14 Nov
2007
14 Nov
'07
8:52 p.m.
plutek-infinity wrote:
Not at all Patrick. See my response to Julien along the same line, but
both forking and perpetuation are built in seeing as the component
tracks are always there, and I'd suggest leaving them in compressed form
indefinitely, for us or others to discover or return to. I mean, how
many times have you considered something fixed and returned to it to
make "one last" change.
I'll give you an example of this: I "finished" a hand-made guitar in
2002, and really loved it. Others did too. Anyway, I must have
returned to that axe five times with a saw and a file and a chisel and
sandpaper and another dose of TruOil finish. It's been about 3 years
since I made any change, but recognize the guitar is still "finished"
with quotes being used advisedly.
My rationale for suggesting a finish point which may be better called a
pause for publication is multi-fold:
First, goals and end points are natural to human endeavor and
intrinsically motivating.
Second, "finishing" one piece will allow or at least encourage the whole
group to move to something new - and will give another of us an
opportunity to lay down the concept the others will follow.
Third, the song just might turn out GOOD. I mean, and this isn't too
far-fetched, we could actually assemble an entire work, and even offer
it for SALE. People who are interested, but not very, could just
listen, while those who are moved might support the project with a
donation, and others might just take the "source" and play with it or
craft it into something of their private own.
Think about that last point. How wicked would it be to assemble this
inter-continental collaborative work, arising out of spontaneity and
consensus, and developing beyond the control of any fixed entity.
Chills, man...chills for the chillout band.
Forth, and finally, this minimal element of structure, a point that will
be recognized when we see it, might just keep the chaos to a manageable
level of bedlam.
Okay boys, I'm done. I've pissed off enough human, in-the-flesh,
in-the-same-room, bandmates by taking a point just a bit too far, that I
don't want to repeat that fau pas with this virtual SecondBand. Shit,
have you seen my avatar? What a weaselly, wimpy, geeky, luser. I'd get
my ass kicked...
Frank
Date: Wed, 14
Nov 2007 11:17:00 -0500
From: Frank Pirrone <frankpirrone(a)gmail.com>
<snip>
* Finally, when a call or even consensus arises saying, "Damn, that
tune's a bitch. Let's go with it." once agreement is established
everyone uploads the higher quality tracks of the "winning" parts
and things move on to the mixing and mastering stage.
We'll argue over how to do that part when that bridge comes to us!
Capiche? Trash my idea if it deserves it, but just be kind...
perfectly clear and sensible. it does bring up the question of what the objective is.
your outline assumes a single, "finished" version of each of a number of songs,
agreed to by all and then published somehow. my instinct is that that is somewhat limiting
-- i.e. it eliminates alternate mixes, and requires concensus as things go. however, the
more i think about it, the more it makes sense to give the whole endeavour that sort of
structural clarity -- it increases the sense of a unified community project, and also
increases the likelihood of actually getting something "done".
'course, there may be some rogue elements who drift into quirky, personal remixes...
that's cool, too. they could be published separately by those individuals, or there
could be a section of the main site reserved for such mutations.