From: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org (alloy-digest) To: alloy-digest@smoe.org Subject: alloy-digest V5 #300 Reply-To: alloy@smoe.org Sender: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-alloy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk X-To-Unsubscribe: Send mail to "alloy-digest-request@smoe.org" X-To-Unsubscribe: with "unsubscribe" as the body. alloy-digest Friday, December 15 2000 Volume 05 : Number 300 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Alloy: TMDR interview on the web [Robin Thurlow ] Alloy: TMDR/Josh Gabriel interview [Robin Thurlow ] Alloy: Josh's quote (cont'd) [Robin Thurlow ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 13:27:18 -0500 From: Robin Thurlow Subject: Alloy: TMDR interview on the web I can't remember if anyone's pointed this out yet, but there's an interesting interview with TMDR and his fellow Beatnik, Josh Gabriel, at MacAddict.com The interview is located here: http://macaddict.com/magazine/plugin/pros/dolby_gabriel.html I've always wantd to learn more about the differences between mac and PC in terms of what they're each best for. I know that Dave has worked extensively on both & he thinks PCs are far more reliable in terms of visual art... but in this interview Thomas says Macs are better for creating both music and graphics. Perhaps it depends on what sort of visual art you're doing? Thomas also says the Macs are more pliant and forgiving, for creative purposes, that PCs are. This reminds me of the artistic differences between playing an Amati and playing a Strad violin. The Amati has a more 'organic', gentle feel to its sound, while the Strad is far more precise & clear... and if you make one mistake on it, it'll stand out, and not be morphed in with the rest of the ringing notes around it as it might be on an Amati. Both are gorgeous instruments - but the artist's choice would depend on what he or she wanted to express. Showing off one's technically perfect technique is more impressively done on a Strad for example. Are such things paralleled in the difference between Macs and PCs for artists, or am I going off on a really unrelated tangent? Robin T ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 17:30:47 -0500 From: Robin Thurlow Subject: Alloy: TMDR/Josh Gabriel interview In the MacAddict interview, Josh Gabriel says: "Theres this constant evolution of the tools and the music kind of doing this dancethats the whole musical evolution process. [So] you end up with something that you never would have imagined because the tools allowed you to get there. I mean, everything is technology except for rocks and sticks. I mean, even a cello is technology." Nice to hear that "even a cello" is technology (LOL!!!) and compared so closely with rocks and sticks. Funny that I made that analogy before about makes of violins/types of computers. Guess I was way off after all... I won't get into the incredible precision and years of experience that go into making a good cello (which will become another artist's 'voice' in performance) because it would take too long... but it's a little more advanced than typing code, let's just say. Robin T dissed!!! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 16:45:49 -0800 From: Jon Drukman Subject: Re: Alloy: TMDR interview on the web At 01:27 PM 12/14/00 -0500, Robin Thurlow wrote: >I can't remember if anyone's pointed this out yet, but there's an >interesting interview with TMDR and his fellow Beatnik, Josh Gabriel, at >MacAddict.com Josh Gabriel! I remember that guy. I did a track for the very first Mixman product ever. Josh was very cool. >The interview is located here: >http://macaddict.com/magazine/plugin/pros/dolby_gabriel.html interesting reading, although i disagree with what they say about mac vs pc. i started out on mac, in fact i worked at opcode (the place that made Vision, that TD refers to in the interview) which was a mac only house. now i'm on windows and it's just fine for making tunes. almost all the software is cross platform and identical on both boxes now. >I've always wantd to learn more about the differences between mac and PC >in terms of what they're each best for. I know that Dave has worked >extensively on both & he thinks PCs are far more reliable in terms of >visual art... but in this interview Thomas says Macs are better for >creating both music and graphics. Perhaps it depends on what sort of >visual art you're doing? i think a lot of it is personal bias and prejudices based on past experience. windows lagged behind the mac in terms of software for years. for years people said "you can only do graphic design on macs". now there are huge design houses that use PCs exclusively. the software is identical on both systems anyway now. i was pretty biased against windows for music for the longest time. and when i was at opcode, it certainly fueled that. (plus, at the time, the pc really was the poor stepchild in terms of music software/hardware). but today, forget it - they are pretty much the same. in fact, when i started dipping my toes into windows for music production, i made sure to buy products that would work on either windows or mac. just in case windows turned out to suck, i could still use everything i had purchased. now i don't even have to think consciously about it when i buy something - it all works on both systems. (there is one notable exception: my current favorite music creation program, Acid, only exists on windows, and probably will never exist on mac since the company that makes it is violently anti-Mac. see www.sonicfoundry.com and download Acid Xpress to try it out for free if you are a windows user). >Thomas also says the Macs are more pliant and >forgiving, for creative purposes, that PCs are. This reminds me of the >artistic differences between playing an Amati and playing a Strad >violin. The Amati has a more 'organic', gentle feel to its sound, while >the Strad is far more precise & clear... and if you make one mistake on >it, it'll stand out, and not be morphed in with the rest of the ringing >notes around it as it might be on an Amati. Both are gorgeous >instruments - but the artist's choice would depend on what he or she >wanted to express. Showing off one's technically perfect technique is >more impressively done on a Strad for example. Are such things >paralleled in the difference between Macs and PCs for artists, or am I >going off on a really unrelated tangent? i really think it comes down to a modern day form of superstition. computers are weird and unpredictable to a lot of people. there isn't any quality to the tools that "feels" different on one box or another (providing both systems are properly installed and configured). cubase on mac looks and runs just like cubase on windows. actually, on a mailing list i'm on, some guy just said "Reason on PC sucks compared to Reason on mac!" i pointed out that they are identical, and his problems stemmed from improperly configured sound card drivers. (reason is yet another amazing cross platform program... check out the demo at www.propellerheads.se) - -jsd- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:34:01 -0500 From: Robin Thurlow Subject: Alloy: Josh's quote (cont'd) I wrote: I won't get into the incredible precision and years of experience that go into making a good cello (which will become another artist's 'voice' in performance) because it would take too long... but it's a little more advanced than typing code To explain a bit... my problem, and I think it's the reason I'm reacting this way, is that I'm tired of the fact that so much excruciatingly detailed and long term physical and mental work goes into making traditional instruments, from carefully stored and aged cuts of wood all the way through to the finished piece, with each step requiring a different combination of the maker's skills.... these include everything from artistic ability in 3-D design to use of the senses (they all come into play, including 'taste', ie when working with varying levels of acids in the wood), understanding of physics, trained eye for detail and composition, aptitude for accuracy up to one-tenth of a millimeter in every measurement including thicknessing, safely working with razor-sharp (sometimes double-edged) hand tools which we make and grind ourselves, and even physical strength and endurance especially with cello and bass making, when hollowing out the gigantic plates - but none of this seems to be recognized as anything of value anymore in a society that's based around velocity rather than craft. This is the second time this week I've read something in a tech mag that seemed to cast traditional music/instruments in a 'primitive' light and I'm beginning to feel like I have to defend myself. I hope you understand. I'm certain Josh Gabriel didn't mean to hurt my feelings, though (!!!) and was just making an interesting point about common instruments that most readers probably wouldn't have considered a part of technology, and was a reasonable thing to say. I'm also certain that most people who read electronic/computer-based music technology articles aren't going to give a rip about the craft of cello-making to begin with, so I should just shut up and stop being so ridiculous. Most of all, I don't mean to insult anyone who works with computers by saying that making a cello is more demanding and complex than typing code.... I know most people here work with computers and can be very artistic with them & I'm not trying to pull any kind of elitist crap on anyone here. As I've said here many times over, I feel very deeply that both traditional and computer-based instruments deserve great respect and are tools of equal importance in the hands of the artists who create and perform on them. It'd just be nice if instruments like cellos were given the same recognition in the music world these days as things that are made of code. Robin T ------------------------------ End of alloy-digest V5 #300 ***************************