At 11:51 AM 4/4/00 -0700, you wrote:
> My point is, i believe that if one is using someone else's word, one
>should go by their definition. If you have your own (partially or fully)
>contradictory ideas, make up your own word. Finally, if you want to talk
>about general phenomena, use a more general descriptor. In this case that
>means saying something like "sample-based composition" or "audio
>appropriation" instead of "plunderphonic music".
Ah, but even "Sample Based Composition" has been defined. Daniel Vahnke,
of Vampire Rodents and Ether Bunny, did a rather long-ish paper on the term
some many years back...so I'm told. (He never sent me a copy.) Not that
Vampire Rodents ever get noticed on this list for what they did....
JJTar.
---
Peace Hugs and Unity Jason J. Tar
W. W. J. D?
(What would Jason Do?)
http://www.msu.edu/user/tarjason
ICQAT13792120
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori, the Detritus.net Discussion List
to unsubscribe, send mail to majordomoATdetritus.net
with "unsubscribe rumori" in the message body.
----------------------------------------------------
Rumori list archives & other information are at
http://detritus.net/contact/rumori
----------------------------------------------------
"It is my personal opinion that people who constantly whine about copyrights are total wussies who should aspire to be bureaucratic lawyers and bloodsucking insurance claim handlers. None of my work is copyrighted. You are welcome to steal anything and everything from this site without ever giving me the slightest bit of credit." -Bryan Livingston, from the FAQ of CoolText.com