-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 pete shorthose schrieb: > On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 23:18:39 +0200 > Hartmut Noack <zettberlin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> To have a handfull presets, that demonstrate, how an app works, ist >> important. But just to choose an entry in a given list of "cool >> killer-leads" and record it, yields in 9/10 cases to those boring >> Cubase-beginner tracks, we all have heared before and nobody is really >> interested in. > > here's the problem: in your eagerness to spite these people you think are bad > musicians, you would also thwart good musicians who have no interest in sound > design. Good musicians should have an interest in sound design. Remember that hundreds if not thousends of recordings are released every given day so the air is very thin for those, that want to be heared. So I guess, musicians, that are not only gifted composers and talented players but take care also for a very individual, new, original sound, have a better chance to prevail... And listeners, that spend their valuable time listening let alone spend money on buying records, are quite picky as well. At least I am as a listener: be it Antony and the Johnsons, PJ Harvey, Rose Kemp, Mogwai or Mastodon - all of those, I spend time and money this year are extremely careful when it comes to sound design. > and this is even though the only negative consequence of an abundance > of presets is that people may use them to make bad music, which you aren't > forced to listen to and so isn't really any of your business. Why the rant? Because I was not clear enough I guess. Of course a great musician can play great music using a preset, but many preset-users do not. > >> Jaron Lanier (I know, he is controversal and I do not consider him a >> "guru" or something... still he is brilliant sometimes) has told an >> anecdote in a speech he gave in the 1990ies, that sums up the matter >> quite well. In short it says: >> >> A industry-guy said to him: >> "Well, take a violin, for instance. I mean, a violin has a crummy user >> interface. It's so hard to play. With computers we can build a better >> user interface for the violin, and then kids will be able to play it, >> everyone will be happy..." >> >> Lanier commented this lengthily but came to a brillant conclusion in the >> end: >> >> "Playing the violin is actually that mystery, it's the end of the line, >> it's not for any other reason." > > quasi-religious conclusion aside, it's a spurious analogy given that the violin > is a simple instrument without enough modifiable parameters to benefit from any form of presets. OK... > in fact, the violin is analogous to the preset, not to the underlying virtual > instrument. (with the obvious and not altogether flattering consequences for your > analogy). you play the violin as you would play a given preset, well or badly. but > few would suggest you should be required to construct or modify a violin before you > are entitled to play it. ...but Can you name any combination of a virtual instrument and a controlling interface, that comes close to the endless opportunities a violin has to offer? Such an instrument would be the same as hard to play as a real violin and nobody would really see it as the same kind of thing like an average violin-preset that comes with a sampler. Such a "preset" I would consider a real instrument... > >> get the whole story: >> http://www.exhibitresearch.com/kevin/nyc/jaron/index.html >> >> Music is a complex work of art and it demands care and effort and most >> music-loving people like it exactly because of that. It does not need to >> be a Mahler-symphony or a Bach-partita - a simple structured song can be >> the same as worthwile listening to but it needs to be made with passion >> and care and inspiration and it will never be easy. >> >> Still I agree, that software made for complex work should be as usable >> as possible. But there is a difference between usability and cheap >> shortcuts to standard-sounds. > > no, there really isn't. you confuse software capability with user intent. > the difference stems from the user of those presets not the presets themselves. This I agree - its the user, that matters. But some apps are advertised like this: "Click your hit now! No capabilities needed on your side!" It is the same as "Click your own homepage now! No programming knowledge needed!" Both tend strongly to produce the same level of quality. > i dont think many people seriously believe you should be able to program a synth before you can use it. I really heared young guitarists lament, that they still have to tune their guitar by hand - and many never learn to tune their instruments by hearing. It makes them depend on "desperately needing" a tuner. Again: I do not condemn presets alltogether. I find them very useful as a starting point to work with a complex instrument. They are a essential part of the documentation for any virtual instrument or fx-processor. But any *specific* preset is NOT needed to make music with a software. And if one plays in a band and uses virtual synths, what will he/she do, if his/her bandmates say: "this bass-sound is quite OK but it should be more brilliant and get mot punch over time" Will he/she switch presets until hopefully the right sound is found? I would prefer to work with a musician, that has enough love for his/her sound to know how to work with filters and envelopes. > the only reason i'm bitching about this is because a lack of presets excludes > those musicians without a particular technical inclination and so limits the > audience for that software. which in our case, harms the cause of linux as a > audio plaform. > presets are a net gain people. we shouldn't screw the good musicians simply > to spite the bad ones. As said before: there should be presets, we need them indeed to make the software more usable. I never found a ready to run preset for CLAM so I do not use it, it is more or less the same with PD and Csound. A software should offer some sounds out of the box and opening a file from usr/share/appname/demos/ (as with ams) should be enough to get some noise. These presets do not need to be particular useful in a music production but they should demonstrate the capabilies of the software to easily enable the user to build his/her own custom, perfect sound with as much ease as possible. best regards HZN -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkqjnrcACgkQ1Aecwva1SWPqFQCeJYUxnOzHoXUWZbpHLVEfyNrO et4AniYLERAfrd+w1NoR7VI6QX3sTfbP =WfYI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
