Subject: Re: WHY COMPUTER MUSIC SUCKS_Bob Ostertag
From: Morgan Sutherland (email@example.com)
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 15:23:24 EDT
"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...)"
What's wrong with that? =)
On 10/4/05, Richard Wentk <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Sat Dec 22 2007 - 01:46:12 EST