>>>I appreciate your analogy regarding music. We see it all of the time
You can add flutes and oboes to a track using actual oboes and flutes or you can use sampling. If the sound is the same, does it really matter? Does the fact that the performance is made up of fake instruments really matter? Perhaps it really does matter if you start considering just how long it takes to become a great oboe player, vs. using sampled sounds and a keyboard. The tracks can be slowed down; musical notes and rests can be added at leisure to obtain perfect tracks. You might be left with a song that sounds good, but how much should we credit the musician?
You might start to understand that there is a big difference between the fake music and playing the actual instruments. I can create entire orchestras of sounds in an afternoon using only a computer and no actual instruments. I can change oboes to banjos and flutes to pipe organs without worrying about where I left my oboe or borrowing a pipe organ.
Some people will object and some will see no problem with "cheating" because they like what they hear. There are purists that hate electronics mixed with music just like the photographic purists might dislike digital. Segovia had disdain for electric guitars, for example. In my opinion, he has that right because he was a master and he paid his does. If a local rock band decided to add an "orchestra" to one of their tracks, it might be skillfully done and it might sound nice, but it does not impress me, because they likely have no knowledge of strings and horns and such. The terms I understand, they do not, like "Tenuto" and "Fermata."
I think this is what bothers me about digital photography. Everything is too easy; the skills I learned have PS equivalents and no longer a need for a darkroom. Perhaps it is sour grapes.
The digital photographer might not know anything about color temperature and CC filters because he or she can fix it later. The question is, how many old school skills should all photographers be "required" to learn? If you are using film, you use color correction. If you use a digital camera, you use a PS filter. Both photographers have the same general needs and specific tools to fix and correct.
When I see a live performance, I am always amazed at the talent of the players. I know they paid their dues and they struggled for decades to hone their craft. When I listen to a studio fabrication, I might like the music, but I know how lazy the players are because they cheated. Unless you do not see any real difference between a skilled player and a push-button equivalent.
Then there are the great players that have demonstrable skills, and they use electronics from time to time. There is a big difference between me using cheats and Les Paul mixing it up with Mary Ford and a bag of electronic tricks. The big difference is this: LP could play and Mary could sing. Even though he used some nice tricks, he could play.
I have a device that takes the crap coming out of my guitar to create triplets. I pick one string and you hear three notes - whole, half, or 128th notes, for that matter. They can be the same notes with a little delay or three different notes; a chord played as an arpeggio for example. Add some delay, a little flange and a few multitrack recording tricks, and I am a one man band' apparently, a highly skilled harmonica player as well.
Scales are cool to play using the device and it makes me a "better" player. I am most certainly not a better player, but that probably does not matter to some listeners that could care less about the actual talent required. They are listening to a fabrication created through technology. It might provide great music, but it is music created by a hack with very few legitimate skills, compared to a Les Paul or a Segovia
I watch American Chopper and they have a computerized machine for creating some amazing wheels. They use computers to handle the heavy lifting. I also know a machinist that you should avoid using computers until you learn how to measure, cut, and mill by hand. Old school talent objecting to the modern world because (I suspect) is far easier now than it was in 1955, so you really do not need to learn much.
But does it matter? Which shows more skill and perhaps deserves more respect: someone that can machine an engine from blocks raw aluminum and iron, or a machinist that simply loads programs and pushes buttons? The end result is likely the same, so it perhaps really does not matter. My machinist friend used "cheats" as well; compared to his father, who might also object to how easy the kids have it "today" compared to his day. By the way, I would use the computerized mill if I owned one rather than tackle a costly block of billet.
As for digital photography, it does not matter (I think I am changing) if you correct everything in PS. I learned how to use filters and film because that was my only option. With digital photography, you must (generally) use PS (or some other manipulation program) because that is your only option.
There are professional photographers that have very few photographic skills. They likely have never walked into a darkroom. But does this really matter these days? I personally think photographers should know about the tricks and techniques I needed to learn, but that is perhaps an unfair requirement, because they have no pressing need to learn many of the things they would have needed to know if there was no digital options. I am fixing some mirror pictures for an upcoming book, and I (think) I am glad I can do it using Corel Photo Paint.
Bob ...
Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com |
