On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 10:43:12AM -0400, David Santamauro wrote:
> I see that analogy as very fitting but the conclusion as simply wrong. A
I don't think the analogy is fitting at all. A novelist's or poet's
art does not consist of being able to write or push keys on a keyboard.
It consists of creating a good text. He/she could just dictate it to
someone writing it down or typing it, and nothing would be lost.
Now you could argue that a composer's art does not consist of being
able to play all the instruments he/she writes for. So why not use
a computer to find out how things sound. Simple fact is that anyone
deserving to be called a composer does not depend on being able to
hear the exact reproduction of what he/she writes. Entire songs,
musicals, symphonies have been orchestrated or arranged rather well
by composers (not only the classical ones) just sitting at their desk,
or at most using a piano. They can do this because they know their
trade. Which takes some time to learn.
What we see today is a lot of people 1) unable to play any instrument
or sing and 2) unable to create any music except by trial and error
aided by technology. Yet they'd call themselves a musician. By that
measure, they could call themselves painters, sculptors, writers,
dancers, and whatever they want.
There are three of them, and Alleline.
Linux-audio-user mailing list