Re: [microsound] Crediting

[jonah dempcy <jdempcy@xxxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kerry Uchida" <kerry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [microsound] Crediting

<snip>
> It becomes an issue when the "source" wants a credit and feels
> uncredited for his/her contribution to the project.  Ultimately
> it is up to the artist.  If the "source" is unhappy with their crediting,
> either bring it up with the artist or don't work with that artist anymore.
> If the "source" wants credit, then they need to establish their own
> project in order to "credit" themselves for "all the hard work they've
done"
> as an artist.
<snip>

i think we're talking about different issues. i'm talking about the issue
that, regardless of whether or not the "source" wants to be credited, the
source of a piece of music is some other artist, and the artist who sourced
it takes credit. this is different from the patch argument in that it's been
exemplified in the extreme, but this is some of the logic behind the patch
argument i think.

and further, i'm not talking about the moral issue involved, but the
artistic one. whether or not it's morally correct is irrelevant, it's just--
well is it still good art if it was made by someone else? if the artist had
such severe limitations that they couldn't affect the piece in any way, is
it still a good piece? (similar to the argument, is a fake as good as an
original?)

the patch argument is essentially this but by degrees less.. ie: the artist
is still being limited, but by how much?

i also hear a response similar to the "DJ" conversation.. you don't pay the
artist to create, you pay them to play music for you, and the quality-level
of the music they choose defines their artistic merit..

and there's nothing wrong with this viewpoint per se, it just implies that
the DJ who plays the music is as artistically involved in the creative
process (and hence creative) as the original artist, which i think is kind
of a silly notion-- a DJ doesn't have any creative control over the actual
piece of art aside from EQ and sometimes effects, but the movements/vibes of
the music are beyond their control.

it's all very interesting! hope you all aren't too sick of this yet, i would
like to hear more ideas.

-jonah