Tobias writes:
>>Price is going down by the minute. New G5 introduced, etc, but I have yet to
see anything exiting done today with a computer that couldn't be done 10 years
ago (regarding synthesis).<<
There are a couple of problems with this thinking. First is that there is quite
a bit of new stuff coming out regarding synthesis and synthesis related
processing. Examples like Spectral Delay real-time FFT manipulation software,
Yamaha's new vocal software giving you realistic artificial vocals, realtime
independent pitch/time/formant manipulation software, finally new powerful
additive synthesis with features never before available, EQ curve extracting
software, harddrive streaming samplers (semi-new), and so on.
The other problem is that there is more available now than any person could
fully explore in his lifetime. When I hear people clammering for more, more, I
think, why? Are you being held back from creating something because there are
too few software/synth choices?
gooboworks writes:
>>Hmmmm...., maybe the mediocre music is not attributed to technology. Perhaps,
more mediocre music creators now have access to cheaper and faster synth and
recording technology.<<
That's an observation I've also made. I've thought many times that I kind of
wish synths and computers were still really expensive items. That would
eliminate most who jump into synths just because they are trendy at the moment.
Les Mizzell writes:
>>2. Only sign artists that they think have sure-fire hit power<<
Some of this has to do with visual image rather than music, especially if you
want to reach the teenage girl market. They don't listen because of the music,
they listen because they think the band is cute.
>>4. No imagination. Just listen to the damn radio<<
When you have a few song writers writing songs for most of todays groups,
they're all going to sound the same.
Paul Haneberg writes:
>>However, programming is becoming a lost art. It used to be that programs had
to be efficient, both in size and in speed. But with virtually unlimited
memory and speed available, code no longer can be considered to be elegant. In
the early days of many apps code was precise and concise. Now it tends to be
sloppy and with so much excess that it is often undecipherable and certainly
always bloated.<<
Exactly. As computers get faster, software gets slower. When I handed over my
source code to my latest game to Infogrames so they could port it to another
computer, they refered to my code as archaic. That's right, and proud of it.
It's about 50% assembly language. Excuse me, but I still adhere to the old
efficient size and fast speed way of thinking. They are into the new, slow
loading, memory hogging, bloated, and bug infested code philosophy.
-Elhardt