Hi david,
david turgeon wrote:
quoted 11 lines Why if we put it another way? Not a chain, but an open project. Every>
> > Why if we put it another way? Not a chain, but an open project. Every
> > participant may remix anything that's been contributed. This implies
> > setting up a repository somewhere on the net, where every participant
> > might store his version/add-ons/updates. After some time, when it's
> > become enough stuff, items for the release will be selected by some
> > democratic procedure.
>
> sorry to burst your bubble, but _that_ sounds like the ultimate recipe
> for disaster. people will procrastinate when you tell them what to do.
> imagine if they have to _choose_ what they want to remix on top of it.
The race factor might play here: if you're late, you may get lost as
other people submit the satisfactory amount of tracks.
quoted 3 lines (not only that, but a few songs may be left unremixed, not because> (not only that, but a few songs may be left unremixed, not because
> they're not good, but because the chain members aren't familiar with the
> artists involved & won't bother downloading the file.
To make compact preview versions isn't a big problem, I think.
quoted 3 lines so you'll end up> so you'll end up
> with 10 remixes of the same song, & 10 unremixed songs. might as well
> just make it an open compilation & that's it.)
The open compilations usually just collect tracks without an interaction
between authors. Here the opportunity of collaboration is introduced.
Of course, the complete anarchy and half-bakedness shouldn't be accepted;
it needs a careful handling and a feeling when to stop. Oh well.
--
Stay tuned, MhZ