Well first off, when I say it's easy, I don't mean it's going to write your tracks or patterns for you. It will just allow you to to stepsequence any synth parameter, and build patterns quick. What you do with that stuff is up to you. It doesn't make beats for you or anything...
Second, I'm a socialist, and I think the "means of production" should be available to everyone. The tools already exist if you buy them, so I want to make some free software, as in "free pizza" and "free beer" that can do it. Also, I think it would be nice to have free tools to teach with.
So you are right, cost IS the reason to simulate an analog synth. No way a working guy like me can afford an analog synth and the gear to record it right, besides it won't fit in my tiny studio apartment.
Finally, I think academic researchers can worry about how to "try out new techniques and create new and original sounds". I think the technique has to match the aesthetic goals, and will vary from project to project. When I make beat oriented music, it's usually played at a party, it's not for a bunch of chin strokers to analyze. I'm happy to see booties shaking and people smiling than to think about how innovate and deep I have to be. Sorry if that doesn't match some bourgeois "high art" concept and sounds like "entertainment" to everyone... I do other music that is more "serious" though, I say everything has its place.
~David
Peter Worth wrote:
i'm skeptical about the concept of making idm etc easy to create. i've always thought the point of his kind of music is to try out new techniques and create new and original sounds. if its easy to do, and a producer is just painting by numbers then the result is probably going to be formulaic to say the least.
i suppose cost is a reason to simulate an analog sound. hardware can get quite pricey.