[LAU] The democratization on music might not always be a good thing...

[fons at kokkinizita.net]

On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 10:43:12AM -0400, David Santamauro wrote:

> I see that analogy as very fitting but the conclusion as simply wrong. A
> novelist or poet does, indeed, spend years (a lifetime even) gaining a
> mastery of not only the "pencil", but also the words and sentence
> structure. My 8-year old daughter will attest to the difficulty
> involved and the years it takes to master moving her writing instrument
> to produce the correct glyph--not to mention putting all those glyphs
> together to form words, sentences and ultimately a coherent story that
> expresses her intent.

I don't think the analogy is fitting at all. A novelist's or poet's
art does not consist of being able to write or push keys on a keyboard.
It consists of creating a good text. He/she could just dictate it to
someone writing it down or typing it, and nothing would be lost.

Now you could argue that a composer's art does not consist of being
able to play all the instruments he/she writes for. So why not use
a computer to find out how things sound. Simple fact is that anyone
deserving to be called a composer does not depend on being able to
hear the exact reproduction of what he/she writes. Entire songs,
musicals, symphonies have been orchestrated or arranged rather well
by composers (not only the classical ones) just sitting at their desk,
or at most using a piano. They can do this because they know their
trade. Which takes some time to learn.

What we see today is a lot of people 1) unable to play any instrument
or sing and 2) unable to create any music except by trial and error
aided by technology. Yet they'd call themselves a musician. By that
measure, they could call themselves painters,  sculptors, writers,
dancers, and whatever they want. 

Ciao,

-- 
FA

There are three of them, and Alleline.