Such borrowing is found in much of my work, often drawing from historical sources, the metric intricacies of the Ars Nova, the polyphony of Franco-Flemish moment, or other more recent techniques. Musicologists have extensively cataloged such musical borrowing; consider centonization in chant, parody masses in the Renaissance, the frequent adaptation of others' works, Ives's frequent use of extant works, Hip-hop's 'remixes', and Crumb's sublime borrowing and recontextualizing. In essence, musical works simultaneously embody both conservation and innovation– they are simultaneously traditional and revolutionary, exhibiting what could be described as both haecceity and quiddity with historical norms.

While music fundamentally exists as a dynamic interaction between makers and technics and historicality, in the cultural space, music and its presentation operate under contradictory ideologies; copyright and its now automated mechanisms of enforcement interrupt the hermeneutic project of composition and push practitioners to think always through the low granularity of commodified music. And so here I occlude the source, (though sharp ears may catch it); the degree of transformation here are safely within the domain of derived work, but there is still a risk of the accusation of exploiting the reputation of commercially successful artists. My aim here is that those interested in exploration can see the multifold possibilities of any musical instance and the generative capacity of such sharing and exploration. We need to find ways around the diminishing models of enclosure that are dominant, and commit to a poetic usufruct, wherein works are not owned but rather are held in care.