Re: [microsound] Re: software synthesizers : disappointment?

[Bill Jarboe <billjarboe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 2/04/02 12:54 PM, Derek Holzer at republikasleazka@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> ----Original Message Follows----
> From: Bill Jarboe <billjarboe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> I was a bit disappointed when you wrote that you use 'Reaktor' live, since
> you are one of my three favorite electronic composers and that seems a bit
> obvious( I guess as long as it sounds ok. . . ).
> 
> 0)))))))))))
> 
> does this mean we have to go over the relative [de]merits of Reaktor till
> the cows come home now, too? i'm inclined to see it as another visual
> programming language, like MAX, and a bit less 'obvious' than you think,
> especially if you are trying to think outside the dance-music box.
> 
> regardless, inspiration lies far away from the GUI. this mystique that we
> all have to program our own software, build our own hardware, recite our own
> code backwards and dream up our own patches in our sleep (well, three out of
> four ain't bad!) does seem to hide our own artistic intentions behind a veil
> of techno-babble. talk to many folks working in the technological arts, and
> get them to de-mystify a 'trade secret' or two--their gimmicks--if you will.
> 9 times out of 10, you will end up 'a bit disappointed'.
> 
> likewise, if your conception is muddled and your execution ham-fisted, all
> the digital smoke, mirrors and delays can't hide it.


  I like Reaktor; I imagined taylor deupree using more hardware or something
'exotic.' -glad you made the points about inspiration and artistic
intentions.