Davesrose
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2006
- Posts
- 5,563
- Likes
- 395
Quote:
Dude, what are you smoking??
Even synthesizers from the 60s get the player "precision" in the sense that they get the note that they intended. Oscillations might have been slower....but I don't think any composer is thinking of nanosecond beats. A composer is just like a painter who takes a set of physical properties to assemble a work of art. With a painter, they've got to use a paintbrush, paints, and canvas. With a composer, they have to use an instrument and be sure the acoustics match their intention.
Go ask real record producers and DJs if they think "what people did in the 70s was precise". They'll give you blank stares because that doesn't make sense.
Quote:
I'm speechless at how close minded and unobservant that statement is.
Quote:
Is that what made you "ROTFL" with my first post? That classical music is "not precise" or "hasn't changed" because you think it always uses the same instruments? More evidence that you don't listen to all genres to make these sweeping generalizations. Even one of my interests in classical guitar is always changing. LAGQ is known for adding all sorts of objects and techniques to make the guitar sound totally different and new.
And anyway, most musicians think that progression has to do with the music and maturation of a genre, musician, or composer.....not how fast a sound card's processor can get. I don't know why you keep using Eric Clapton as your one example of a genre other then electronica/rock....other then the evidence of a sheltered music experience. No, he wouldn't be an epitome of an artist that I think evolves. My two previous examples of composers/ artists are way better. Listen to Herbie Hancock from the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and now.....and tell me there's no change. Never mind the fact that both rock and electronica are influenced by him...when he's also a jazz and classical pianist. Well he does use synthesizers...so by your definition he would "progress" and be "precise"
John Williams, the guitarist, would not fit your definition....as he only uses a measly classical guitar.....though he did start off with a different luthier. But he started with regular classical pieces, and has transitioned to also using world music as well as his new compositions....but I guess that doesn't mean "progression" because it's not the latest and greatest computer
So maybe instead of getting answers from my previous questions, I should smoke the same dope...maybe then I'll get "a clue"
Playing and listening to all sorts of music certainly doesn't do it
Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif And if you ever think what people did in the 70s was precise. I'm sorry but current producers and DJs will drop dead from laughing. Laughing so hard their throats will collapse. Ask any modern DJ, anyone that uses the equipment used in the 70s or even the best midi system today is imprecise. Using hardware is no longer considered precise enough. Its down to software and programming. Like I said, everything is timed to absolute precision. Nothing is left to automation by hardware. |
Dude, what are you smoking??
Go ask real record producers and DJs if they think "what people did in the 70s was precise". They'll give you blank stares because that doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif While other music genres are trying to create new sound, and most times, just create what has already been done. |
I'm speechless at how close minded and unobservant that statement is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruckus /img/forum/go_quote.gif But like classical music and other genres, because of the equipment used, the music hasn't changed much. |
Is that what made you "ROTFL" with my first post? That classical music is "not precise" or "hasn't changed" because you think it always uses the same instruments? More evidence that you don't listen to all genres to make these sweeping generalizations. Even one of my interests in classical guitar is always changing. LAGQ is known for adding all sorts of objects and techniques to make the guitar sound totally different and new.
And anyway, most musicians think that progression has to do with the music and maturation of a genre, musician, or composer.....not how fast a sound card's processor can get. I don't know why you keep using Eric Clapton as your one example of a genre other then electronica/rock....other then the evidence of a sheltered music experience. No, he wouldn't be an epitome of an artist that I think evolves. My two previous examples of composers/ artists are way better. Listen to Herbie Hancock from the 1970s, 80s, 90s, and now.....and tell me there's no change. Never mind the fact that both rock and electronica are influenced by him...when he's also a jazz and classical pianist. Well he does use synthesizers...so by your definition he would "progress" and be "precise"
So maybe instead of getting answers from my previous questions, I should smoke the same dope...maybe then I'll get "a clue"