<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>In my opinion, GB will eventually contribute to the well-in-progress dumbing down of music...not by "bringing the tools to the people", but by lowering people's expectations of Art.<p><hr></blockquote><p>I disagree. The music industry has been feeding us this building-block crap now for many years. Real composers and arrangers have been made sick with the expectations to produce songs in this fashion. The consumer is none the wiser, thinking that this is some kind of hip sound of great technical artistry. <br><br>Now, consumers will know sleazy commercial crap when they hear it, since anyone can do it with GarageBand. I'm betting that in no time at all, people will be wanting to hear through-composed songs, and the mass-production style will--we can hope--fade back into the control room from which it came. But then again... GarageBand users can't make up even 1% of the market. We may be wasting our breath.<br><br>I think if anything the loops of GarageBand and SoundTrack will have the effect of separating good music from the busy-noise soundtrack music that accompanies most low-budget sports specials on ESPN. It may get worse before it gets better, but just like Flower Power, bellbottoms, and Elvis sideburns, GarageBand's loops will probably date anyone who tries to use them in a serious way.<br><br><br>Shooshie<br><br><br><br><br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>I disagree. Ever since there was a music business (since the 1940's?), it's always been like that. It hasn't been "reduced" at all. This isn't a new phenomenon. The processed, canned stuff gets most air play because it's cheap and easy to sell. Go back to the beginning of the billboard charts and you'll see it<p><hr></blockquote><p>Whoaaaa! No way. The Beatles composed their music, along with George Martin (the only one of the group who knew his way around an orchestra). All the music up to the 1980s was produced by real musicians who had to write it and perform it. A producer like Phil Spector could play god with musicians, but in the end he still had a huge studio jam-packed full of real, 100% talent behind that "wall of sound." Look at Earth, Wind, and Fire, Tower of Power, Weather Report, Chicago, and many other bands who began the sound that was later reduced to loops. Santana. Jobim. Marley. Oh man, the list is just huge. These guys were top-notch players, top-notch arrangers and writers and performers. <br><br>And are you really going to tell me that Duke Ellington, Glenn Miller, Count Basie, Dorsey, Cannonball, Bird, Mingus, Coltraine, and a hundred other jazz players were "canned?" There had to be something to "can" in the first place. These guys were the real thing. You can find some of their licks in your GarageBand loops. <br><br>The music industry did not begin in 1992. Processed and canned stuff may have, but before that, there were some high-powered pros out there living the hard life to make the songs you heard on the radio. The marketing may have been packaged, and the producers may have left their slime trail across the guys who did the real work, but the work stands as a monument to our industry.<br><br>I think we agree in principle, but you can't set that "canned" clock back to 1940! <br><br><br>Shooshie<br><br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>
I really don't know as much about music as I do about literature, but I suspect the same thing is true for both arts. There are always spectacular artists at any given time, but the number of second and third rate artists is always larger than of first rate artists. Sure we had great music in the 60s--but for every one Beatles song there were a dozen by people like Crispian St. Peter or The Monkees. The trick of it is that looking back we tend to remember only the great stuff--and it tends to be the great stuff that survives in new recordings, new covers, reissues, etc. The further back in time we go, the truer that is. I do a lot of reading of literature from the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries. Now those centuries were really rich in great writers--Shakespeare, Milton, Fielding, one in each century, and in three different genres, for instance. And what most people remember from those centuries are those genial works. But there is also a lot lot lot of pure dreck in that time, much of which I'm obliged to be fairly familiar with. And in sheer number, the same thing is true as for the music of the 60s. For every Shakespeare there are dozens of Barnabe Googes. Alas! <br><br>
Loc: the ancient forests of MiddleE...
forget the dictionary version. <br>all of your money could not buy you any talent . <br>Obviously if you cannot understand what talent is then you haven't got any.<br>just accept itand stop foul mouthing those who do.<br><br>"Today is a gift, that's why its called the present."
holy geeze...i just became good on the piano again. i had no idea it was so easy to "edit" notes. i should be receiving my keyboard from apple soon...still hasn't shipped though a week later (dang it). i have been practicing a tchaikovsky piece on my grand piano and i sound pretty bad as the piece is new to me and i am quite rusty, but determined to get this one recorded and add some background loops, etc. to share with my friends here. well, i had no idea about editing midi until you and lori pointed it out to me. i can now focus on playing any note for the desired length of time and then making it the right note later on...i can even play one hand at a time (since that is what throws me off right now). this is going to rule. <br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>That's about the most ill-considered and unfortunate statement anyone in the creative field could ever put forth! You couldn't possibly have been thinking when you typed those words. You're much too bright a guy to have said something like that if you had been. If "hobbyists" shouldn't enter the arts, where would the next generation of talent come from? Not that getting paid for a natural gift is bad, but consider that most hobbyists do what they do for the love of it, and IMHO, that kind of equity yields an honesty and purity that many "pros" have long since forsaken for the almighty dollar.<br><br>Now go to your room young man, and think about what you said.<p><hr></blockquote><p>One might expect from a man of your age and experience to have clarity on things. I very much value your opinion as a young ambitious creative, so after my most ill-considered and unfortunate statement anyone in the creative field could ever put forth, I was looking forwards to your words. To show my appreciation here is my try to put together another thoughtless post. But of course with age comes a big ego and irrational thinking. You're probably tired after the whole day of work in the big city. So no offense. <br><br>After my sick intro inspired by your typical patronizing message (which I certainly expected and enjoy, although i missed the infamous you bad, bad boy expression) let me go back to our debate. <br><br>A hobbyist can of course enter high arts, but than he is not a hobbyist anymore is he? also, you are not only confusing hobbyists and artist, but also confusing artists and commercial artists. These are 3 different roles a man can play in life. You can do two of these at the same time and a man with skills in one can surely enter an other, but it doesn't mean we should consider these as a big mass with no end and no boundaries. These IMHO are very clearly defined areas. You can surely tell what's art from what is commercial art and what is a product of a hobbyist. And one certainly can and preferably should do all these 3 things for the love of it.<br><br>Now, go back to your penthouse office, take a rest and think about what you really wanted to say. <br><br><pre>PMG5/1.8Ghz/1GBRAM, PBG3/400Mhz/768MBRAM, AirportX</pre><p>
_________________________ Check out my sites on ads and design.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>A hobbyist can of course enter high arts, but than he is not a hobbyist anymore is he? also, you are not only confusing hobbyists and artist, but also confusing artists and commercial artists. These are 3 different roles a man can play in life. You can do two of these at the same time and a man with skills in one can surely enter an other, but it doesn't mean we should consider these as a big mass with no end and no boundaries. These IMHO are very clearly defined areas. You can surely tell what's art from what is commercial art and what is a product of a hobbyist. And one certainly can and preferably should do all these 3 things for the love of it.<p><hr></blockquote><p>So, you're negating yourself? If a hobbyist cannot enter the high arts without becoming something OTHER than a hobbyist, then what was your original point? To keep hobbyists out of the high arts? Self-contradictory, it would seem, although admittedly I'm not looking at your original statement. Maybe I don't remember the trick by which you accomplished this without contradicting yourself. But it's an excellent exercise in thought. <br><br>Maybe the word you're really seeking is "amateur." In its original usage along these lines, it represented someone who had not made a profession of his art, and thus dabbled in it with purity of purpose. Amateurs were considered scholars and artists of noble intent. While their work may not have surpassed the masters who churned out daily cantatas, concertos, suites, and sonatas whether they wanted to or not, their appreciation of the masters and their philosophical thought led to the establishment of musical societies and music history (or art or dance, etc.) such that we have written records of the evolution of our arts. They served a mighty calling, and couldn't have done so without their own familiarity in the subject, acquired through dabbling in their own compositions and recitals. <br><br>By all means, let's keep the amateurs in the arts. If nothing else, it makes a great hobby and keeps 'em off the streets! And who else is going to buy tickets?<br><br><br><br>Shooshie<br><br>[color:green]Pictures and things</font color=green>
well, you're right there is some sort of contradiction. i just brought up this issue for a public debate, so we can all throw in our thoughts and opinions. as the thread got longer my opinion shaped and that's what public debate is for isn't it? it doesn't mean that i suck, does it? <br><br><pre>PMG5/1.8Ghz/1GBRAM, PBG3/400Mhz/768MBRAM, AirportX</pre><p>
_________________________ Check out my sites on ads and design.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.