On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 02:17:35PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 1:47 PM, <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Over lunch I mentioned to him that few users of software > > or electronic instruments have the amount of control over > > their tools that he clearly has over his violins. > > His reply was very short and dry: they don't take the > > time to learn it. > > I believe that he is wrong, and I'll just play the Eno card: "a good > instrument has qualities that the body can learn and the mind cannot" > > electronic/computer/electro-acoustic/software instruments/controllers: > a total failure by this metric, except for one: > > http://createdigitalmusic.com/index.php?s=intimate+control+randall+jones He's wrong if you take 'they' as meaning 'all of them', but that was not what he intended to say. Some people are working on this, and ISTR that you posted another very interisting link about this some months ago. He's right is in the sense that in many cases a random result is accepted as satisfactory - which it can be of course. Another aspect is that even without fancy human interface hardware, even driving a mouse or just typing commands in a terminal can become something very 'physical' in the Eno sense if you take if far enough - yet many users don't take themselves that far. It requires *not* accepting a random result to get there, no matter what the interface is, a combination of mind and body. Ciao, -- FA O tu, che porte, correndo si ? E guerra e morte ! _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
