> Ah ha. As a synthesist, I synthesize sounds. If I just used acoustic
> musicians or samples, I wouldn't be synthesist. Much as a painter
> paints a
> picture instead of just taking a photo of it.
You got it.
To take it one step further: for some it's about getting to the
synthesized sound, not so much the sound itself. Like a painter
understanding light by trying to emulate it. Once you've understood it,
then it's about bending the rules that bind it to normalcy...
> Uh, because then Paul's statement "What's in it for ME?" is flawed.
> Now
> that we know Rich loves to travel, play live, talk to people, then he
> is
> doing it for himself. If he weren't, then he'd be concentrating on
> pleasing
> more of his fans with new releases.
His fans get a kick out of watching him live too. I'm flying to another
state just so I can see him live... Playing live is not like playing in
a studio. While most electronic music is chiefly a studio form, there
are electronic musicians who only really shine on stage. I want the
experience, the other people there, the energy that comes from a
feedback loop between those on stage and those watching and listening.
> I some cases you don't see them. In some cases you want to see playing
> technique. Watching a pianist bang out a complicated concerto for
> instance.
> That's where you'll have to see my other post about self running
> drones and
> computer sequencers.
I think it's pretty interesting to watch someone modify a large
complicated modular synth in realtime to generate new and interesting
sounds. Even if he has spent the last six months practicing. It's more
interesting than sitting at home listening to a static CD. I don't go
to a basket ball game to watch amateurs, I go to watch professionals
who practice hard do something difficult. Same thing with a concert.
It's inspiring.
--mikes