More opinions.

Yeah. I got an opinion.
1. Hardly anybody I know listens to algorithmic compositions, and I don't
know what a humaniser is. But lots of people like to make music, and
keyboards are a pretty good design for making it easily, and accompanying
others.
2. Technology has changed, but human nature has remained more-or-less the
same, for millennia. The music of the past still speaks to people in a way
that lots of music of the present doesn't -- and it sounds best on the
instruments it was written for.

Judy
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Sarn Richard Ursell wrote:

> Keyboards are obsolete, at least in my opinion, what, today with sequencers
> and humanisers, and now AI composition, and algorithmic composition?
>
> Any opinions?
>
>

Judy,

You sure do have an opinion...... :o)

You act like I have insulted you.
I ment no offence, what so ever.

One of my hobbies, and in fact-a fasination with me is AI composition,
whereby the computer composes music, at the control of a few parameters.

You may want to check out David Cope's SARA, he has two books available from
A-R editions.

If you read my last post very, VERY CAREFULLY, you will notice that I made
ABSOLUTELY NO negative comments towards life music at all.

In my opinion, the best sort of music is a BLEND, a HYBRID of live, sampled,
synthesized, sequenced music.

A "humanizer", is, a computer algorithm, (or set of rules, always leading to
a solution, or result), that adds a "rough quality" to perfectly in time
music, the kind of roughness that a live drummer would make, as would a live
keyboardist.

We must move with the times.
Face reality.

Look, I did not say that algorithmic composition was better than human
composed music, and believe it, for every one of your friends, relatives and
equaintances who DOSEN'T listen to complexity, genetic, Brownian,
Stochastic, chaotic, or prime number music, there are many people on the
planet who do.

Check the Internet.

The proof is "in the pudding".

Sarn.