Re:Re: Playing an instrument vs. building an instrument..

[SoundFNR@aol.com]

> > > = Cara
> > = me
> = Kim

>  > >   What I don't understand, is the desire for more and more and more 
>of 
a
>  > >  "better" something that may not even be defined yet, to create 
> something
>  > >  that one isn't even aware of, and doesn't seem to be going toward 
>now.
>  > >  Dreaming is wonderful and so very important, but this sounds like 
>a 
> very
>  > >  aimless and nameless pseudo-need to me.
>  >
>  >There's people out there who have a really strong vision
>  >of what they want to achieve with their music, surely
>  >it can't hurt for them to imagine a future technology
>  >that will help them to do this.
>  
>  I think you got Cara's point backwards there. People with a strong 
>vision 
>  of what they want are the people who also develop a very deep and 
intuitive 
>  connection to the instruments and tools they use to create. They spend 
they 
>  time focused on their idea and become very good at it. Those are also 
>the 
>  people who drive the technologies and tools to be something better and 
new, 
>  because their vision rules over everything and they need the right 
>tools 
to 
>  make it happen.

I read lots of posts on this thread (hopefully all of them),
and there seemed to be mostly sensible, attainable, suggestions
by folks using looping gear to make their music.

There was one great idea at least, (that hasn't been 
mentioned on this list before), and would offer a whole
load of musically useful features.

Mostly it's easier to think along the lines of 
"what if Multiply worked in this way", which produces
a step forward.
(eg, SUSMultiply)

Sometimes the suggestion isn't possible to implement, but
the same musical effect can be got by a different method.
(eg. David Torns request for "Loop Divide" wasn't possible
with the EDP hardware, but now we have 8th Quant which
can do a good approximation)


Sometimes it's possible to invent  the musical
result without having an idea of how this might
be implemented. That could be aimless dreaming,
but it could be source of workable ideas.

>  
>  For example, Andre LaFosse and Matthias Grob are two people with very 

never heard of 'em :-)

>  
>  On the other hand are the ones Cara speaks of, those who constantly 
>toss 
>  out one thing to try the next shiny object, with no clear vision of 
>what 
>  they are looking for. 

I didn't really notice a lot of that sort of talk on the thread
(....but then it doesn't stick in the mind so well ;-)


andy butler