On Thu, 2 Oct 1997, Anthony Ewers wrote:
]>
]>]Consider this, Electronic instruments encourage music which is ultimately
]>]guided by numbers and specifications whereas those who play acoustic
]>]instrumnts play music guided by the mind & soul.
]I've no doubt that you sit down at your computer and go with the creative
]flow of things, as do I and a lot of others. I do enjoy what I do (wouldn't
]have done it for 11 years if I didn't) and I think most people who do music
]also do. Who said anything about abandoning soul???? maybe the voice in
]your head did but I certianly didn't.
When you stated that electronic music is "guided by numbers and
specifications" and acoustic music is "guided by the mind & soul," I could
only assume your opinion of electronically-aided composition was that
it lacked soul. To say that x is done in such and such manner, while y is
done in another manner can only be interpreted as the statement "x can't
be done like y is."
]If you want to go beyond the
]*defined* parameters of an electronic instrument, you are stuck - FACT - no
]two ways about it amigo, however much your mind or soul wishes to go beyond
]these perameters is negated. Have you never found limitations in your gear!
The limitations of a guitar, for example, are the dimensions of its
fretboard, the construction of its strings, and the dexterity of the
person playing it. A computer's restrictions are lesser in every aspect,
as soundcards can already produce a greater range of tones than just about
any acoustic instrument, and as technology advances this competition
between acoustic and electronic to achieve the same results will be made
even more pointless. The undeniable telling point is that someone as
physically limited as Stephen Hawking could write songs day and night with
a computer, whereas that would not be possible with an acoustic intrument.
Any limits a computer has are far less constricting than those of an
acoustic instrument.
]'wanting'...' suggested otherwise. Thererfore I don't see what
]arena/genre's repeating themselves has to do with this argument - all
]genres do, and I think you'll find that there is no exclusively electronic
]or acoustic arena/genre anyway...
If you think you can get away with saying that acoustic, mainstream music
has not repeated itself to such an enormous degree as to make the amount
of repetition of ideas in electronic music microscopic in comparison, then
watch out England, there's a madman loose in the streets.
]>then it is your own outdated view of creativity which is holding you back,
]>not some imagined anti-creativity force present in all of the _evil_
]>_machines_.
]
]Creativity can never be outdated - by definition creativity is part of
]spontaneous action. I own synths/samplers too, I never suggested they were
]anti-creative or evil, just that they have limitaions, I feel they operate
]in a different sphere of creativity. Don't try to read between my lines
]theres just a white space - actually read the words...
I don't know where you think I said "your creativity is outdated", I said
your perspective was, meaning you seem to think that there is inherently
less creative potential when using an electronic instrument. So just take
that medicine right back.
]Agreed. However there are lots of technodroids who I've seen post to this
]list and others asking what gear do group X use? When the fact is if
]you're any good at music you can use any instrument to create original
]ideas and learn things from even the most simple peaces of gear. Its
]always better to get your own style than mimic someone elses.
No argument here, I use a beaten-up 486dx33 that can't even run Windows 95
to write my stuff. Yet you're still bending the truth in saying "if
you're any good at music you can use any instrument to create original
ideas..." when the dexterity issue is taken into consideration.
]I don't know much about No Doubt and Blues Traveller, but Puff
]Daddy/Notorious BIG have/had been around for years on the undeground
]Hip-Hop scene (SHOCK HORROR!) before they made it big. I guess after you've
]been a struggling artist for a while theres always the temptation to grab
]as much filthy lucra as you can if the opportunity arises, some might even
]say you have a right to. I think 'underground' music is finding its way
]into the mainstream all the time and I think a there are a lot of
]'underground' people who want to reject mainstream examples of their
]favoured genres of music because they reckon most mainstream music lacks
]credibility. Well that's up to them...
I don't care how long Puff Daddy has been in it, he's a homogenizing,
flavor-of-the-month kind of guy and plenty of people see right through it.
But, of course, all that matters to you is if he "payed his dues" in the
underground...a disgusting concept if ever there was one.
]he works with. What I'm saying is, isn't worth having an individual style
]that is hard to emmulate rather than focusing on just sounds and random
]arrangemnt, as 1000's of others can copy this easily simply because they
]can use the same gear and programs.
I'd _love_ to hear the proof of this -- please (and this should be *easy*,
as you yourself say) copy autechre to the best of your abilities and make
it available to the general public. come on now, programming is so
monotonously simple, i know you can do it.
_|\/=-
enwerthwonatgee-eldotyewembeeseadotedie-you