[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [microsound] shades of grey



jesus christ, cant you people foresee the futility of this conversation?

why don't you discuss the war or the existence or god or the yeti?

or lets just send each other blank emails all day because as far as I'm
concerned  this thread is a intellectual/technological equivalent of pissing
into the wind.

grrrrr

----- Original Message -----
From: "graham" <grahammiller@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "microsound" <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [microsound] shades of grey

> here we go again...
>
> why would anyone think that interfaces and technology would have any
bearing or
> influence whatsoever on musical aesthetics, creative direction, or
originality  -
> what a totally utterly completely absurd idea! jimi hendrix would still be
jimi
> hendrix even he played kazoo right? right? i mean it's just a shell right?
> anyone? anyone? bueller?
>
> neil@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > acctually I happen to compeatly disagree with you if you know how to use
> > the patch all the patch becomes is a shell through which to make music
> > like any other max patch....
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2003, A J wrote:
> >
> > > yeah ... it's like shawn's camel toe patch...it runs itself basically
(quite
> > > nicely, if i may add).  just because i chose my own samples, doesn't
mean
> > > the composition is solely mine. it's more mr. hatfields' creation than
my
> > > own.  that's how i feel about this issue.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Shawn Hatfield <twerk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >Reply-To: microsound <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >To: microsound <microsound@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > >Subject: Re: [microsound] shades of grey
> > > >