this discussion reminds me of the
work of composers like Partch,
Nancarrow and even Scriabin who
approached the realization of their
ideas as problems to be solved.
while none of them have anything
to do with electronic music, they
all took "presets" and used them
either in new ways or modified to
fit their needs. the "process" of
doing this had really nothing to do
with the work itself, but was
essential to its creation.
the results of these efforts are
evident in how the piece works,
how it looks & sounds. i can figure
out how to make something appear
a certain way (eg. monolake track)
without ever using the same tools,
and at the same time use ALL the
same presets and never sound
anything like the original.
in other words, using tools another
artist uses does not a chicken make!
i also dont agree that this is a
discussion of ethics; if anything it's
symantics, because one composer's
process may include any number
of "presets", including itself.
i guess i am firmly in the
art-speaks-for-itself camp. the
act of imitation is a natural step
in the creative process, so i think
comparing the relative merits of a
piece based on its origin isnt quite
fair to the artist or participant,
though as theory and philosophy
the creative process remains
infinitely fascinating.
matt
___
http://craque.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org