That's O.K.
-
Yes, it originated as a comment in one of my polemic posts somewhere in the middle of this thread, and I decided to sport it as my signature in the vein hope that through repetition - as with subliminal messages - people might think thrice about what they are, what they do, how, and who they think they're kidding (including themselves).
I encourage its flagrant and unlimited proliferation.
-
So what is ambiguous about this sentence rendering its understanding difficult? It is its repetition I was comparing to subliminal messages, not the sentence itself. On the contrary, this sentence's/aphorism's message is crystal clear, with no intentional - and I believe no perceivable - irony about it. It means exactly what it says:
-
-
Although to me it is self-evident what the message is, perhaps it is ambiguous to some. I don't wish to be misunderstood (by anyone who gives a crap what I say anyway):
My contention is that you either have to be able to notate your intentions, or if you can't read/write standard manuscript you then have to either be able to play everything in the sequencer, or if you're not a keyboardist, you have to be able to input every single MIDI event of your composition in step-time, with your mouse/keyboard, etc. ALL of it.
If on the other hand you think that orchestral composition is anything like dragging several tempo-compatible Apple-loops to the Arrange Page and mixing them, i.e. creating a track out of OTHER PEOPLE'S ideas, then the following was certainly inspired by - as well as addressing - you:
-
Hi Erik,
first of all thank's for your efford! Maybe I'm wrong but your LASS example on soundcloud sounds a lot like strings mono thru a stereo reverb. I have no relations with LASS at all. I just own the library as well, along with all of the other tested libraries and in their defense I must say I really think it can sound much better than this! ...well at least more stereo.
Best regards,
Oliver