MOTM

A Long Rant.

I would agree in part with all that has been said.
We have an unbelievable amount of computing power available to us at 
a very low cost.  But the power of the hardware has not been matched 
my the software except in very few cases.  Although programs such as 
PhotoShop and AutoCAD and ProTools have been around for a few years 
they certainly run better and faster on newer machines.  And the 
newer machines allow applications like 3D rendering and real-time 
video processing which were impossible until recent times.

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.

I'm beginning to think that all the action is in embedded 
controllers and devices like PICs as far as creative coding.  There 
has not been a truly new app in years for PCs.  

It is also true that it seems there is little in the way of new 
synthesis engines.  But what there is does seem to be getting better 
in implementation.  Physical modeling has improved and is still 
improving.  And there is much that can still be done with that 
method.  In my opinion physical modeling will eventually make 
sampling obsolete to a certain extent.  Certainly synths like the 
Kyma couldn't have existed without the kind of computing power 
available today.  Where a lot of synths are really lacking is in the 
user interface.

The existence of cheaper equipment has done a great deal to enable 
musicians to produce their own record albums.  But if anyone can 
record a CD, anyone will record a CD.  As the owner of a recording 
studio you would not believe some of the stuff I hear.  About 1% of 
it is incredibly good and about 99% is incredibly bad.  This ratio 
does not seem to be improving and its getting to the point where I'm 
considering changing my business model away from being a 
commercially available studio to some combination of teaching audio 
and recording arts, and recording musicians with some demonstrated 
talent at a very low rate or even for free.

And speaking of the quality of the music, back in the sixties and 
seventies there was an incredible variety of music available.  
record companies looked for groups who sounded different, not the 
same as everyone else.  And the recording industry didn't care what 
you looked like on TV.  In the Cincinnati area there were regular 
performances of electronic music.  There was even a store called 
Cincinnati Electronic Music that sold nothing but synths, mostly 
modulars.  Likewise there was an incredible variety of bands as well 
as places for bands to play.  Not anymore.

To me, what made the Beatles so incredible a band was the 
combination of truly great songwriting and singing and George 
Martin, who I consider to be the greatest producer ever.  It was a 
lucky coincidence that they ever existed.  Neither George Martin nor 
the Beatles were afraid to take risks with their music.

Although I think there is great danger for the future in this 
attitude that seems to pervade the culture, that music downloads, 
and software should be free, and the general disrespect for 
intellectual property, I think we are at the verge of a great shift 
in the way music is distributed, sold and promoted.

DEATH TO THE RECORD COMPANIES!!!
DEATH TO THE RADIO STATION CONGLOMERATES!!!

If I can get 200 channels on my TV (there are a few good ones in 
there)  why can I only get one channel on my radio?

End of Rant.

There seem to be a lot of people frustrated with the state of 
computers and music.

I share that frustration to some extent. Early programs that ran on
my 128 had many features of interest that are lacking in current 
software. I mentioned Dr T.'s Keyboard Controlled Sequencer before, 
because it had loads of features for manipulating midi chunks in 
real-time that were interesting for both performing and composing.

But saying that music software is bloated junk now, or rehashes, is 
failing to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you look back at old analog equipment, there are a few dozen 
machines that people consider classics, and a thousand also-rans.
When you look at early electronic music albums, its the same. For 
every "Switched on Bach", there are a thousand recordings like 
"Switched on Buck", and junk like that.

There are a lot of applications that are done very well, even some of 
the "rehashes". Take the Arturia Moog software - that brings the
power of modular synthesis to thousands of people that can't afford
hardware systems. Native Instruments has programs that rehash old 
hardware, such as FM7 or Pro-52. These expand on the capabilities of 
their predecessors, and sound good, too.

There are some interesting applications that cover new territory, 
too. Absynth is one example - it can create evolving textures that 
were impractical with older technologies. Reaktor allows you to 
explore all different types of synthesis, and to build your own 
synthesizers. What you get out of it is limited by what you put into 
it.

Another interesting thing that's happening is that the cost to jump 
into computer-based music has plummeted. The English magazine
Computer Music comes with a CD that contains a basic computer music 
system. It's worth a look - it has a sampler, drum synthesizer, 
virtual analog synthesizer, and a sequencer.

Making things easier means that there's going to be more bad music 
than ever...but, hopefully, there should be more good music than
ever, too.

Hello All -

A large part of some people's frustration is the user interface to 
many popular software audio tools.  That's because they all share the 
same metaphore and some folks hate it.  An alternative to this kind 
of metaphore is software called 'Trackers'.  Here's a great example: 
http://www.renoise.com/news.htm. 

Trackers are usually associated with dance music, but any creative 
type can do lots of different and equally cool stuff with them.  I 
personally prefer the standard metaphore, simply because that's what 
I've used from the beginning (DOS Cakewalk!).

There are many excellent programmers writing wonderful software in 
the tracker community.  That is also true of the more 'commercial' 
community, though as programs get more complex, they tend to get less 
stable...

Mike

--- In motm@yahoogroups.com, "elle_webb" <elle_webb@h...> wrote:
> There seem to be a lot of people frustrated with the state of 
> computers and music.
> 
> I share that frustration to some extent. Early programs that ran on
> my 128 had many features of interest that are lacking in current 
> software. I mentioned Dr T.'s Keyboard Controlled Sequencer before, 
> because it had loads of features for manipulating midi chunks in 
> real-time that were interesting for both performing and composing.
> 
> But saying that music software is bloated junk now, or rehashes, is 
> failing to separate the wheat from the chaff.
> 
> If you look back at old analog equipment, there are a few dozen 
> machines that people consider classics, and a thousand also-rans.
> When you look at early electronic music albums, its the same. For 
> every "Switched on Bach", there are a thousand recordings like 
> "Switched on Buck", and junk like that.
> 
> There are a lot of applications that are done very well, even some 
of 
> the "rehashes". Take the Arturia Moog software - that brings the
> power of modular synthesis to thousands of people that can't afford
> hardware systems. Native Instruments has programs that rehash old 
> hardware, such as FM7 or Pro-52. These expand on the capabilities 
of 
> their predecessors, and sound good, too.
> 
> There are some interesting applications that cover new territory, 
> too. Absynth is one example - it can create evolving textures that 
> were impractical with older technologies. Reaktor allows you to 
> explore all different types of synthesis, and to build your own 
> synthesizers. What you get out of it is limited by what you put 
into 

> it.
> 
> Another interesting thing that's happening is that the cost to jump 
> into computer-based music has plummeted. The English magazine
> Computer Music comes with a CD that contains a basic computer music 
> system. It's worth a look - it has a sampler, drum synthesizer, 
> virtual analog synthesizer, and a sequencer.
> 
> Making things easier means that there's going to be more bad music 
> than ever...but, hopefully, there should be more good music than
> ever, too.