Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
At 11:42 AM -0600 11/14/07, kkissinger@kevinkissinger.com wrote:
>
>One of the differences between computers and dedicated equipment is
>that dedicated equipment is more intuitive. When one is struggling
>with complex signal routings, levels, and automation in an
>environment such as Cubase, one can easily feel like one's
>creativity is being sucked out of them.
>
>To avoid such feelings, I approach a new piece of software by doing
>my own personal learning/study sessions. My goal is NOT to make
>music but, rather, to learn the environment. To master a package
>such as Cubase takes a lot of time and there are many functions in
>Cubase that I haven't even explored. My approach is to learn enough
>that I can do basic i/o and processing and then to master particular
>functions one-by-one.
Kevin,
One of the points that your (and Fabio's later) post brings up is
that we each seem to be juggling two minds here. No, I'm not
referring specifically the hardware vs. software debate either.
Rather, what we are juggling here are the roles of "instrument
performer" vs. "instrument builder".
Looking back at a hundred years there was still a differentiation of
roles here. A violin player, for instance, could tell if an
instrument played well or if it had ringing/dead notes where the
natural resonating frequencies caused problems. But he was usually
ill-equipped to fix or build a new instrument. On the other hand,
luthiers specialized in crafting wonderful-sounding instruments but,
while usually having very good playing skills, would probably laugh
themselves silly if you asked them to play a Kreisler arrangement
onstage.
Today, we have the tools at hand to build wonderful instruments. I
would contend that an "instrument" is not just the strict definition
of sole musical device -- like a guitar or saxophone -- but every
single device in the chain between our physical bodies and the
acoustic vibrations in the air. Even outside of modern technology
today, we have guitarists who are obsessed with "tone" -- finding the
perfect instrument, the perfect amp, the perfect distortion pedal,
etc., etc., etc. This has much more to do with instrument building
than instrument performing. And shall we even mention the
intricacies of CD mastering, and such recording arts? Modern
technology has now made us all builders as well as musicians.
The point is, I think we would have much less heartburn if we could
recognize and acknowledge the time spent building an instrument, as
opposed to the time playing and mastering that instrument. Most of
the complaints I hear are related to unexpectedly spending time in
one area (usually building/debugging) when our expectation was that
we were going to be engaged in the other area (playing).
If we can get used to compartmentalizing those roles into their
chosen times, I think we could be much happier overall. That means
dedicating scheduled time to building and tweeking all the bugs out
of a setup until it works just how it's supposed to. Then WALK AWAY
AND LEAVE IT ALONE. Later, come back and work on mastering making
good music on that setup. If something goes wrong, make a note but
leave it until the next build slot comes up.
Of course, that's not a perfect solution. But I think we need to
each make a mental distinction: "Today, I am building an instrument",
or "Today, I am gaining mastery of my music." Otherwise, the whole
hardware vs. software debate merely becomes a smokescreen to hide the
real problems.
--m.
--
_____
"the wind in my heart; the dust in my head...."