22 Aug
2003
22 Aug
'03
11:48 a.m.
Friday 22 August 2003 15:03 skrev Daniel James:
I can't remember who it was that said that 'any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic', anyway, it is true.
In the short term it may seem like overcomplexity, in the long term however
it's evolution and will soon be what average joe uses, without thinking about
it.
There is a possibility that it really _IS_ overcomplexity, but then something
else will come along, a new paradigm, that takes over. Evolution saves the
day once again :)
Myself I don't think it is too complex, it may be magic to those who haven't
taken the plunge yet though.
/Robert
In a digital
world there is a big difference between the number of
external inputs/outputs you have and the number of internal tracks
you utilize.
Sure, but he doesn't use a computer and was thinking in terms of a 24
track tape machine with 24 analogue inputs. He perceived that 8
analogue inputs on a digital system wouldn't be enough for a *solo*
project, because he believed that professional musicans all use 24
track equipment - so he had to have 24 inputs too.
My concern is that sometimes the technology doesn't enable creativity,
it puts up a new barrier - such as overcomplexity.
Cheers
Daniel
22 Aug
22 Aug
6:53 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] how to invest sensible to get more stability for JACK
Am Fre, 2003-08-22 um 15.34 schrieb Robert Jonsson:
Friday 22 August 2003 15:03 skrev Daniel James:
I can't remember who it was that said that 'any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic', anyway, it is true.
Arthur C Clarke mentioned this.Quite reactionairy-i tend to say, i made
the experience, that mistaking technology for magic often slows the
process of learning how to work with that Technology. More than once i
said to myself - "WoW! it is THAT easy - if i would have known how easy
it is i would have reached this point two houres ago..."
This is especially the case since i switched to LINUX. Playing around
with closed Software for Years made my believe that Software is a magic
lore.
In a
digital world there is a big difference between the number of
external inputs/outputs you have and the number of internal tracks
you utilize.
Sure, but he doesn't use a computer and was thinking in terms of a 24
track tape machine with 24 analogue inputs. He perceived that 8
analogue inputs on a digital system wouldn't be enough for a *solo*
project, because he believed that professional musicans all use 24
track equipment - so he had to have 24 inputs too.
My concern is that sometimes the technology doesn't enable creativity,
it puts up a new barrier - such as overcomplexity. In the short term it may seem like overcomplexity, in
the long term however
it's evolution and will soon be what average joe uses, without thinking about
it.
At least a good deal of this complexity comes with the way programmers
think: i need this function - this new library gives me that easily - so
i use it. i want these fancy buttons and i want them now - lets make
those dudes out there install another toolkit.
There is a possibility that it really _IS_
overcomplexity, but then something
else will come along, a new paradigm, that takes over. Evolution saves the
day once again :)
Myself I don't think it is too complex, it may be magic to those who haven't
taken the plunge yet though.
I agree, besides it can be quite funny to learn from scratch.
Thus i save the money and the time that others spend on playing
strategy-games
/Robert
Cheers
Daniel
11:52 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] how to invest sensible to get more stability for JACK
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 15:34:23 +0200
Robert Jonsson <robert.jonsson(a)dataductus.se> wrote:
I can't remember who it was that said that 'any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic', anyway, it is true.
In the short term it may seem like overcomplexity, in the long term however
it's evolution and will soon be what average joe uses, without thinking about
it.
There is a possibility that it really _IS_ overcomplexity, but then something
else will come along, a new paradigm, that takes over. Evolution saves the
day once again :)
Myself I don't think it is too complex, it may be magic to those who haven't
taken the plunge yet though.
It seems to me that the process should leave some mark... should be evidenced
somehow. A bit of minimalism {tho' 30 tracks hardly seems minimal to me} might
reference the source and in so doing help define "a" linux {digital} sound.
Methods by which folk deal with the issue serve to develop that a bit further,
push the medium, yadda, yadda... {Moog has a unique sound that many folk find
to be appealing simply because it's a Moog sound, Some of the appeal to early
punk is the lofi sound, Most old jazz/blues studios have a particular flavor
to their recordings, etc...}
I like computer music though... I'm not interested in processing a pre-existant
sound or trying to give a customer anything specific. I can afford to let the
sound get "coloured" by the process. {In fact... that's desirable.}
Friday 22 August 2003 15:03 skrev Daniel James:
In a digital world there is a big difference between
the number of
external inputs/outputs you have and the number of internal tracks
you utilize.
Sure, but he doesn't use a computer and was thinking in terms of a 24
track tape machine with 24 analogue inputs. He perceived that 8
analogue inputs on a digital system wouldn't be enough for a *solo*
project, because he believed that professional musicans all use 24
track equipment - so he had to have 24 inputs too.
My concern is that sometimes the technology doesn't enable creativity,
it puts up a new barrier - such as overcomplexity.
7766
days inactive
7766
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Hartmut Z Noack -
Robert Jonsson -
RTaylor