On Sun, 5 Jun 2016 01:33:43 -0400 "jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, 4 Jun 2016 22:12:24 -0700 > Erik Steffl <erik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > great emotional impact on audience does not require great > > emotional investment of performer/author. Think of ocean or sunset > > or flowers - no emotions but they are beautiful/impactful. (you > > might now change argument to what's natural or not but that's a > > separate argument, only pointing out the emotions here) > > Even though humans are indeed machines in many aspects, as buttons can > be pressed to make them react in certain ways, emotionally, there is > still a chance that an emotional painting-by-numbers piece will not > fare so good, once the initial impact has passed. How much of robots are we ? Can we assume that since we are humans, we are not robots ? I'm thinking about that when working on a sketch (1). The decision to press this button to play that beat then to press the other button to segue into something else. The decision that yes, this sounds all right with that. Apart from the guy who plays guitar out of rhythm, anything else could have been done by a machine ? (1) https://soundcloud.com/nominal6/jam5 _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
