So, you would deny people who have no intention of having their "creations" made public the ablility to compose and create?
Please correct me if I'm making a bad assumption. Not everyone who uses the tools to create are after a big fat record deal or whatever. I'm not one to deny anyone anything with regards to being creative. I do like to think we as humans are creative in our own way. Music may not be the avenue for all to express that creativity. I know quite a few on this list are "elitists" and I have no problem with that. It's when you start implying that only a select few should be able to express themselves in a musical fashion and that if it doesn't conform to your idea of what is "musically acceptable" then it has no value... That's when I have to disagree Jim J. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bulger, Tim" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Samuel Hobbs'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <313@hyperreal.org> Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2001 12:47 PM Subject: RE: [313] anti-technology > Music is not like your child's first crayon picture. Being enabled to > create by a piece of software is not equivalent to being able to create. > More people creating because they _can_, instead of because they feel the > need (read, inspired) to is more likely to increase the amount of > uninspired, lackluster music out there (those records you put back in the > bin and try to forget about). I hear the argument that this will help > people who didn't know they had the ability to create music to discover it, > but are the ends worth the means? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
