Re: [microsound] live vs memorex

[Kevin Ponto <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Apr 7, 2005, at 6:54 PM, Kim Cascone wrote:
> so far I think the answer is that the marketing and packaging (and all 
> the attendant abstractions of desire this implies) condition people to 
> adopt a tool for a particular usage; it is not adopted by forming a 
> well informed opinion...

Your right, people didn't even consider Acid when searching for a 
performance tool because it wasn't marketed as a performance tool, and 
it wasn't marketed as a performance tool because it wasn't designed for 
performance.

If I need a really powerful MIDI sequencer, guess what? I'm not going 
to consider Pro Tools. Even though Pro Tools can handle MIDI 
sequencing, it's much less suited to the job than some other 
alternative like DP, Numerology or Logic, and therefore, not marketed 
to compete on those grounds.

> while your A/B comparison list is very helpful I see nothing listed on 
> it that would preclude one from using ACID as a live performance 
> instrument...

Look, there's nothing stopping people from using Acid for performance, 
but it's obvious to see why Live could be much more attractive. The 
ability to assign a physical controller to almost every parameter and 
the ability to perform most functions including rerecording and editing 
without missing a beat. You seriously don't see the advantage that 
could have in a live situation?

> I think the posts w/r/t my question make a point when it comes to how 
> software marketing dept's determine the constraints of an audio 
> tool...

No, while marketing in some areas is admittedly a soulless practice 
whose priests will certainly burn, audio software, for the most part, 
isn't one of those areas. Products are advertised to their strengths. 
Titles like Pro Tools, Acid and Cubase aren't advertised for 
performance not because the manufacturers don't want you to perform 
with them (they could care less how you use it) but because these 
titles aren't suited for those tasks.

What would happen if Finale was marketed as a powerful performance 
tool? They'd be laughed out of the market. Can you use Finale to 
perform? Sure! Same as you can use a couple of micro-cassette recorders 
to do multi-track recording sessions, or use a Studer 2" to take notes 
in class. Are those tasks the best use for those machines? Of course 
not.

> your logic seems to be as follows: 'the package didn't say someone 
> could use ACID to play live' so it was not used in that manner

No, look at it this way. Lets say you go into a store looking for some 
software that will allow you to perform you music on your laptop. You 
walk up to the software shelf and you see four software titles. Two of 
these software titles say things like "Perfect for scoring films, 
remixing, 5.1 mixing, notation, scoring for websites, etc.", while the 
other two say things like "Perfect for live performance, extensive 
realtime control over almost every parameter, record/remix/resample 
without stopping the music.". You are going to consider the two that 
say they were built for the purpose you have in mind. If those two turn 
out to be crappy, you might then start looking around at other options. 
As it happened though, Live turned out not to be crappy, so word of 
mouth spread.

> ...if this were the case then why did many artists perform live with 
> Pro Tools, Sound Editor, GranuLab, Soundhack, etc. when laptop 
> performances starting becoming more commonplace in the late 90's?
> these were also considered 'studio tools' and not 'live performance 
> instruments' yet that didn't prevent people from using them in that 
> manner...

Because due to a lack of performance oriented software, these were the 
best tools available. Now there is a tool better suited for 
performance, why shouldn't it be used?

> is Ableton's market penetration so deep because it says on the box 
> that you can use Live for performing live?

Yes. And why does it say on the box that it's good for performance? 
Because it is. And why doesn't Acid say on the box that's it's good for 
performance? Because it isn't.

> I think the distinction between the two (i.e., 'live performance 
> instrument' vs studio 'tool') is really a manipulation of perception 
> or how a marketing dept spins a product...

Kim, I really respect your writings and your work, but that statement, 
in this context, is utter nonsense. Live was created specifically for 
performance, Acid was created specifically for using loops in the 
studio, and both of the product's features reflect that.

Is a Ford pickup better than a Ferrari for hauling bricks simply 
because the commercial says so? Of course not. The commercial say so 
because it is. Is the Ferrari faster than the Ford pickup because the 
commercial says so? Of course not. The Ford was designed to haul bricks 
and the Ferrari was designed to go fast. I don't see the problem with 
advertising what your product was designed to do.

Here's a question for you. If Live had been an open source project that 
continued down the exact release path that it has with all the same 
features, but with no marketing at all and no mention of performance 
usage, would it have still caught the attention of the performance 
crowd and bested Acid?

k:p


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org