"Thomas D. Cox, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 11/01/2007 09:16:11 AM:
> On 11/1/07, still want to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't think we have run out of music. I think we have run out > of space in the > > current dimension that we listen to music. > > i just dont know. i feel like all this surround sound stuff is just > the emperor's new clothes, a new way to dress up a lack of quality. if > something sounds good only in 3 dimensional space, is it really good > or are we just impressed with technical innovation? a good song sounds > good in mono coming out of a crappy radio, it sounds good in a crappy > car system, it sounds good all the time. it is not dependent on > anything else except its own intrinsic quality. yep - a good tune will make you smile and will affect you internally regardless of the soundsystem check dudes roller-skating in parks with a transistor radio pressed to their ear for that fact 3D is only good as the music that's coming out of it if it's crap then it's crap coming at you from all sides and angles - and where does that get us? off the dancefloor I'd say > > I imagine .. clubs in the future having visceral sound systems that react to > > the audience emotion levels. > > isnt that what having a good deejay and lots of bass is for?!?!?! > there is no technological advances necessary! the best deejays have > that on lock. LOL - I totally agree Tom. Why is there a desire to do away with the human element? Don't you go to a club to connect with people? Isn't listening to music a means of reminding ourselves that we're alive in a world that is alive? Isn't music a celebration of life itself? > > Or music that you purchase that is an environment, a sonic landscape that > > is interactive and changes according to the time of day. > > isnt that what an ipod is for? mixtapes? yeah, I don't get it either Tom. What is more interactive than you controlling the music directly? If you don't like the environment you change/flip the record or go outside. > > I think the idea of music as a static object of fixed entity will > become very > > old fashioned soon. Music will be regarded like plants, something that > > grows and evolves has a life of its own. > > if music is not fixed, what is the point of the artist even existing? > surely computer programs can just take over at that point and provide > any number of emotionless theoretical iterations of whatever piece of > music you insert into it. > > personally, i think the artist's viewpoint *IS* the music, otherwise > it is just sound. exactly - > > I see music like ripples in a pool. I hear sound as space. I want to > > experience music that has a physically and dimensional texture like > > swimming in a river current or gliding in the wind. > > this all sounds romantic or whatever, but for me it is meaningless. i > hear music as an expression of an artist. perhaps there are some > artists who would really be able to better express themselves with new > technology, but i dont think it would be many artists. most artists > now use the technology as window dressing, i imagine that will > continue to be the case. damn, if an artist doesn't have it with the present technology they won't have it with any future technology yes, there have been composers who have written music (not performed) for technology that didn't exist during their lifetime however they still wrote it - they expressed it if you can't express it then you just don't have it - find a new job not everyone with a record/CD/mp3 collection and a few raves under their belt is meant to be a musician MEK
