..with the risk of a never-ending stream of words..
Electroluver wrote:It's a lot like a dog whistle. You can't hear it, but it's there.
If I can't hear it (or detect its presence otherwise/visually), I can't be bothered about it. It's a bit like bragging about your 4000x3000 photos, when you're viewing them on your 1920x1080 screen. In the end, the music will have to fit a CD/DVD, which is bit/freq limited. But, great that you can sense a dog's symphony in an expensive, acoustically sound-proof lab!
I'll take this a step further; Buying a midi controller and relying completely on software doesn't make for a good musician.
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind, the next time I'll make a 35 part piece o' orchestral music, full o' counterpoint, and properly orchestrated.
Perhaps you could address the 50.000+ media composers around the globe as well, they're obviously doing something wrong, and my fellow music tech students from 1997-2001 were obviously not musicians (yet they were bachelors/masters in music and arts, but hey).
It detracts from the artist ability to create listenable music, because they're conforming to societies expectations.
What does society care about how
something gets made? If I compare my current tools (all in the box) to whatever I was using in the early 90's.. well I just work 100x faster now and have thus more time to experiment, fine tune and optimize whatever I'm making. I'd say that this contributes to better
quality. Oh, and society can kiss my a*s as much as they like; I'm in control of my work, not them! Besides, in all the years making music for radio, tv, film, games and commercials, no one of those producers/directors has ever asked me about my creation methods. Never. The only thing they need to know is whether I can create xyz, and deliver at date abc for pqr money. As far as the importance wasn't already zero, the audience
cares even less, and why should
The Roland Juno's may seem mundane compared to the modulation capabilities of today's digital synths
That all depends on whatever its users are expecting. It would certainly be mundane for me; I want full control over the smallest details, be it sound, volume, pitch, location, anything. The traditional pack o' ~20 parameters won't cut it for me, but it might for others. You know what it is? Only from a tower you can claim you've seen the broader bits of the land. If you remain on the ground your world is a lot smaller and you can not imagine whatever there is to see from a higher point. To use a math/dimensions analogy: a two dimensional person that doesn't know about the existence of a third dimension doesn't know
he's flat and as such doesn't long to become three dimensional.
, but it's the difference between listening to raw 1's and 0's vs. Sine/Saw/Ramp waves that have been converted to 1's and 0's.
That whole phrase is so vague.. Somehow there's this idea that a digital system only has a one and a zero, two possibilities compared to an infinitely analogue signal. That these ones and zeroes are stacked, making for 16.777.216 combinations (24 bit), or 4.294.967.296 combinations (32 bit), at resolutions that are insanely high these days.. well .. what? You want to hide all that under the carpet or what?