|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-26-2010, 05:45 PM | #32 (permalink) | |
Partying on the inside
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,584
|
Quote:
But you're basically correct... because everything that makes up a computer is still in effect and necessary for the operation of the virtual instrument.... except for your massive library of pr0n. |
|
03-26-2010, 05:58 PM | #33 (permalink) | |
Juicious Maximus III
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Scabb Island
Posts: 6,525
|
Quote:
*deletes browser history*
__________________
Something Completely Different |
|
03-26-2010, 06:27 PM | #37 (permalink) | |
Mate, Spawn & Die
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The Rapping Community
Posts: 24,593
|
Quote:
Another thing with making music on a computer is it kind of ups the ante on what's expected of you as a musician. Whereas if you're a guitarist in a rock band your one and only job is to come up with the guitar parts, if you are an electronic musician you are responsible for coming up with the beat, the bass line, the melody, the whole nine yards. |
|
03-26-2010, 06:39 PM | #38 (permalink) | ||
D-D-D-D-D-DROP THE BASS!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
|
Quote:
You're completely missing the point. There is NO set definition of what a thing IS. It can be used AS something, or it can MEAN something given the correct framework, but its not set in stone what that thing means. There CAN be generally agreed upon meanings to an item, but the capability is always there for us to decide 'actually no, thats not what it is at all, its [x]' Meaning is contextual. I suggest you read up on semiotics. At the moment all I'm doing is repeating myself because you clearly aren't understanding my point.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
03-26-2010, 07:01 PM | #39 (permalink) | |
Unrepentant Ass-Mod
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,921
|
Quote:
Marcel Duchamp's material has little relevance to your argument; he was challenging the pre-existing traditional definition of "art", not of some simple concrete object like a musical instrument.
__________________
first.am |
|
03-26-2010, 07:06 PM | #40 (permalink) | ||
D-D-D-D-D-DROP THE BASS!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,730
|
Quote:
If I say 'Tree' to you, you think of a large leafy object. Or do you? If I say it with an irish inflection the same word means 'three' There is a lot more to determining the meaning of an object or a word than simply the object itself. Much like modernism failed because it sought to elevate art outside of the world, attempting to nail down a definition or meaning to an object without an understanding of whats happening AROUND that object is pointless. Nothing happens without being affected by everything else that happens. The renaissance held ideals about grand narratives and so on, that simply don't apply to a post-industrial society. Without that understanding though, the renaissance period in music makes a considerable deal less SENSE. We don't understand why composers thought the way they did about their music without that context of what was popular thinking at the time.
__________________
Quote:
|
||
|