Re: [Leica] Digital is not photography (was long - shorter but still off topic)

[Krechtz@aol.com]

In a message dated 10/30/00 7:24:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
austin@darkroom.com writes:

<< One thing that separates recorded music from recorded images, is recorded 
 images are 'presented', or 'interpreted', where recorded music is supposed 
 to be as original accurate as possible.  A photograph can be taken and 
 printed in many many ways, as well as a painting can be painted many many 
 ways...  I believe there is far more 'artistic license' in photography than 
 there is in recording music, and I've done both...I know there are some 
 golden ear sound engineers who would differ...
  >>

    A very interesting point!  However, it assumes that sound recording is to 
be considered, for aesthetic or artistic purposes, roughly the equivalent of 
photography.
From my point of view, the performer is more directly comparable than the 
recording engineer to the photographer as artist, whether behind the camera 
or in the  darkroom, be it wet or digital.  
    This is because music is an art form which may achieve its ultimate 
realization only in the time dimension, requiring a "real time" intermediary. 
 Once a work of art has been produced, although it is shown and seen in both 
space and time, it may be appreciated at the viewer's own pace.  While the 
same applies to the recorded performance, the recording engineer has not been 
accorded the same license as the performer or conductor to interpret the 
musical scoreproduct,