> They aren’t wrong; taking the artisan out of fabrication leaves the musician as the sole artistic variable in instrument’s sonic output. So? What if the arti

> They aren’t wrong; taking the artisan out of fabrication leaves the musician as the sole artistic variable in instrument’s sonic output. So? What if the artist wants to produce music where they are "the sole artistic variable in instrument’s sonic output"? Seems perfectly legitimate to me. Sure, many artists may be known for their use of some particular instrument, but I bet a vanishingly small percentage (or rather, promilleage, or PPM-age) goes to a concert to listen to "the combination of Famooze Artizte and his Particular Instrument" -- almost everyone is there for mr Artizte, period. Hardly anyone gives a fuck about the manufacturers of van Goghs paints and brushes either; the claim is as ridiculous as those demanding artistic recognition for his works. And I betcha absolutely nobody drags friends and family to a school recital to listen to "the combination of my child and whatever particular instrument they're playing". Sometimes -- i.e, in the absolutely overwhelming majority of cases -- it really is all about the artist. [EDIT:] And then I read the rest of your comment, which seems to mostly agree with what I'm saying. :-) But I'll let the above stand, because I still think even the little credit you gave them in my quote is misplaced. (And judging from the article, these people seem to be at most half "artisans", but mostly pretentious wankers.) [/EDIT]