On Mon, August 6, 2012 8:37 am, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > Everybody claims digital is better and everybody claims the > artist today are less good. And I always say, the artists today are very > good, but much of the technology is weak. > However, I shut up ;).
I would put it a bit different... I don't know about equipment quality. But at the least the general public is led away from listening to anything that that really shows art, that is communicates the artist's heart. Certainly even very good artists have their artistry squashed by distribution companies if they wish to make good money. (speaking music here) In my mind the tools have changed very little except for in price. The best expression of artistry in music to my mind is still the live performance in a relatively small venue, perhaps small enough that amplification is not needed... though I think the artist-audience linkage can still work bigger than that. Electronic/electric tools still have a place in that expression however, I think in most cases these days, electronics are used for acoustic replacement (piano, orchestra) rather than adding a new medium to express the artist's vision. I think any artist has to have an audience in mind when creating their art. In the case of recording (music, images etc.) that will be shown later, the artist still needs to imagine the audience they are trying to reach. I personally find it much harder. I do a much better performance live. (more errors, but more communicative too) -- Len Ovens www.OvenWerks.net -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
