11 Dec
2007
11 Dec
'07
11:07 a.m.
Am Dienstag, 11. Dezember 2007 schrieb Rob:
On Tuesday 11 December 2007 09:04, Charles Linart
wrote:
But actually the beatles are more successfull than these new casted bands that
change name/members/style/quantization every year.
And all the "quantizing by groove" is a nice academic project (think about
neuronal networks and such to recreate the groove of some fancy drummer) but
in reality there is nothing better than jamming with real persons with real
groove with real sloppiness. Except maybe when doing techno (=eletronic music
with a beat != electronic experimental music) but who needs a special, not
handcoded artificial groove in techno anyway?
Arnold
--
visit http://www.arnoldarts.de/
---
Hi, I am a .signature virus. Please copy me into your ~/.signature and send me
to all your contacts.
After a month or so log in as root and do a "rm -rf /". Or ask your
administrator to do so...
As for "quantizing the groove" -- I
don't even know what that
means, but it probably has something to do with the fact that 99
Just because
you're ignorant about a function doesn't mean it's
unimportant. Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway"
followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion,
not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were
talking about.