>how is it any less of an "artform" when technology is involved?
I ain't got nothing against technology. I think you're missing the point. Technology can make for better creativity or it can hamper it, it's not an either/or argument. Do you really want to watch some dude just press a few buttons on a computer, a pre-planned set, there could be no spontaneity, by default. It would be as boring as hell. Any fool could use the new system as it would be a relative cinch. I am sure the turntablism will change but in a way that the DJ is still DJing, not the computer programme. >Please don't waste my time arguing practicalities like "mp3s don't sound >as good" or "computers crash!" - and don't waste my time telling me vinyl >is superior becuase it's what "we've always used." So what? It's >romantic notions like that that'll hold the music back and let it >stagnate. Of course there's room to acknowledge the past, but there's >also plenty of room to move forward... the problem with accepting new >technology might be striking a balance between the two... but denying new >technology because it's not what we've always used is not the solution. Well romantic notions are not so bad, and romantic notions can change with the times. "Art" is a romantic notion to begin with, so maybe if you wish to abandon them all you can abandon that one and we can approach music in a purely practical, methodical way, boring ourselves in the process, but no one here has said what you have above. Again, it's not an either or argument.
