On 30 Jan 2005 at 22:23, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > At 09:37 PM 1/30/05 -0500, Raymond Horton wrote: > >musicians are fighting an INFERIOR > >product > > Can you quantify its inferiority? And how will your quantification > stand up in another few years? > > I think that if inferiority is your argument, it won't be long before > you'll be losing it (if not already). > > There's a cultural argument to make (the same one used to save family > farms), but not much of a practical one, I'm afraid -- even today. The > practical aspects of this argument are pretty much over. All you've > got left is culture or nostalgia. (I'd go for culture because I'm not > much for nostalgia.)
Given that you seem to place ZERO value on the contributions of live musicians to performance, it's not surprising that you think this. I, for one, think it unlikely that a synthesizer will *ever* be able to "swing" like a live musician -- and I mean that term to apply in classical as well as non-classical repertories. I think that the rhythmic subtlety that a fine human musician brings to performance can simply never be reduced to an algorithm that can be reproduced electronically. Will most people hear it? Explicitly, no. But my bet is that they could still tell that something was not quite right, and that the live musician was in some unquantifiable way (to them) better. But you don't seem to place any value whatsoever on "swing" whereas I consider it to be the most important thing a musician brings to performance. -- David W. Fenton http://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associates http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
