Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:11 pm
by duffman91
dmmh wrote:and someone who makes computer music composes and plays......moe cellphonage
:icon19: Christ you're such an idiot. :lol:
:lol: go back to believing your "article" :lol:
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:13 pm
by dmmh
ill find it when I can be arsed
tell me, what music do you listen to?
must be death metal or some crap
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:14 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
dmmh wrote:ill find it when I can be arsed
tell me, what music do you listen to?
must be death metal or some crap
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:18 pm
by duffman91
dmmh wrote:ill find it when I can be arsed
tell me, what music do you listen to?
must be death metal or some crap
hahahaha.
We share similar musical tastes. I also listen to alot of Brazilian music. What does that have to do with ANYTHING about this topic?
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:23 pm
by +JuggerNaut+
duffman91 wrote:dmmh wrote:ill find it when I can be arsed
tell me, what music do you listen to?
must be death metal or some crap
hahahaha.
We share similar musical tastes. I also listen to alot of Brazilian music. What does that have to do with ANYTHING about this topic?
nothing.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:24 pm
by dmmh
ill prove my words
just be patient
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:27 pm
by Fjoggs
Anyone can download Reason 3 these days, but not everyone can snag an orchestra.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:43 pm
by dmmh
I can hear the difference between Reason 3 and music created with real hardware. Thats whats Duffman doesnt get and what defines the art of good electronical music
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:02 pm
by duffman91
dmmh wrote:I can hear the difference between Reason 3 and music created with real hardware. Thats whats Duffman doesnt get and what defines the art of good electronical music
Only person "not getting" anything is yourself. I'm still waiting on your so called article.
Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:09 pm
by sys0p
dmmh wrote:riddla wrote:looping samples of someone else's music = bleh.
BS
good computer music is artistically more complicated to make then classical music, recent studies have shown
get yer 'facts' straight
hahahahahhahahahaha what a complete fucking prick
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:29 am
by Testoclesius
piddlas all upset :lol:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 12:38 am
by Testoclesius
gay fantasies from piddla :lol: sorry mate i dont swing that way :lol:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:05 am
by U4EA
Well, this thread certainly gave me a bit of a chuckle.
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:06 am
by Testoclesius
i didnt say that mate thats just you editing a quote because ive destroyed you so badly youve been left completely defenseless :lol:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:45 am
by DRuM
One simply can not compare the complexity of classical music to computer music. A 100 musicians in an orchestra playing together takes years of practise to attain the necessary skills to pull off something like the 1812 or beethovens 5th. When they're performing, they really don't have the luxury of quantising and multitracking.
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:01 am
by +JuggerNaut+
DRuM wrote:One simply can not compare the complexity of classical music to computer music. A 100 musicians in an orchestra playing together takes years of practise to attain the necessary skills to pull off something like the 1812 or beethovens 5th. When they're performing, they really don't have the luxury of quantising and multitracking.
that's not the argument. he thinks that it's easier to compose classical music :lol:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:26 am
by Testoclesius
yep youre right mate :lol: its blindingly obvious how retarded you are :lol: dont bother asking your dog though mate :lol:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:45 am
by Testoclesius
poor defenseless piddlas been reduced to quote edits again :lol: too easy :lol:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:13 am
by saturn
lol sander :icon19:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:15 am
by +JuggerNaut+
i know, right.
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:31 am
by dmmh
+JuggerNaut+ wrote:DRuM wrote:One simply can not compare the complexity of classical music to computer music. A 100 musicians in an orchestra playing together takes years of practise to attain the necessary skills to pull off something like the 1812 or beethovens 5th. When they're performing, they really don't have the luxury of quantising and multitracking.
that's not the argument. he thinks that it's easier to compose classical music :lol:
thats not what I said, but you cunts just go ahead and take it as you want
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:32 am
by dmmh
riddla wrote:Show us techno 'musicians' who can *simultaneously* compose and perform without having a pre-recorded loop or something not already pre-programmed. I can name thousands of real musicians that can and do, primarily in the Jazz world.
You call it playing an instrument; those of us who actually play instruments and understand music theory call it sorely pathetic wannabe hacking with the use of multiple crutches.
Get over yourself. You like it, but that in no way makes it artistically on the level of a real musician who has paid their dues and actually studied theory to the point of mastering it without electronic aid and a 'band in a box'.
Anyone can program loops, takes about as much talent as programming a VCR :lol:
where did I say techno...or where did I specifically pointed at a certain genre of computer music/ house music?
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:38 am
by dmmh
techno is just a house style, not the collective for all computer music.
americans dont know dick about house music, even though it started in Detroit/ Chicago
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:05 am
by +JuggerNaut+
dmmh wrote:
thats not what I said, but you cunts just go ahead and take it as you want
you're right, you said this
dmmh wrote:good computer music is artistically more complicated to make then classical music....
:lol:
Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:09 am
by dmmh
thanks for proving my point
this is not my opinion lol, its just what a study has shown
lol @ all the ppl falling over this