Re: [microsound] OK, I know said I wasn't going to answer but...

[Ed Hall <edhall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Face it, making electronic music has been, by its nature, very expensive
until quite recently.  That, as much as anything, is why practitioners
were pretty much limited to universities -- and corporations.  It hasn't
been until the last several years that more than a few independently wealthy
individuals could afford to buy all their own gear.  Today, you can get all
the gear and software needed to produce computer music for about the same
amount of money as a quality acoustic instrument.  In fact, you can pay
less.

You can get a $150 used computer, and with the help of some downloaded
software have more music-producing power than all of Bell Labs back when
Max Matthews was inventing computer music in the 1960's.  Throw in a
$50 CD burner and you can become your own mini-label.  It's just about
as DIY as you can get.

But this is beside the point.  As I understand it, the "materialism"
criticism was directed at people who spent big bucks on hardware and
software, and expect it to somehow improve the quality of the music
they produced.  It's materialism when you define your worth by what
you own and not what you can do with what you have.  It doesn't
necessarily depend on how much you make or how much you spend, it's
the attitude that "stuff" is what matters and not effort and ability.
"If I could only afford a platinum flute," the reasoning goes, "I
could play like Jean-Pierre Rampal."

The refusal of some folks here to get the point sounds like so much
sour grapes to me.

		-Ed