Re: WHY COMPUTER MUSIC SUCKS_Bob Ostertag


Subject: Re: WHY COMPUTER MUSIC SUCKS_Bob Ostertag
From: Richard Wentk (richard@skydancer.com)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 15:18:43 EDT


At 18:22 04/10/2005, you wrote:
>Everybody and his brother can now be considered a "composer".

Yes, but a distinction that isn't often made is between consumer composer
and creator composers.

Everyone is a composer because they consume musical gizmology. I think in
reality this is more of a marketing phenomenon, and less of a creative one.
It's like Victorian piano ownership - a huge industry, but all but a tiny
percentage of the population never progressed beyond an amateur level.

>Saying that computer music sucks puts Arlo Guthrie on a piedestal. And
>i'm not sure it's that good.

Pedestals aren't good generally. But today it's The Gear that's so often on
a pedestal, to the extent that it's sometimes more important than the
composer. (Ooh! Nice Max patch...)

This hasn't become true until recently. Did anyone care what make of
trumpet Miles Davis played, or what kind of piano Stravinsky owned?

Richard



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST