I would feel a lot better if, like on a CD it says Blank played guitar; X
played the drums so on . . .
I must disagree completely here. I have played in the past in a "rock"
band, and we made a point of never mentioning names, equipment,
instruments, or any other personal or technical details. Our reason had
nothing to do with hiding or honesty or credit, but rather with the
integrity of the listening experience, for our hope was that listeners
would simply imagine whatever world was conjured for them by our music
rather than prosaically picturing each of us arrayed on stage and tweaking
our piles of gear. I continue to feel this way at present and have taken
the same approach on more recent record texts, and for me gear lists tend
to spoil records (see, for example, Francisco Lopez' suggestion that the
sealed liner notes of "La Selva" remain unread). To me, as soon as the
technical details need to be disclosed to the listener, the other
nonmusical aesthetic details - hair by X, clothes by Y - become equally
relevant, and the credits sprawl out into Spandau Ballet territory. What
brand of boots, for example, was this musician wearing while placing a foot
on a floor monitor during a headbanging Powerbook solo? What restaurant
cooked the meal eaten by the group before the recording? Perhaps the beer
provided by the studio or the club altered the playing somewhat, a belch
from a too-heavily frothing brew provoking stochastic mousing by the
player? Either it is a good record or not. Either it works or not. I
will take brilliance on presets (see, for example, Anthony Manning's
"Islets in Pink Polypropylene," all done on a Roland R8) over twaddle on
original patches any day, although having played with Reaktor for a little
while I CAN hear the difference between the two...