However, the question of digital vs. analog should have nothing to do with this debate. Some people make really nice, soulful, warm, whatever you wanna call it music with a computer. Some people
make thin, flacid crap with gear. Don't blame the tool. Tristan Oooooh touchy!!!! ;-) Just to er, clarify. I said I'm not favouring one approach over the other, and of course the results can vary (including the 'quality') under either methodology. What I do prefer is that what I'm listening to at least *sounds* like it was made by a human actively engaging with objects, rather than a robot passively disengaged with an object orientated environment.Yu dig? I also said I expect *all* the variables which we could say characterise the 'feel' of someone actually *playing* an electronic instrument and the way that machine sequences it's parts, to be completely replicable by software eventually. Arguably, if used correctly, software does replicate those characteristics already. Something I'd add based on very fertile discussions I had with people I went to see Kraftwerk with - of course the promise of the software approach is still a fantastic vista which imo has barely even begun to be explored. Think intelligent systems, think iterative processing, think spectral analysis; think about sound architecture but also think about the way a complete track might also be programmed, and also think about sound quality/recording - and that's just me giving a few examples which my feeble mind can come up with. Therefore I cannot be categorised as prejuidiced in either direction on this debate, given that I'm flippin' excited about the prospect of what's still to come in electronic music and frankly, of course a big part (if not most of the coming advances in the long run) will be in software. k Ken
