3 ms·

how is he qualified to talk about music in the new yorker? he is just jamming with his buddies. he has no clue about software musical instruments and what they

by uwagar 3y ago

how is he qualified to talk about music in the new yorker? he is just jamming with his buddies. he has no clue about software musical instruments and what they enable. he uses an early looper or wav editing program and compares that to playing a cello. wtf. smh.

pohl 3y ago
Dude has a Wikipedia entry. It may shed some light on your questions, which I’m sure you’re asking in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier
- uwagar 3y ago
  well put together indeed.
coldtea 3y ago
>how is he qualified to talk about music in the new yorker? he is just jamming with his buddies People "jamming with their buddies" are a huge category of people enjoying music. If you have writing skills and can put your musical experiences into words (which he has), you don't need a degree from Berklee to do it. In fact if you had one, or was a professional recording artist or such, you'd be the wrong person to cover the music enthusiast's perspective. >he has no clue about software musical instruments and what they enable Nor does he need to. Early loopers and wav editing are just fine - and more than capable tools. Burial wrote his entire genre defining masterpiece in a wav editing program, having no idea about "software musical instruments and what they enable".
- uwagar 3y ago
  how people dealt with computers when they were new?: its just a(nother) tool. software musical instruments? its just an instrument. these people were not the creators of these instruments, they were not programmers. they couldnt most cases program. their opinions have currency because they are successful/good in the older forms of the art. like another poster said above, livecoding is a form of music making that is truly native to computing and offers genuinely unheard of sounds and ways to organise them. bytebeat more so! the trouble with most computer software making sound is they ape the analog world so end up as 'tools' and traditional musicians looking to take advantage of the computer run into them and think thats what software/computer is capable of and they compare that with their stradivariuses etc. whats gonna come on top? i'm not even going into the possibilities of AI here...
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >the trouble with most computer software making sound is they ape the analog world so end up as 'tools' That's great too. Not everything has to be deprecated and replaced by a computer-based version. And there's nothing wrong in using the computer as a mere tool for your musical output, as opposed to it being the focus of it. Experiment with digital music capabilities is just an option, not some necessary goal. Computers were made as tools, not as dictators of what we should do and how we should do it.
    - uwagar 3y ago
      some of us dont see our relationship with the computer as one with a dictator. looks like you have been hurt by a computer bad. we see it as bicycle for the mind.
      - coldtea 3y ago
        >some of us dont see our relationship with the computer as one with a dictator And yet you scolded people using it as a simple means to an end, and not rushing to adopt advanced functionality. Sounds dictatorshipy enough to me. >looks like you have been hurt by a computer bad Looks like you're using pop psychology BS to win arguments via ad hominems. Did it ever work for you? >we see it as bicycle for the mind. Bicycles didn't made walking bad or obsolete. Nor did cars made bicycles obsolete. In the same vein, the presence of advanced DAW functions and plugins doesn't mean using the computer as a more convenient multi-track machine doing simple wave editing, or using a basic looper is "wrong", and they should get called out for it. If a simple wave editor was the kind of vehicle they needed, that's their deal, and the output can be as good as anything done with advanced DAW magic.
        uwagar 3y ago
        the point was the chap went only so far as using simple and early audio editing tools to come to a grand conclusion that digital/software instruments cant transcend the abstraction (his phrase) real instruments played by a human being could.

by uwagar 3y ago

pohl 3y ago

Dude has a Wikipedia entry. It may shed some light on your questions, which I’m sure you’re asking in good faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

uwagar 3y ago
well put together indeed.

coldtea 3y ago

>how is he qualified to talk about music in the new yorker? he is just jamming with his buddies People "jamming with their buddies" are a huge category of people enjoying music. If you have writing skills and can put your musical experiences into words (which he has), you don't need a degree from Berklee to do it. In fact if you had one, or was a professional recording artist or such, you'd be the wrong person to cover the music enthusiast's perspective. >he has no clue about software musical instruments and what they enable Nor does he need to. Early loopers and wav editing are just fine - and more than capable tools. Burial wrote his entire genre defining masterpiece in a wav editing program, having no idea about "software musical instruments and what they enable".

uwagar 3y ago
how people dealt with computers when they were new?: its just a(nother) tool. software musical instruments? its just an instrument. these people were not the creators of these instruments, they were not programmers. they couldnt most cases program. their opinions have currency because they are successful/good in the older forms of the art. like another poster said above, livecoding is a form of music making that is truly native to computing and offers genuinely unheard of sounds and ways to organise them. bytebeat more so! the trouble with most computer software making sound is they ape the analog world so end up as 'tools' and traditional musicians looking to take advantage of the computer run into them and think thats what software/computer is capable of and they compare that with their stradivariuses etc. whats gonna come on top? i'm not even going into the possibilities of AI here...
- coldtea 3y ago
  >the trouble with most computer software making sound is they ape the analog world so end up as 'tools' That's great too. Not everything has to be deprecated and replaced by a computer-based version. And there's nothing wrong in using the computer as a mere tool for your musical output, as opposed to it being the focus of it. Experiment with digital music capabilities is just an option, not some necessary goal. Computers were made as tools, not as dictators of what we should do and how we should do it.
  - uwagar 3y ago
    some of us dont see our relationship with the computer as one with a dictator. looks like you have been hurt by a computer bad. we see it as bicycle for the mind.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >some of us dont see our relationship with the computer as one with a dictator And yet you scolded people using it as a simple means to an end, and not rushing to adopt advanced functionality. Sounds dictatorshipy enough to me. >looks like you have been hurt by a computer bad Looks like you're using pop psychology BS to win arguments via ad hominems. Did it ever work for you? >we see it as bicycle for the mind. Bicycles didn't made walking bad or obsolete. Nor did cars made bicycles obsolete. In the same vein, the presence of advanced DAW functions and plugins doesn't mean using the computer as a more convenient multi-track machine doing simple wave editing, or using a basic looper is "wrong", and they should get called out for it. If a simple wave editor was the kind of vehicle they needed, that's their deal, and the output can be as good as anything done with advanced DAW magic.
      - uwagar 3y ago
        the point was the chap went only so far as using simple and early audio editing tools to come to a grand conclusion that digital/software instruments cant transcend the abstraction (his phrase) real instruments played by a human being could.