Why does having "too many" soft synths bother me?

[crimsonwarlock]

I was talking about this:

I know better than anyone else here about artistic expression, simplicity and so on. I would bet my life on that.

It's a pompous statement no matter how you look at it. The term 'God complex' comes to mind.

Same thing I said before applies here. Same to you really. You're going to assume I'm thoughtless enough to post that meaning what you interpret it to mean? Either you mean to accuse me of intentionally posting something I know is false, or you're saying I posted something without having considered it.

In truth it was a combination. I knew it was false, but I posted it in the context of the argument I was replying to. I stand by my assertion in that case.

If you want to expand the context to include people who actually do know as much or more than me regarding the definition of the word "art" and philosophy associated with it, that is not just moving the goal posts but changing the field.

As I said, I would have gone with "as much or better" if I was worried about offending those who apparently seek out reasons to be offended, but honestly I don't mind at all.

You are backtracking, that doesn't work (at least not with me). I'm not assuming anything, I'm just reading what you wrote. You can turn it around as much as you like, you still posted that. What I (or anyone else) makes of it is not relevant; you could have thought about how people would read it before posting it. You can not conduct the way people interpret what you post afterward, right or wrong. No matter what, it still remains a pompous statement.

[aciddose]

You are backtracking, that doesn't work (at least not with me). I'm not assuming anything, I'm just reading what you wrote. You can turn it around as much as you like, you still posted that. What I (or anyone else) makes of it is not relevant; you could have thought about how people would read it before posting it. You can not conduct the way people interpret what you post afterward, right or wrong. No matter what, it still remains a pompous statement.

You're missing out on the fact I did consider how people would read it before I posted it. Specifically I did consider white pointing out how it was obviously incorrect, which I laughed at. That is why I laughed even harder when he predictably posted "RIP Aciddose".

I was going to edit it to say "as much or better" and I did consider someone throwing a hissy over it, but then I considered the fact that I honestly don't care if those sort of people are offended because they choose to be anyway.

[whyterabbyt]

Very interesting! Could you name some whom you consider musical artists and any specific works you have in mind?

Well, for example, I'd suggest that the work of people like Shaeffer, Cage or Xenakis very obviously come under that; in terms of intent, I think that that generation or so of 'academic' composers gave us the benchmark for the exploration of how 'sound' and 'music' could potentially be defined and redefined.

"Suggesting" the work of the dead and canonized is indistinguishable from a timid appeal to authority (whether that's what it is, I cannot say).

So- living active artists who *are* artists, please. Otherwise you're merely engaging in foggy platitudes.[/quote]

Ah, my mistake. When you said you were interested, I took you at face value; I wasnt actually expecting to have to second-guess that you had some secret set of exclusions for deciding particular responses were invalid on entirely spurious grounds, like my choice of phrasing, or the mortality of anybody I chose to mention.

Im not quite sure why saying what I meant, and providing examples that didnt happen to suit some sort of hidden requirement is 'foggy platitudes' but since its clear this isnt actually 'interest' as much as it is you looking for some arbitrary excuse to dismiss any response, Ive got no interest in engaging. Which is a shame, it looked like it was actually a potential conversation, rather than the combative cock-waving it turned out to be.

[aciddose]

it still remains a pompous statement.

Honestly though I'm a bit curious why you're so certain it's a pompous statement?

Of course if you don't take it in any limited context sure, it's "god-complex" like, but that is really just looking for some reason to take it that way and if you do that day to day you should be offended by just about everything, even the sort of things no sane person would ever even consider being intended as an insult.

Part of interacting in a respectable social manner is to assume politeness from others. It isn't all about how you yourself behave, but also how you respond to others behavior. It takes an awful lot more balls in my opinion to smile and nod when you know someone has said something obviously wrong and I very much appreciate the nod I got from whyte, for example. That says to me he knows at least a bit about where I was coming from and doesn't take it seriously. To take it seriously you'd have to not know where I was coming from at all.

As for why it is pompous in the specific context it was said, not taken seriously however... I don't really understand how you could make that sort of assertion.

Do you honestly believe the majority of people who have an issue with "too many plugins" might understand more about limitations, simplicity, expression and so on than a person who creates their own instruments and other tools to use in private without concern for how the outside world may view the resulting works? Art or not, I don't really care as far as the stuff I do. In fact the stuff I do is atrocious crap that I wouldn't wish a listen of on my worst enemy. I appreciate it though and a lot more than music like it that I can get from elsewhere. I find myself constantly seeking out expression of the same sort coming from someone who is actually significantly skilled in the art, I have yet to locate that.

I do very much appreciate the works I do have access to and I find small personal "wanks" as some have put it to be far more interesting than music composed for any sort of "valid purpose". In fact these seem to be the only works I really appreciate and I find that sharing such works as part of a community of artists is a far more fulfilling experience than buying some album. I've had albums mailed to me, I've had them given to me, I've had many tracks as works-in-progress sent to me in various formats but never actually bought one because I don't have any real connection with the artist that way.

The really interesting bits from "famous" artists never see the light of day. Those little private "wanks" are rarely shared and when I've been a party to a "circle jerk", it has been great.

Regarding simplicity how many of us have composed a track on a toy xylophone? What about by whistling? How many of us have stuck with what works, what is practical and not sought after tools beyond the bare minimum?

I know some have, but I honestly have my doubts that many have. I think it is far more common to lust after tools we have no need for rather than pick one we love. This is made glaringly obvious by the suggestion that one should intentionally "limit" themselves to cure this disease of "too many tools". We're actually not all infected by this.

I think anyone who understands all of that knows where I was coming from and that it is obvious others do understand the same or more so it really need not be said. I've already typed it though, and I'm curious exactly what you mean when you say "pompous", so I'll post it anyway.

[vurt]

how many of us have composed a track on a toy xylophone?

hello

[aciddose]

how many of us have composed a track on a toy xylophone?

hello

You know it's all about the simple enjoyment of it then right? Or did you use it for the backing rhythm parts in your latest hit "happy" ?

I knew it, even your xylophone performance was motivated purely by commercial gain!

[vurt]

sometimes i have no electricity.

[aciddose]

I knew it! So even your xylophone performance was motivated purely by a lack of electricity!

[vurt]

we use what we have available.

[aciddose]

For a real wank you've got to use your hands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMeMEC-Jov4

[digitalboytn]

This is turning into a horrible thread

Everybody should stop now and move on to more positive things

[Aroused by JarJar]

Very interesting! Could you name some whom you consider musical artists and any specific works you have in mind?

Well, for example, I'd suggest that the work of people like Shaeffer, Cage or Xenakis very obviously come under that; in terms of intent, I think that that generation or so of 'academic' composers gave us the benchmark for the exploration of how 'sound' and 'music' could potentially be defined and redefined.

"Suggesting" the work of the dead and canonized is indistinguishable from a timid appeal to authority (whether that's what it is, I cannot say).

So- living active artists who *are* artists, please. Otherwise you're merely engaging in foggy platitudes.

Ah, my mistake. When you said you were interested, I took you at face value; I wasnt actually expecting to have to second-guess that you had some secret set of exclusions for deciding particular responses were invalid on entirely spurious grounds, like my choice of phrasing, or the mortality of anybody I chose to mention.

Im not quite sure why saying what I meant, and providing examples that didnt happen to suit some sort of hidden requirement is 'foggy platitudes' but since its clear this isnt actually 'interest' as much as it is you looking for some arbitrary excuse to dismiss any response, Ive got no interest in engaging. Which is a shame, it looked like it was actually a potential conversation, rather than the combative cock-waving it turned out to be.

So, you make statements about artists and art yet can not or will not point with conviction to a single living active artist (you were speaking of artists in the present test). Or even with conviction a dead artist, if you don't think there are any living, or if you believe that like sainthood the title cannot be granted til after death.

Yet you claim to want a "conversation".

[trimph1]

No cookies for you!!!

[trimph1]

Very interesting! Could you name some whom you consider musical artists and any specific works you have in mind?

Well, for example, I'd suggest that the work of people like Shaeffer, Cage or Xenakis very obviously come under that; in terms of intent, I think that that generation or so of 'academic' composers gave us the benchmark for the exploration of how 'sound' and 'music' could potentially be defined and redefined.

"Suggesting" the work of the dead and canonized is indistinguishable from a timid appeal to authority (whether that's what it is, I cannot say).

So- living active artists who *are* artists, please. Otherwise you're merely engaging in foggy platitudes.

Ah, my mistake. When you said you were interested, I took you at face value; I wasnt actually expecting to have to second-guess that you had some secret set of exclusions for deciding particular responses were invalid on entirely spurious grounds, like my choice of phrasing, or the mortality of anybody I chose to mention.

Im not quite sure why saying what I meant, and providing examples that didnt happen to suit some sort of hidden requirement is 'foggy platitudes' but since its clear this isnt actually 'interest' as much as it is you looking for some arbitrary excuse to dismiss any response, Ive got no interest in engaging. Which is a shame, it looked like it was actually a potential conversation, rather than the combative cock-waving it turned out to be.[/quote]

I think goal-posts are getting moved...

[Numanoid]

This is turning into a horrible thread

Everybody should stop now and move on to more positive things

More than usual of these lately, I've also been involved/contributed to a couple of threads that turned angry/nasty

I dunno why our moods turns sourer now, is it the stress of x-mas maybe