[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index][
Thread Index][
Author Index]
Re: Re: Re: rhythm sequencers software
On 7/22/64 11:59 AM, Per Boysen wrote:
> Excuse me, but I don't think I used the phrase "realistic" anywhere
> ;-) IMHO the point in utilizing random variations for electronics is
> not to make it sound as if a drummer is playing - that would just be
> too lame and usually sounds lame too! The point in using algorithmic
> randomization of audio is to make it sound interesting as algorithmic
> randomization of audio! To be clear, what I said is that I think RMX
> has excellent randomization algorithms and therefore is hard to beat -
> in THAT field.
Yeah, Per, I hear you.
When I first fell in love with drum machines in the middle 70's, one of
the things
I did like about them is that you could play percussion that DIDN'T
sound like
real drumming.
I think that I was trying to address a certain kind of mentality that
thinks,
"ooooh, static drums are bad and mechanistic feeling so if we just
program
a bunch of stuff into a drum machine it will sound more realistic."
I've fought that mentality for all of my programming and drum studio
playing career.
You, of all people, I know , has a very sophisticated and forward
thinking agenda
in your sense of composition, so I really wasn't talking about you.
So, yeah, baby, I agree with everything you said. Thanks for the
clarification
and I hope mine helps as well.
I guess it's always good to take these dialectics to the list anyway as
it stimluates a
lot of thought.
yours, Rick