MOTM

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