Marc Mouries <m...@mouries.net> writes: > On 3/17/2011 10:57 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Marc Mouries<m...@mouries.net> writes: >> >>> This is intellectually interesting but the question is not "who >>> deserves to create good music?" but rather "who wants to listen to >>> music made by someone that does not practice?" and who wants to listen >>> to music played by a computer? Sure many times, nowadays, the >>> rendition of a computer playing is quite good but who cares? Art >>> conveys emotions which are the one thing that make us human and thus >>> should be played by human. >> Uh, you never heard of the concept of an "actor" or "play", I suppose? >> Emotions don't need to exist at the sender's side in order to be >> conveyed to a receiver. > yep but it's much easier to believe a person acting or playing than a > robot.
Huh? You believe actors are for _real_? > If i see a robot or computer playing and it's nice, you will think > "nice programming" but i don't think it can bring tears or joy. Because it does not act? That's sort of ridiculous. Compare, say, the Bach solo partitas played by Jascha Heifetz and Gideon Kremer and try looking at their "acting". Kremer plays brutal and "expressive", Heifetz rather nonchalantly and straightforwardly. Kremer sounds like he is really working hard at butchering Bach. Heifetz lets the music run. Much less distracting, and leaves much more of a chance to let _Bach_ move you to tears. That Bach that died so many centuries ago and left us only unfeeling black dots on paper. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
