Music reproduction is art

@yoyoyaya, I agree

Mike

@polkalover 

Who is this guy Art everyone is talking about?

He's the one hanging on the wall by his collar.

"The essence of art is the creative production of something. Ipso facto, reproduction is not art." (@yoyoyaya). But a recording IS "the creative production of something." You need to consider Eisenberg's argument, cited above. A recording is not merely a "reproduction" of anything, but rather, is very much the creative product of the producer, recording engineer, and so forth, in very many really interesting ways.

For that matter, the original "artwork" is not merely "the creative production of something," if you mean that this "creation" is out of whole cloth. Art is always produced in the context of other art; sometimes (as with much "modern" art, for instance) it cannot even be construed as "art" at all except insofar as it engages a tradition of art production. Are Warhol's silk screens of other people's photographs or his Brillo Boxes or Campbell's Soup Cans "the creative production of something" in the sense you seem to mean?

...and art is show biz

@snif - I write and record music so I'm reasonably familiar with the creative process involved. Secondly, the "whole cloth" reference is yours and was not stated or implied by me and, as such, is irrelevant in response to my post. Lastly, you are confusing the production of a recording - which is a creative process - with its reproduction i.e. the playback of the recording. The former involves artistry, though whether is is art is debatable. The latter is categorically not art.