com

🔗nanom3@...

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

At the risk of blathering on here...

D. Stearns asked (pertaining to another quote about my reaons for aesthetic
objection to plunderphonia...):

> Interesting (and well put), but it seems to contradict your other
> comments about art and 'not art',

In what way doest this contradict what other opinions? I'm not following, I
think. I have an opinion of what is "Art"; an opinion of "what I would
listen to", and another about what is "Right" to do with what materials
because of legal or ethical questions, and so forth.

"X" doesn't have to be legal, or right, to be Art. It doesn't have to be
"Art" to be interesting or amusing. It doesn't have to be legal to be Art.
Etcetera. These are orthogonal issues. Think of a Venn diagram with several
mutually intersecting circles, or an independent set of axes... The extent
to which a piece unethically or illegally utilizes some raw materials is an
axis independent of the axis of artistic worth.

For instance, I could find amusing or interesting a piece of stuff that I
would consider "Art" which I may think was produced through unethical or
illegal use of materials. Would I produce such a piece myself? I doubt it.
Would I pay money for such a piece? Possibly; it depends on how much I
liked it.

Enough rant for the evening.

Rick

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_282.html#288

> D. Stearns wrote:
> > <<OK. Phunderphonia, in general, is predominantly what I would
term a
> > craft. Taking some raw materials, one produces a woven
tapestry.>>
> > Yeah kind of like a composer... <!>
>
> Well, my comment was actually a little tongue in cheek. It's
either amusing stuff or not. But I do hold that what
differentiates art from craft or even dabbling is in the degree of
workmanship and the extent of workmanship -- raw sweat and toil --
which is involved in the production of the end product.

Do you really believe this, Rick?? If so, then those "pretty"
landscapes that look so "real" at the local crafts fair... they took
a *real long* time to make... should be the superior art of our
culture...

That's *craft,* though, since the "artist" forgot only one small
thing -- a "point of view..."

__________ _________ ______
Joseph Pehrson

🔗jpehrson@...

--- In MakeMicroMusic@y..., Rick McGowan <rick@u...> wrote:

/makemicromusic/topicId_282.html#315

> Mary asked...
>
> > Do you remember the techniques and plugins you used and care
> > to share some of them?
>
> Fairly straightforward techniques. I used the various transforms
that are
> built into CoolEdit and the Studio Plugin (for multi-tracking).
Snipped and
> spliced and twiddled. For hours and hours.
>
> Rick

Actually, Rick... and others, I've just been "discovering" these
myself. A while ago I bought "Sound Forge" (talk
about "forging" !), but I didn't realize that most of
the "transforms" in that product were also in Cool Edit! In fact,
the Cool Edit ones seem ever *superior* since it's possible
to "audition" them *before* making the transform...

________ _______ _______
Joseph Pehrson

Re: [MMM] Re: Plunderphonics

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗monz <joemonz@...>

🔗nanom3@...

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗Rick McGowan <rick@...>

🔗jpehrson@...

🔗jpehrson@...

🔗Jonathan M. Szanto <JSZANTO@...>

🔗jpehrson@...