SouthSIDE Glen
independentrecording.net
The idea that right and wrong, or morality and ethics is a function of general public consensus is just as false as the idea that "something is OK as long as you don't get caught doing it". They are both just versions of the same thing; that right and wrong are decided by someone else's perception.
Those are all just attempts to absolve ourselves from having to take any responsibility for our own actions.
Morality and ethics are all internal, and functions of personal intent. Deception is deception when it is *intended* to deceive, regardless of whether Joe Schmoe knows or cares whether he's been deceived or not. The only one who can decide whether such intentional deception is acceptable or not is the individual doing the deceiving.
Manufacturing a performance in the studio is not deceiving as long as it is not *intended* to deceive and as long as there is no deception in implication. In other words, there is no deception as long as the album is not represented as being anything other than a studio-manufactured album, and as long as the *performance* of, and the *intellectual property* used are properly attributed.
One cannot attribute a musical chord, because that's not copyrightable, intellectual property belonging to anyone. One does not need to attribute the use of an Intel processor, because the use of an Intel processor is not intellectual property belonging to any one, unless that use is some patented process.
But if one is using someone else to perform the vocals, that someone else should be given credit; otherwise there is purposeful deception in the implication that those whose names are in the liner notes are the ones performing the vocals. That's where Milli Vanilli differs from stuff like looping.
There's nothing deceptive in using loops or other studio tracks, as long as they are not represented as not being there, and as long as there's no reasonable expectation implied that such techniques are not being used.
There's no reasonable expectation implied that Bohemian Rhapsody is live documentation, so there is no deception there, for example.
If however, there's an album that advertises itself as a recording demonstrating the virtuosity of Jane Instrument God on the acoustic whatchamacallit, the use of loops in her instrument tracks would be a deceptive practice.
Whether Joe Listener cares or knows or not if it's deceptive, or whether the music itself is any good or not is not relevant to the deception. The original intent of deception still remains and does not change. And the morality of that deception is the deceiver's own decision to make, no one else's.
And to just pass off the importance of that kind of decision as simply "silly" is just too sad to accept.
G.
Those are all just attempts to absolve ourselves from having to take any responsibility for our own actions.
Morality and ethics are all internal, and functions of personal intent. Deception is deception when it is *intended* to deceive, regardless of whether Joe Schmoe knows or cares whether he's been deceived or not. The only one who can decide whether such intentional deception is acceptable or not is the individual doing the deceiving.
Manufacturing a performance in the studio is not deceiving as long as it is not *intended* to deceive and as long as there is no deception in implication. In other words, there is no deception as long as the album is not represented as being anything other than a studio-manufactured album, and as long as the *performance* of, and the *intellectual property* used are properly attributed.
One cannot attribute a musical chord, because that's not copyrightable, intellectual property belonging to anyone. One does not need to attribute the use of an Intel processor, because the use of an Intel processor is not intellectual property belonging to any one, unless that use is some patented process.
But if one is using someone else to perform the vocals, that someone else should be given credit; otherwise there is purposeful deception in the implication that those whose names are in the liner notes are the ones performing the vocals. That's where Milli Vanilli differs from stuff like looping.
There's nothing deceptive in using loops or other studio tracks, as long as they are not represented as not being there, and as long as there's no reasonable expectation implied that such techniques are not being used.
There's no reasonable expectation implied that Bohemian Rhapsody is live documentation, so there is no deception there, for example.
If however, there's an album that advertises itself as a recording demonstrating the virtuosity of Jane Instrument God on the acoustic whatchamacallit, the use of loops in her instrument tracks would be a deceptive practice.
Whether Joe Listener cares or knows or not if it's deceptive, or whether the music itself is any good or not is not relevant to the deception. The original intent of deception still remains and does not change. And the morality of that deception is the deceiver's own decision to make, no one else's.
And to just pass off the importance of that kind of decision as simply "silly" is just too sad to accept.
G.
