Re: Re: Re: rhythm sequencers software

[Rick Walker <looppool@cruzio.com>]

On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, Per Boysen wrote:
> Excuse me, but I don't think I used the phrase "realistic" anywhere
> ;-)    IMHO the point in utilizing random variations for electronics is
> not to make it sound as if a drummer is playing - that would just be
> too lame and usually sounds lame too! The point in using algorithmic
> randomization of audio is to make it sound interesting as algorithmic
> randomization of audio! To be clear, what I said is that I think RMX
> has excellent randomization algorithms and therefore is hard to beat -
> in THAT field.
Yeah,  Per,  I hear you.

When I first fell in love with drum machines in the middle 70's, one of 
the things
I did like about them is that you could play percussion that DIDN'T 
sound like
real drumming.

I think that I was trying to address a certain kind of mentality that 
thinks,
"ooooh,    static drums are bad and mechanistic feeling so if we just 
program
a bunch of stuff into a drum machine it will sound more realistic."

I've fought that mentality for all of my programming and drum studio 
playing career.

You,  of all people,  I know ,  has a very sophisticated and forward 
thinking agenda
in your sense of composition,  so I really wasn't talking about you.

So,  yeah,  baby,  I agree with everything you said.  Thanks for the 
clarification
and I hope mine helps as well.

I guess it's always good to take these dialectics to the list anyway as 
it stimluates a
lot of thought.

yours,   Rick