Re: Source, Observations, etc

Subject: Re: Source, Observations, etc
From: jan.larsson (
Date: Sat Jul 31 1999 - 03:02:09 EDT

At 03.02 +0200 99-07-31, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote:

>I bring that up because I wonder: Isn't it possible that there's a goodly
>portion of tongue-not-in-cheek
>"oh-yes-I-recognize-that-software-do-you-huh?" wrapped (one-)up in the
>jury's tale? A competition of disaffection?

Someone mentioned "Photoshop Music". Yes, there is quite
a bit of the same problem there where you can see certain
very easily recognized plugins/filters being over-used.

I dont think the problem is that you can recognize which
plug has been used. Just as there usually is not a problem
even if I can hear that something was made with the Buchla

I think the problem is that some tools produce the sonic
equivalence of re-using the same musical phrase (or sentence)
over-and-over. And when this is used in many works, well
I just wish something evil would happen to a certain programmer
at GRM. Like forcing her/him to write payroll software
or listen to the same Spice Girls song 24h/day ;=)

Same problem with many algorithmic composing tools.

If you have Photoshop and the KPT-filters, try "page curl"
and see what I mean.

I also think that many tools may be too complex and less
inviting to experimentation. The possibilities may be
endless but the process of trying them out is too slow.

Digital audio editing is also much harder to do with
proper dithering and so on. And if you ignore this the
rounding errors will add up and you end up with a
cold, sterile veil over everything.

Jan Larsson

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b27 : Wed Jun 11 2003 - 13:09:05 EDT