> >>>>are you talking about techniques of working with what is now vintage
> equipment? cuz we've still got the equipment... or are you talking about
> techniques of electronic design, techniques that would have brought us "next
> generation" vintage equipment? that's an interesting question...
>
> I just meant composition ∗independent∗ of the instruments, in a way.
ahhh... but can we do that in electronic music? the "instrument" is right
there in the name, the electron... in your original statement, composition
and technology seemed tied together... one had advanced but the other had
not...
> But I do think that we as electronic musicians have a peculiar curse in the
> fact that our instruments change so quickly. Someone learning the violin is,
i completely agree. when i bought my k2000, i sold everything else i had
in order to do it... i had to readapt and learn a new instrument. then i
got a real job and could afford a nord modular, though my k2000 training
(star wars terms here) was incomplete... and then i got a ∗better∗ real
job and could afford a MOTM although my nord training is imcomplete... so
here i've got three ∗kick ass∗ synths that i have half-assed skills in.
focus is something unavailable to gear-whore electronic musicians like
us... :)
> MOTM modules! But for me, MOTM is buying something new & improved while
> still being true to the spirit of sticking with one instrument and learning
> it really well. If that makes any sense. It's like playing a violin and
> upgrading to a Stradivarius, not tossing it out the window for something
> completely different.
good analogy!
bleep.
out.