Re: Why Computer Music Sucks

Subject: Re: Why Computer Music Sucks
From: Douglas Doherty (
Date: Tue Aug 03 1999 - 13:00:19 EDT

>> "The very existence of all those kids goofing around with sampling on
>> the family Macintosh has helped to stir an interest in novel musical
> >approaches in general and music made with computers in particular that
>> is broader than ever.

>The article on the site is excellent !!! but (yet again) those over 30
>involved in the production of high-art and commercial music and their
>inclusion of the macintosh as the catalysing system that will shape
>music to come is not based in a social reality.
>I don't want to start a platform war but those throwing out analysis of
>the youth and their position within the creation of music fail to notice
>the huge amount of production that is being distributed without a market
>based on the trade of sound as commodity exist now and is not done on
>the same computer they used when they started out. I think that a
>serious analysis of "things to come" should pay more attention of what
>is going on now - especially when claiming to speak outside of
>commercial and academic privilege.

I think you have hit the nail on the head here. Macintosh computers no
longer hold the monopoly on high end sound processing (and haven't for some
years). People who are used to them and have little or no experience or
real knowledge of other systems of course believe that Slow Tools is the
only system worth considering, or they are locked into a situation where
they really have no choice but to keep paying those outrageous upgrade

I was talking to a colleague in Scotland who says his students are
complaining because they all have PCs and have to use Macs at the

I believe that the future of "Computer Music" will be platform independent,
with all systems converging. In the meantime Avid I believe are ceasing
developments for Macintosh because they need more slots.

PS I'm over 30

Douglas Doherty
Composer, Gateshead

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