[John Williamson]

On 21/12/2014 22:40, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

On 20/12/2014 3:36 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:

There's more ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes. That especially
applies to creative people such as musicians.

So you swallow the clever advertising brain-washing that implies if
you are an MacAddict you are therefore creative ? You are not alone
there - they were very cunning the way they deliberately contrived to
instil that thinking into artists of several types.

The vast majority of creative people use Macs because Macs are more
suited to creative work. Plus, they're less problematic; you don't get
cryptic "registry errors" for example. And they aren't nearly as prone
to viruses. And Macs are more logically designed. But you wouldn't know
much about logic.

Creative people in the graphics art area now use Macs because they had
the first decent DTP programme, and as newspapers and magazines like
using a lot of good pictures, that was leveraged into forcing
programmers to write other graphics programs for the Macintosh, because
Macs had the best displays in the 1980s. In other words, they now use
Macs because they always have. Nowadays, it's as easy to use Windows as
Mac OS, and the reliability is about the same on both platforms. Both
types of computer even use the same chips now that Apple have gone over
to Intel processors. This is why a lot of previously Mac only programs
are now available for Windows (And more than a few will also run on
Linux, but that's a different discussion). For a long time, musicians
wouldn't touch Macs, as their choice of computer (Mostly the Atari) had
better sound quality, better software, and handled MIDI better than
anything else.

Macs have traditionally been easier to use and more reliable due to
Apple's insistence on making a walled garden, controlling both the
software and the hardware tightly. They have now knocked down a few of
the walls round their garden with the inevitable results. PC users, on
the other hand have always had complete freedom to use whatever hardware
and software they wish. I could even run most Mac software perfectly
well on a PC before the reverse was true.

In other words, Mac users have swallowed the marketing hype hook, line
and sinker. Macs insist you do the job the Mac way, which you dismiss
(Only one way to do the job, not the computer being a Mac) as being
inherently inefficient, whereas in Windows there are many ways to do
most jobs, and you can choose which is best for you, which you claim is
a more inherently efficient way to work.

If you spent some more time learning about Macs instead of bashing them,
and bashing users like me, you would know these well-known facts and you
might actually discover why Macs are superior.

So speaks a true Mac fanboi. They're not better or worse than Windows
computers, they're just different.

Also, I'm a Mac user because that's what I've come accustomed to using
for 20 years -- not because I'm an addict.

Dummy.

You are the dummy for being afraid to try something new, which will
probably give you better results after a short learning period.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 22/12/2014 10:20 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

If you hadn't attacked me by calling me a high school kid

Before you explained who you are, or you think you are or pretend to be,
your posts here gave most people the distinct impression you were a
likely a self-opinionated petulant teen. Little has changed.

wet behind the
ears, and other insults such as having a "turd-filled" brain,

Not me.

I'm filled with button-busting pride.I wouldn't have displayed that,
but
you forced me too by calling me names, such as ignorant and kid.

You haven't demonstrated anything here to be proud about. And your
refusal doesn't add to your credibility. Your self-importance and
button-busting pride comes across as nothing more than cheap talk.


No.I didn't write that and didn't even imply that and the idea never
even occurred to me.You really have a way of twisting people's words
dramaticlly.You've totally misinterpreted almost everything I've written
in this thread, to the point that you've made yourself look like a
fool.Where did I write that being a Mac Addict would make me creative.I
guarantee you won't find that quote anywhere in this thread or any other.

You didn't, but you appear to be prime example of the arrogance
displayed by such devotees.

You should stop advising me because the more you write, the more you
show your stupidity and you keep on insulting me with false insults and
I'm beginning to wonder if you're a troll or is it just that you're stupid?

Oh it's me, and everybody else here, who are the stupid ones. Clearly.

Also, giving a link to my only published song would be misleading
because it's only one genreand I'm interested in a variety of
instrument sounds.

And all the other stuff you are so fantastic at ?

This, too, shsould be obvious to an intelligent
person,

Well that counts me out, apparently.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/12/2014 11:40 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:


The vast majority of creative people use Macs because Macs are more
suited to creative work. Plus, they're less problematic; you don't get
cryptic "registry errors" for example. And they aren't nearly as prone
to viruses. And Macs are more logically designed. But you wouldn't know
much about logic.

If you spent some more time learning about Macs instead of bashing them,
and bashing users like me, you would know these well-known facts and you
might actually discover why Macs are superior.

Also, I'm a Mac user because that's what I've come accustomed to using
for 20 years -- not because I'm an addict.

Dummy.

Tom

Hook, line, and sinker apparently.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/12/2014 10:43 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

My point was that I don't like the process of stone lithography. The
writer insulted me (after I explained that I've been a professional fine
artist for many years)

Surely real profession fine artists would describe themselves as
'professional artists'.


I'd like to hire musicians who play real instruments, but I can't afford
to. That's why I'm constrained to the digital workflow only.

Sell some more fine art.

geoff

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 12/21/2014 5:40 PM, Tom Evans wrote:

...gigantic snip.....
Also, I'm a Mac user because that's what I've come accustomed to using
for 20 years -- not because I'm an addict.

Dummy.

Tom


In my professional career I've used UNIX, Mac, PC, and more,
as needed.

Tools is tools! Sort through stuff and pick the best for your needs.

If "what I've come accustomed to using " is your limiting factor,
that ain't our problem.

Your world ...your art,. ...but you do have other options. [YMMV]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are
using.

His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history.

Bozo.

Tom

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 12/21/2014 8:04 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using.

His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history.

Bozo.

Tom

Conflating quality with popularity.... ?
==
Later....
Ron Capik
--

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-21 13:59:15 -0800, John Williamson said:

On 21/12/2014 21:20, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:


On 20/12/2014 3:36 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:


Why are you trying to educate me on stone lithography?I already wrote

that I've been a fine artist for 30 years.I'm a veteran, yet you imply

that I'm an art novice.How cheeky.


I know quite a few 'fine artists.None would have the gall to describe
themselves as fine artists.


How does that relate to anything?So because you don't know of any
professional fine artists, therefore there aren't any professional
artists on the world?

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the "Fine artists" he
knows don't describe themselves as such, they let their work speak for
itself, which you consistently refuse to do. Hell, I *could* say I'm
the greatest mixer and sound recording engineer in the world, but you'd
be asking for proof of that before you believed me.

No, I wouldn't be asking for proof because that wouldn't be important
to me. I wouldn't care enough to keep on asking for proof, because I'm
only seeking good advice to help me to improve my music. If your
advice sounds logical, that would be sufficient; I wouldn't need you to
verifty that you're the world's best sound engineer or mixer to help
me. I have better things to do with my time.

I have an excellent, intuitve sense of rhythm. I'm a terrific dancer,

and dancers must have terrifc rhythm.


And such modesty.


I'm modest about the things that I should be modest about (such as my
playing ability and current composing ability) and proud of those
things I excel at.My girlfriend and
I won a spot dancing contest at a discoteheque once, so obviously that
indicates that I got "da ridim" (as the cool, black guys put it).

All that proves is that you may have good motor skills and the ability
to follow a rhythm. If that was all it took, then by your claims, all
good dancers would be good composers. They provably aren't, as the
skills required are totally different.

No, the skills of dancers and composers are not totally different. A
good dancer can keep time with his body to the rhythm of the songs, and
similarly a good composer can press the keys on the keyboard with his
fingers to keep time tothe rhythm of his songs, and can detect when the
timing of his compositions is off. Both good dancers and good
composers must possess a good timing ability. That skill overlaps.

I didn't write Ð or even hint Ð that good dancers are good composers.
Timing is only one of several aspects of composing. So again my words
have been severely warped. And again my points are so obvious they
shouldn't even need to be explained.

And I just got paid about $1,200 today for four prints I sold to two
sets of customers, so I'm proud of that and the fact that I'm an
established fine artist.I've paid my dues after many years of struggle
as an artist and writer, editor, photographer, grahic artist, graphic
designer, Web site creator and business communicaitons company president
and founder.Now the hard work is paying off more, so when people here
call me names for not kow-towing to all of their advice (not all of
which is good advice) then it pressures me to defend myself by
explaining my to try to stop their unwarranted put-downs.

Congratulations. The perceived value is obviously the reason you're
unwilling to let us see them. You're afraid we'll pirate them.

No. The files on my Web site are too small to be of much use when
printed. And to repeat, my site is getting about 140,000 hits
annually, so obviously I'm not afraid to show my Web site images, under
normal circumstances. This is abnormal because it's a disrespectful
slugfest that I don't want my fanst to read and I already explained
that, too, and that's something else that shouldn't need explaining.

Now explain to us why you don't think it's going to take the same
amount of effort to master a new medium?

I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took
me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been
seriously misrepresented. I have no illusions about the difficulties
involved and I've repeated that thought several time.


I had a friend who was enthusiastic photographer.He had a foot-long,

heavy lens, a variety of other lenses, a moter drive, all the bells and

whistles, he could spout all kinds oftechnical know-how, but he

couldn't take a great photo if his ****in' life depended on it.

Sounds like you and your ideas about making music.

I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took
me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been
seriously misrepresented by a careless reader. I have no illusions
about the difficulties involved and I've repeated that thought several
time.

Anyway, taking great photos is easy. All you need to do is be in
roughly the right place at about the right time and push the button.
Any mistakes can be fixed in post. ;-)

We are all panting, waiting to see you terrific photos, fine art, and
fantastic music. Then we can have a context of what sort of advice to
offer,ignore you, or carry on this bizarre thread out of some sort of
morbid curiosty.

You don't need that context to be able to recommend a variety of good
instrument sounds for a variety of genres and I've already made that
point repreatedly, so again you're not paying attention to what I wrote.

If you hadn't attacked me by calling me a high school kid wet behind the
ears, and other insults such as having a "turd-filled" brain, I wouldn't
have been prompted to explain my credentials. But clearly you're not
smart enough to have thought of the very obvious point that when you
attack people, they tend to defend themselves. So if it seems like a
bizarre thread, try to learn not to make stupid, insulting, false
assumptions about people to avoid them having to defend themselves and
boast about their credentials as part of their defense.

And you still haven't explained your credentials in a credible manner.
Links to one or two of your "great" pictures would help your
credibility no end. As would a link to the music you're so ashamed of,
so that constructive comments can be made for your guidance with good
data to back them up. Nobody here is going to negatively criticise you,
but listening to your efforts will help us make better suggestions, so
improving the efficiency of your attempts to get help.

I never claimed that my music is excellent and I've written that
repeatedly here. Please show me where I wrote that.You won't find it. I
guarantee that.

You wrote that you have reached the limits of Garageband, and there are
some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software.

I wrote that I thought that my song was good before, but because a few
months have elapsed since I published it, I not longer think it's good
enough. This shows I'm improving.

there are some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software.

That's other composers. I'm not them. Everyone has different
composition needs and I already wrote that often here.

Therefore, you are implying that you are better than the users who have
made excellent music using the program, but are unwilling to show
yourself in public.

I implied no such thing, and again, that idea never even occurred to
me. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented by a
careless reader.

There's way to much insistence in fields of creativity that a particular

method or set of methods that 'must' be used to achieve creative

greatness.That is one of the biggest crock of crap from conventional

thinkers.There is a myriad of ways to achieve works of creativty, and

there's no one way that must be foundational to achieve creative success.

Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. There are many ways to do
any job, but until you understand the limitations of the normal method,
then you have no way to know that your way is better. You claim to have
set up a successful business. Do you expect your employees to follow
your methods, or do you give them free rein? I'll guess with a fair
degree of confidence it's the former.

Yes, you're right about that. I fear that if I had employees, I'd be
frustrated with them because they would be unlikely to meet my exacting
standards of perfectionism and professionalism.

And I don't like giving in to the pressures of people who bully me.

Says someone who claims to admire a well known bully.

This is the third time now that I'm writing that I don't admire Steve
Jobs for having been a bully. I alluded to him because -- like me --
he was a maverick and school drop-out who disregarded the status quo of
conventional thinking -- not because he was a bully. His bullying is
obviously beside the point, and again that's so obvious I shouldn't
even need to explain it.

Also, giving a link to my only published song would be misleading
because it's only one genre and I'm interested in a variety of
instrument sounds. This, too, should be obvious to an intelligent
person, but i have to keep on pointing out axioms to you.

You keep saying this, but you are totally unwilling to invest the time
to find out which of the many solutions that have been suggested in
this thread are the best for you. In spite of your claims to be a
leader, you seem to want your hand holding every step of the way to
success.

I haven't had much time to check the suggested solutions yet, because I
have to wade through all of the responses first and respond to them
multiple times in great detail, because many of the readers can't
apparently understand simple ideas. (And that is also an obvious point
that I shouldn't need to explain; look at the number of responses I've
had in thsi thread that are critical of me.)

And even with my repeated explanation in a variey of ways I must keep
on making the same, basic points to try to clear up the bizarre,
sweeping misinterpreations and false conclusions you've made about me
and what I'm doing. And that makes me wonder if I'm communcating with
some twelve-year-old school boys, because that's the mentality some of
you have exhibited.

I hope that some of you critics don't enter any debating contests or
get your intelligence formally tested, because the results could be
demoralzing for you.

I'm reminded of the saying that goes, "Think about how stupid the
average person is, and then realize that half of the population is even
more stupid!" Ha, ha! Ho, ho!

Tom

[geoff]

On 22/12/2014 2:04 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using.

His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history.

Bozo.

Tom



God, you've even memorised the speil.

geoff

[geoff]

On 22/12/2014 4:35 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:


I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took
me to master art, nor did I imply that.

..... but reading a simple manual or learning the basic use of an easy
intuitive application is apparently too much effort.


geoff

[geoff]

On 22/12/2014 4:35 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:


I'm reminded of the saying that goes, "Think about how stupid the
average person is, and then realize that half of the population is even
more stupid!" Ha, ha! Ho, ho!

Tom


"And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha
They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha
to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be
happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats
and they're coming to take me away ha ha" (Jerry Samuals, 1966)

geoff

[hank alrich]

Tom Evans wrote:

Also, giving a link to my only published song would be misleading
because it's only one genre and I'm interested in a variety of
instrument sounds.

Chicken**** troll, and nothing more.


No work to show
All horn to blow
Let him crow
Elsewhere

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

All that proves is that

he makes up bull**** stories about nonexistent "accomplishments".

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 22/12/2014 4:35 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:


I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took
me to master art, nor did I imply that.

.... but reading a simple manual or learning the basic use of an easy
intuitive application is apparently too much effort.

He masters art
Just one small part
A bold starting
Defecation


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"Tom Evans" skrev i en meddelelse
news:2014122117045625147-tomevans9890@yahooca...

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

I saw brick paint be applied to objects on the first Mac that arrived in
Denmark the day after it was brought home by a video producer. He also told
the ITVA members on that evening about a much more interesting new computer
that was on its way to release.

What Microsoft copied as fast as contracts allowed them was that one, the
Amiga.

Bozo.

Yes.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[John Williamson]

On 22/12/2014 01:04, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

No, you're thinking of Bill Gates. :-)

Who is also considered by some to be a bullying intellectual property
thief who had a few good ideas.

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using.

The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox
PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it.

His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history.

This is only because the Intel based PCs are made to an open design by
thousands of makers, while Imacs are only made by Apple. Incidentally,
Imacs were and are not "PC"s. PC was a trademark owned by IBM,
designating the combination of DOS based software running on Intel
hardware. They *were* personal computers, though. Imacs are also
currently being outsold by Apple laptops, so aren't even the fastest
selling Apple devices at the moment.

Incidentally, Apple's share of the market is now about 30%, so more than
twice as many PCs are being sold as Apple computers of all sorts.
Although, to be fair, both desktop environments are falling in
popularity compared with Android tablets, which are outselling the iPad
by a healthy margin.

Bozo.

Yes, you are.

You seem to known as much about computers as you do about music.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Luxey]

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 21:27:12 UTC+1, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 23:14:10 -0800, Luxey said:

On 2014-12-18 02:24:30 -0800, Phil W said:

Tom Evans:

... freeware "soundfont" player, than search and download all the freeware
soundfonts from the internet, and there it is. Even I could afford that,
should I wish to.

Soundfont player requires Boot Camp, which I don't want to have to
download and learn.

That ONE soundfont player, that you found... The truth is, there are
more of them out there! Yes, even for your MAC! ... and they even
capable of running without bootcamp. YOU have to choose a different one
and it will work just fine.
Just one example, that I know of:
http://www.camelaudio.com/AlchemyPlayer.php

a free synth plug-in, which has its own sounds, as well as soundfonts (sfz).
On the other hand, it might be too much of an actual instrument for you.

Seems like a roundabout course.

Yes, definitely. Ignorant jibber from your side instead of some insight.

Thanks, Phil.

Efficiency is always desirable and logical -- not gibberish. You claim
that downloading, learning and using Boot Camp is not a disadvantage.
Why use Boot Camp if I can get the Alchemy sounds without it? Time and
effort are valuable and therefore shouldn't be wasterd. You not
understanding that is gibberish.

It seems that to the men in this newsgroup, doing things that require
unnecessary, extra work is considered a virtue, whereas doing things
efficiently to save time and effort is considered is considered being
lazy. That sounds to me like a form of insanity.

And by the way, the word you were trying to remember is "gibberish" ,
not "jibber."

Tom Evans

****, I hoped it will not happen, but you just proved, beyond doubt,
beingeither a troll or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak. I'm
out of thisdisscussion.

Trying to save time and be efficient it trolling? Only on a newsgroup.
Everyone I meet in the real world who's sane agrees that doing things
efficiently to save time and effort is desirable.

I guess you would never take any courses or read books on time
management, productivity or efficiency, Luxey.

You only resorted to calling me names instead of responding directly to
my logical question of why I should download, install and learn Boot
Camp, which is not just another unncessary program but also another
operating system, given the fact that I can get the same sounds without
doing that. Why not answer my good question directly and logically
instead of calling me names? The answer is that you don't have a good
answer. Only an idiot would learn a new operating system in order to
get the same sounds he could get with his existing operating system.

It is some of you who are trying to force your ways on me and calling
names (now including "troll') for not submitting to your ways and
claiming that you are always right and not seeing that there are
different ways to solve problems, expecailly when it comes to creative
problems.

I have a right to choose the advice that suits me. Trying to be
efficient doesn't make me a troll, and only an idiot would think it
does.

You're stupid, hypocritical, disrespectful and narrow-minded not to
understand these axioms, as is typical of many controlling Internet
advisors I've encountered.

If you can't be respectful to people who don't submit to your narrow
way of thinking, then you should refrain from advising people.

Tom

Tom,

I know I said I was out of discussion, but that was in regard to attempting to
help you on the subject. Seams, however, you need different kind of help.
So, after all the insults I received from you, for no reason whatsoever, except
your unwillingness, or inability to follow the conversation, on the topic, in
its continuity within constraints of time (and space), I have to give you a
friendly advice, a free one, though:
Please, take your medication regularly, as prescribed and try to act as if you
were normal, as in not mentally ill. People live with AIDS now days, so mild psychosis should not be to much of a problem.

[John Williamson]

On 22/12/2014 03:35, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-21 13:59:15 -0800, John Williamson said:

On 21/12/2014 21:20, Tom Evans wrote:
I'm modest about the things that I should be modest about (such as my
playing ability and current composing ability) and proud of those
things I excel at.My girlfriend and
I won a spot dancing contest at a discoteheque once, so obviously that
indicates that I got "da ridim" (as the cool, black guys put it).

All that proves is that you may have good motor skills and the ability
to follow a rhythm. If that was all it took, then by your claims, all
good dancers would be good composers. They provably aren't, as the
skills required are totally different.

No, the skills of dancers and composers are not totally different. A
good dancer can keep time with his body to the rhythm of the songs, and
similarly a good composer can press the keys on the keyboard with his
fingers to keep time tothe rhythm of his songs, and can detect when the
timing of his compositions is off. Both good dancers and good
composers must possess a good timing ability. That skill overlaps.

A good *composer* has a grasp of what rhythms will sound good and can
happily compose using even very basic sounds such as the general MIDI
soundset, or just by drawing dots on a page to be played later. A
*composer* has no need to be an excellent player, and doesn't need to be
able to play in time, though it does help. A *player* needs a good sense
of rhythm. A player will also have the skills needed to make any
composition he plays sound as good as possible. You don't seem to
understand the difference. I know quite a few people who combine both
these skills, and I am very jealous of their skills, and of a few famous
composers who have made a very good living while being mediocre players.

If you're using a digital only workflow, you don't even need to use a
musical keyboard to get good results, it can all be done by editing a
piano roll type display with a mouse or touchscreen.

I didn't write Ð or even hint Ð that good dancers are good composers.
Timing is only one of several aspects of composing. So again my words
have been severely warped. And again my points are so obvious they
shouldn't even need to be explained.

You wrote that you are a good dancer, and claimed that because that
shows you have a good sense of rhythm you could be a good composer.

And I just got paid about $1,200 today for four prints I sold to two
sets of customers, so I'm proud of that and the fact that I'm an
established fine artist.I've paid my dues after many years of struggle
as an artist and writer, editor, photographer, grahic artist, graphic
designer, Web site creator and business communicaitons company president
and founder.Now the hard work is paying off more, so when people here
call me names for not kow-towing to all of their advice (not all of
which is good advice) then it pressures me to defend myself by
explaining my to try to stop their unwarranted put-downs.

Congratulations. The perceived value is obviously the reason you're
unwilling to let us see them. You're afraid we'll pirate them.

No. The files on my Web site are too small to be of much use when
printed. And to repeat, my site is getting about 140,000 hits annually,
so obviously I'm not afraid to show my Web site images, under normal
circumstances. This is abnormal because it's a disrespectful slugfest
that I don't want my fanst to read and I already explained that, too,
and that's something else that shouldn't need explaining.

Shrug I note your lack of confidence in your abilities.

Now explain to us why you don't think it's going to take the same
amount of effort to master a new medium?

I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took
me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been
seriously misrepresented. I have no illusions about the difficulties
involved and I've repeated that thought several time.

You said that the only thing holding you back was the tool available to
you. You are not even willing to spend a few minutes reading a 26 page
manual for a program you were recommended to use. This implies that you
think that you can master the art of composition in a few minutes,
rather than the years you say it took you to master the visual arts.

I had a friend who was enthusiastic photographer.He had a foot-long,

heavy lens, a variety of other lenses, a moter drive, all the bells and

whistles, he could spout all kinds oftechnical know-how, but he

couldn't take a great photo if his ****in' life depended on it.

Sounds like you and your ideas about making music.

I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took
me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been
seriously misrepresented by a careless reader. I have no illusions
about the difficulties involved and I've repeated that thought several
time.

You posted here asking for the best way to make music, with the
implication that the only thing holding you back is the tool you have
chosen to use. That sounds to me exactly like your friend with the
camera bag full of kit who you say couldn't take a decent picture to
save his life. I'll bet he's always chasing the next greatest tool, too.

Anyway, taking great photos is easy. All you need to do is be in
roughly the right place at about the right time and push the button.
Any mistakes can be fixed in post. ;-)

We are all panting, waiting to see you terrific photos, fine art, and
fantastic music. Then we can have a context of what sort of advice to
offer,ignore you, or carry on this bizarre thread out of some sort of
morbid curiosty.

You don't need that context to be able to recommend a variety of good
instrument sounds for a variety of genres and I've already made that
point repreatedly, so again you're not paying attention to what I wrote.

And we've repeatedly pointed you at collections of good instrument
sounds for various genres, all of which you've rejected as being too
hard to learn to use.

If you hadn't attacked me by calling me a high school kid wet behind the
ears, and other insults such as having a "turd-filled" brain, I wouldn't
have been prompted to explain my credentials. But clearly you're not
smart enough to have thought of the very obvious point that when you
attack people, they tend to defend themselves. So if it seems like a
bizarre thread, try to learn not to make stupid, insulting, false
assumptions about people to avoid them having to defend themselves
and boast about their credentials as part of their defense.

And you still haven't explained your credentials in a credible manner.
Links to one or two of your "great" pictures would help your
credibility no end. As would a link to the music you're so ashamed of,
so that constructive comments can be made for your guidance with good
data to back them up. Nobody here is going to negatively criticise
you, but listening to your efforts will help us make better
suggestions, so improving the efficiency of your attempts to get help.

I never claimed that my music is excellent and I've written that
repeatedly here. Please show me where I wrote that.You won't find
it. I
guarantee that.

You wrote that you have reached the limits of Garageband, and there
are some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software.

I wrote that I thought that my song was good before, but because a few
months have elapsed since I published it, I not longer think it's good
enough. This shows I'm improving.

No, it only shows that that song was and always will be "not good
enough". What has changed is your involvement in that particular song.
Now it's not the latest thing you have done, you are no longer looking
at it through the rose tinted spectacles of novelty.

You also misread what I wrote, I wrote that linking to one or two of
what you consider to be great pictures would help your credibility, I
did *not* write that you or anyone else considered your song to be
great. I wrote that if we could hear your song, we might be more able to
suggest the best software to help improve any future songs.

there are some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software.

That's other composers. I'm not them. Everyone has different
composition needs and I already wrote that often here.

Eventually, they all grow out of Garageband and move onto better things.
You have said that you have grown out of Garageband. You are implying
that you are a better composer than those who still use it.

The best all round tool for composing and recording is normally reckoned
to be Pro Tools, but that would probably be *far* too much effort for
you to learn how to use, as well as being too expensive. One reason it's
so good for the job is that it allows easy collaboration with others.

Therefore, you are implying that you are better than the users who
have made excellent music using the program, but are unwilling to show
yourself in public.

I implied no such thing, and again, that idea never even occurred to
me. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented by a careless
reader.

No, your comprehension of what you write is coloured by your perception
of what you wanted to write.

I haven't had much time to check the suggested solutions yet, because I
have to wade through all of the responses first and respond to them
multiple times in great detail, because many of the readers can't
apparently understand simple ideas. (And that is also an obvious point
that I shouldn't need to explain; look at the number of responses I've
had in thsi thread that are critical of me.)

If you were serious about improving your music, you'd have been on your
computer learning how to do it, rather than wasting your time here
defending yourself.

Then, you could come back and say "I've tried such and such, and so and
so, but they don't do this and that, can anyone suggest how to do these
things". Or you could come back and say "This is what I did woth what
you told me. Good, isn't it?"

And even with my repeated explanation in a variey of ways I must keep on
making the same, basic points to try to clear up the bizarre, sweeping
misinterpreations and false conclusions you've made about me and what
I'm doing. And that makes me wonder if I'm communcating with some
twelve-year-old school boys, because that's the mentality some of you
have exhibited.

Strangely enough, that's what we're all wondering, too. You come across
as a petulant teenager who asks for help and when you don't get exactly
the answers you'd already decided that you wanted, is throwing a tanrum.

I hope that some of you critics don't enter any debating contests or get
your intelligence formally tested, because the results could be
demoralzing for you.

I have been formally tested, and the results not demoralising. I can
also spell. :-)

I'm reminded of the saying that goes, "Think about how stupid the
average person is, and then realize that half of the population is even
more stupid!" Ha, ha! Ho, ho!

From your posting here, you seem to be in the lowest quartile.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Frank Stearns]

geoff writes:

On 22/12/2014 2:04 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using.


God, you've even memorised the speil.

Sounds like.

Jobs was really more of a P. T. Barnum. When you dig down, perhaps much less
technical genius and way more marketing cleverness. Just like Gates, he's given far
too much personal credit for many different things.

Remember, Xerox PARC actually (mostly) invented the What-You-See-Is-All-You-Get
interface with their "Star" system in the mid-70s, maybe even a tad bit earlier. The
mouse pointing device came out in the early 1960s, but it was a lab curiousity as no
commercially-released hw or sw could use it until many years later.

The peanut-sized brain in the 100 ton Xerox corporate behemoth didn't really know
what to do with what they had. Oh sure, they tried a little bit, but a $70,000
workstation (in late 1970s dollars) was not going to have much penetration in the
consumer marketplace. (Those workstations were pretty cool for the day -- an
acquaintance of mine had one. And IIRC, you didn't actually buy the thing, you
leased it -- the old IBM model. And here we go again now, with Adobe leading the
charge with leased software. But I digress.)

So Jobs saw the obvious application (obvious to just about anyone outside of that
lummox corporate mentality), stole the idea, and ran with it. And so with both Jobs
and Gates, lots of clever underlings (among others) did the real innovative work
while those two did the figurative struts on stage with their cardboard megaphones,
wide brim straw hats, zoot suites, and bamboo canes. And Job's zoot was far flashier
than anything Gates ever wore.

The first Apples were really not-very-good toys compared to what else was out there
in the S-100 world (Northstar and Polymorphic being two examples of companies that
made business-useful and affordable "personal" computers), and Apple probably would
have disappeared just like most of those companies had Jobs not made that trip to
PARC.

Depending on the day, perhaps most of us could either curse or thank Jobs and Gates.
I'm much more inclined to consistently thank the real technology heroes such as the
research folks at the old Bell Labs and PARC, with the appropriate nods to Cal-Tech
and MIT, among others.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[Scott Dorsey]

Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-13 18:49:54 -0800, geoff said:

On 13/12/2014 6:00 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-09 13:33:08 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

In article 2014120909140176423-tomevans9890@yahooca,

writes:

This is a proaudio newsgroup primarily about audio recording,
tracking, mixing
and mastering.

Out of curiosity: Do any of you gentlemen make a full-time living from
DAW music you composed and recorded?

Tom


No, you need to check rec.composer.performer for that. We typically
record and produce music performed by others, with some notable
exceptions.

geoff

And are any of you full-time, professional recorders and producers?

Tom

I suppose I am still. But I seldom use a DAW and I have never used MIDI.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

John Williamson wrote:
On 22/12/2014 01:04, Tom Evans wrote:

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using.

The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox
PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it.

No, Apple actually paid licensing fees to Xerox for it, which is something
that Microsoft never did.

And it was uniquely Jobs' idea to provide a computer that was solely an
appliance and had only a GUI with no command line interface at all. (In the
end this turned out to be a bad thing and Apple gave up on it, but it was
a valiant try. Ironically now Apple has a great command line and Microsoft
is only now starting to gain any traction with powershell.)

Incidentally, Apple's share of the market is now about 30%, so more than
twice as many PCs are being sold as Apple computers of all sorts.
Although, to be fair, both desktop environments are falling in
popularity compared with Android tablets, which are outselling the iPad
by a healthy margin.

What is so sad is that we have come down to a world where there really are
only two contenders for desktop operating systems. Linux makes a distant
third, and Linux becomes more and more like Windows and less like Unix every
day.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Frank Stearns wrote:
geoff writes:

On 22/12/2014 2:04 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using.


God, you've even memorised the speil.

Sounds like.

Jobs was really more of a P. T. Barnum. When you dig down, perhaps much less
technical genius and way more marketing cleverness. Just like Gates, he's given far
too much personal credit for many different things.


Jobs apparently targeted the right applications domains, those necessary
to win the PR "war".

Remember, Xerox PARC actually (mostly) invented the What-You-See-Is-All-You-Get
interface with their "Star" system in the mid-70s, maybe even a tad bit earlier. The
mouse pointing device came out in the early 1960s, but it was a lab curiousity as no
commercially-released hw or sw could use it until many years later.

The peanut-sized brain in the 100 ton Xerox corporate behemoth didn't really know
what to do with what they had.

Sure they did. They left it to sit.

Oh sure, they tried a little bit, but a $70,000
workstation (in late 1970s dollars) was not going to have much penetration in the
consumer marketplace. (Those workstations were pretty cool for the day -- an
acquaintance of mine had one. And IIRC, you didn't actually buy the thing, you
leased it -- the old IBM model. And here we go again now, with Adobe leading the
charge with leased software. But I digress.)

So Jobs saw the obvious application (obvious to just about anyone outside of that
lummox corporate mentality), stole the idea, and ran with it. And so with both Jobs
and Gates, lots of clever underlings (among others) did the real innovative work
while those two did the figurative struts on stage with their cardboard megaphones,
wide brim straw hats, zoot suites, and bamboo canes. And Job's zoot was far flashier
than anything Gates ever wore.


Jobs also failed a couple of times. The Lisa and ( I'd say ) Next.
You're aware that that the vast majority of applications for Mac were
Microsoft products?

IOW, there was sort of a false-alternative identity marketing thing in
play.

The first Apples were really not-very-good toys compared to what else was out there
in the S-100 world (Northstar and Polymorphic being two examples of companies that
made business-useful and affordable "personal" computers), and Apple probably would
have disappeared just like most of those companies had Jobs not made that trip to
PARC.

Depending on the day, perhaps most of us could either curse or thank Jobs and Gates.
I'm much more inclined to consistently thank the real technology heroes such as the
research folks at the old Bell Labs and PARC, with the appropriate nods to Cal-Tech
and MIT, among others.


Heh. We would not know what a computer was but for Bletchley Park.

Frank
Mobile Audio


--
Les Cargill

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

He was listed five times by Time Magazine as one of the world's 100
most influential people, and was a finalist for a sixth year.

His rank of influence was rated higher than George Bush, Bill Clinton,
Bill Gates, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Rupert Murdoch
and Mark Zuckerberg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_100

Shows how daft your opinions are.

Tom

[Scott Dorsey]

Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

He was listed five times by Time Magazine as one of the world's 100
most influential people, and was a finalist for a sixth year.

His rank of influence was rated higher than George Bush, Bill Clinton,
Bill Gates, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Rupert Murdoch
and Mark Zuckerberg.

I might add that a couple of those people were also ******s and bullies.

And it has taken a great new Pope for people to realize what bullies some
of the previous Popes have been, too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

John Williamson wrote:

The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox
PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it.

That is a common misstatement of fact. Job _licensed_ that technology.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

On 24/12/2014 4:07 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

He was listed five times by Time Magazine as one of the world's 100
most influential people, and was a finalist for a sixth year.

His rank of influence was rated higher than George Bush, Bill Clinton,
Bill Gates, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Rupert Murdoch
and Mark Zuckerberg.

I might add that a couple of those people were also ******s and bullies.

And it has taken a great new Pope for people to realize what bullies some
of the previous Popes have been, too.
--scott



Surprised he's still alive really. Look what happened to the last
'progressive' pope.

geoff

[geoff]

On 24/12/2014 5:32 a.m., hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote:

The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox
PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it.

That is a common misstatement of fact. Job _licensed_ that technology.


No, it came to him in a vision , surely ;-)

geoff

(OK, I won't call you Shirley !)

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-23 08:32:40 -0800, hank alrich said:

John Williamson wrote:

The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox
PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it.

That is a common misstatement of fact. Job _licensed_ that technology.

That's right.

He paid Xerox $100,000 for the WYSIWYG system.

Xerox agreed to the deal because it failed to see the huge potential in
it that Jobs saw. That is an example of how Jobs was a visionary.

However, it wasn't Job who did it; Job was another visionary -- from
biblical times. :-)

But you did a fairly good job of setting the record straight.

Tom

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-17 21:04:28 -0800, Peter Larsen said:

"Tom Evans" skrev i en meddelelse
news:2014121719320162652-tomevans9890@yahooca...

I'm operating under a psuedonym, to protect my professional identity.

You're in a newsgroup with a lot of real people around.

Irrelevant.

Also, you don't need to delve into my work and personal life to answer
the question in the header.

That is actually a good point. Since you have published your music it
could have been a better approach to start with posting "here is my
current music, can you suggest tools that are useful for what I do?".

[from another post of yours]

Bad idea. An actor applying for different types of roles doesn't
submit only one sample movie, to avoid being typecast. There are no
zithers, organs or steel guitars in my song, but I might want sounds
such as those for future songs.

I want to make a wide gamut of genres: pop, new wave,
coutnry, ambient, smooth jazz, rock, disco, rap, reggae,
trance, maybe some songs with African or orchestral
elements, etcetera.

Blowing up balloons?

No; trying to make toe-tappers.

Tom

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-22 02:12:42 -0800, Luxey said:

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 21:27:12 UTC+1, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 23:14:10 -0800, Luxey said:

On 2014-12-18 02:24:30 -0800, Phil W said:

Tom Evans:

... freeware "soundfont" player, than search and download all the freeware
soundfonts from the internet, and there it is. Even I could afford that,
should I wish to.

Soundfont player requires Boot Camp, which I don't want to have to
download and learn.

That ONE soundfont player, that you found... The truth is, there are
more of them out there! Yes, even for your MAC! ... and they even
capable of running without bootcamp. YOU have to choose a different one
and it will work just fine.
Just one example, that I know of:
http://www.camelaudio.com/AlchemyPlayer.php

a free synth plug-in, which has its own sounds, as well as soundfonts (sfz).
On the other hand, it might be too much of an actual instrument for you.

Seems like a roundabout course.

Yes, definitely. Ignorant jibber from your side instead of some insight.

Thanks, Phil.

Efficiency is always desirable and logical -- not gibberish. You claim
that downloading, learning and using Boot Camp is not a disadvantage.
Why use Boot Camp if I can get the Alchemy sounds without it? Time and
effort are valuable and therefore shouldn't be wasterd. You not
understanding that is gibberish.

It seems that to the men in this newsgroup, doing things that require
unnecessary, extra work is considered a virtue, whereas doing things
efficiently to save time and effort is considered is considered being
lazy. That sounds to me like a form of insanity.

And by the way, the word you were trying to remember is "gibberish" ,
not "jibber."

Tom Evans

****, I hoped it will not happen, but you just proved, beyond doubt,
beingeither a troll or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak. I'm
out of thisdisscussion.

Trying to save time and be efficient it trolling? Only on a newsgroup.
Everyone I meet in the real world who's sane agrees that doing things
efficiently to save time and effort is desirable.

I guess you would never take any courses or read books on time
management, productivity or efficiency, Luxey.

You only resorted to calling me names instead of responding directly to
my logical question of why I should download, install and learn Boot
Camp, which is not just another unncessary program but also another
operating system, given the fact that I can get the same sounds without
doing that. Why not answer my good question directly and logically
instead of calling me names? The answer is that you don't have a good
answer. Only an idiot would learn a new operating system in order to
get the same sounds he could get with his existing operating system.

It is some of you who are trying to force your ways on me and calling
names (now including "troll') for not submitting to your ways and
claiming that you are always right and not seeing that there are
different ways to solve problems, expecailly when it comes to creative
problems.

I have a right to choose the advice that suits me. Trying to be
efficient doesn't make me a troll, and only an idiot would think it
does.

You're stupid, hypocritical, disrespectful and narrow-minded not to
understand these axioms, as is typical of many controlling Internet
advisors I've encountered.

If you can't be respectful to people who don't submit to your narrow
way of thinking, then you should refrain from advising people.

Tom

Tom,

I know I said I was out of discussion, but that was in regard to attempting to
help you on the subject. Seams, however, you need different kind of help.
So, after all the insults I received from you, for no reason whatsoever,

No reason? You called me ignorant, spouting gibberish and a troll.
Just read this message fully to remind yourself of what you wrote.

except
your unwillingness, or inability to follow the conversation,

Such as?

on the topic, in
its continuity within constraints of time (and space), I have to give you a
friendly advice, a free one, though:
Please, take your medication regularly, as prescribed and try to act as if you
were normal, as in not mentally ill. People live with AIDS now days, so
mild psychosis should not be to much of a problem.

And those are more insults and condescending sarcasm, which again makes
you a hyprocrite; you insulted first.

This is normal behavior I've noticed in the Wild West of newsgroups;
dirsrespectful people people insult me, and then when I insult them
back, they accuse me of insulting them and they dismiss me --
forgaetting that they insulted first. Look at your mirror.

Tom

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said:

On 2014-12-22 02:12:42 -0800, Luxey said:

On Sunday, 21 December 2014 21:27:12 UTC+1, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 23:14:10 -0800, Luxey said:

On 2014-12-18 02:24:30 -0800, Phil W said:

Tom Evans:

... freeware "soundfont" player, than search and download all the freeware
soundfonts from the internet, and there it is. Even I could afford that,
should I wish to.

Soundfont player requires Boot Camp, which I don't want to have to
download and learn.

That ONE soundfont player, that you found... The truth is, there are
more of them out there! Yes, even for your MAC! ... and they even
capable of running without bootcamp. YOU have to choose a different one
and it will work just fine.
Just one example, that I know of:
http://www.camelaudio.com/AlchemyPlayer.php

a free synth plug-in, which has its own sounds, as well as soundfonts (sfz).
On the other hand, it might be too much of an actual instrument for you.

Seems like a roundabout course.

Yes, definitely. Ignorant jibber from your side instead of some insight.

Thanks, Phil.

Efficiency is always desirable and logical -- not gibberish. You claim
that downloading, learning and using Boot Camp is not a disadvantage.
Why use Boot Camp if I can get the Alchemy sounds without it? Time and
effort are valuable and therefore shouldn't be wasterd. You not
understanding that is gibberish.

It seems that to the men in this newsgroup, doing things that require
unnecessary, extra work is considered a virtue, whereas doing things
efficiently to save time and effort is considered is considered being
lazy. That sounds to me like a form of insanity.

And by the way, the word you were trying to remember is "gibberish" ,
not "jibber."

Tom Evans

****, I hoped it will not happen, but you just proved, beyond doubt,
beingeither a troll or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak. I'm
out of thisdisscussion.

Trying to save time and be efficient it trolling? Only on a newsgroup.
Everyone I meet in the real world who's sane agrees that doing things
efficiently to save time and effort is desirable.

I guess you would never take any courses or read books on time
management, productivity or efficiency, Luxey.

You only resorted to calling me names instead of responding directly to
my logical question of why I should download, install and learn Boot
Camp, which is not just another unncessary program but also another
operating system, given the fact that I can get the same sounds without
doing that. Why not answer my good question directly and logically
instead of calling me names? The answer is that you don't have a good
answer. Only an idiot would learn a new operating system in order to
get the same sounds he could get with his existing operating system.

It is some of you who are trying to force your ways on me and calling
names (now including "troll') for not submitting to your ways and
claiming that you are always right and not seeing that there are
different ways to solve problems, expecailly when it comes to creative
problems.

I have a right to choose the advice that suits me. Trying to be
efficient doesn't make me a troll, and only an idiot would think it
does.

You're stupid, hypocritical, disrespectful and narrow-minded not to
understand these axioms, as is typical of many controlling Internet
advisors I've encountered.

If you can't be respectful to people who don't submit to your narrow
way of thinking, then you should refrain from advising people.

Tom

Tom,

I know I said I was out of discussion, but that was in regard to attempting to
help you on the subject. Seams, however, you need different kind of help.
So, after all the insults I received from you, for no reason whatsoever,

No reason? You called me ignorant, spouting gibberish and a troll.
Just read this message fully to remind yourself of what you wrote.

except
your unwillingness, or inability to follow the conversation,

Such as?

on the topic, in
its continuity within constraints of time (and space), I have to give you a
friendly advice, a free one, though:
Please, take your medication regularly, as prescribed and try to act as if you
were normal, as in not mentally ill. People live with AIDS now days, so
mild psychosis should not be to much of a problem.

And those are more insults and condescending sarcasm, which again makes
you a hyprocrite; you insulted first.

This is normal behavior I've noticed in the Wild West of newsgroups;
dirsrespectful people people insult me, and then when I insult them
back, they accuse me of insulting them and they dismiss me --
forgaetting that they insulted first. Look at your mirror.

Tom

And you're also stupid -- as well as extremely rude -- for not
understanding that you insulted and were disrespectful FIRST. You (as
so many others have done) are blaming the victim, but you're too
dimwitted to comprehend that simple truth.

Friendly advice? Friendly advice -- combined with insults!

Mild psychosis? Your brain must be no bigger than a plum!

And by the way, you (and everyone else) still didn't answer my logical
question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign
operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise
decision. The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic
advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group
reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey.

As I wrote before, if you can't be respectful, you should refrain from
acting as an advisor.

Tom

[Luxey]

петак, 26. децембар 2014. 06.51.15 UTC+1, Tom Evans је напи�ао/ла:
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said:

And you're also stupid --

That is a possibility. Your haircut is bad.

as well as extremely rude --

No, not extremely. You are extremely lewd.

for not understanding that you insulted and were disrespectful FIRST.

Not true. I simply concluded, from your own posts, your own words, you're either
a troll, or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak.

You (as so many others have done)
are blaming the victim, but you're too
dimwitted to comprehend that simple truth.

Obviously, we differ in our opinion on this.

Friendly advice? Friendly advice -- combined with insults!

So, you do have some reading comprehension abilities, afterall.

Mild psychosis? Your brain must be no bigger than a plum!

That is a possibility.

And by the way, you (and everyone else) still didn't answer my logical
question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign
operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise
decision.

That question is logical, however ...

The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic
advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group
reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey.

The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested
such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse
is quite a sign.

As I wrote before, if you can't be respectful, you should refrain from
acting as an advisor.

As I wrote before, you are either incapable, or unwilling to follow the
discussion in it's continuity and it's entirety. That's why I said I was out
of it, as someone offering help in regard to the topic. However, I offered
a free advice about what I think would make you better, in regard to the
way you presented yourself and the state (of mind) you are in.

[Scott Dorsey]

Luxey wrote:
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said:
question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign=20
operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise=20
decision. =20

That question is logical, however ...

The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic=20
advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group=20
reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey.

The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested
such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse
is quite a sign.

Here's what seems to have happened. Someone gave the very reasonable
advice that one should purchase soundfonts from a different source than
one purchases their synthesizer software. (This is, I might add, excellent
advice, and it's the reason why you see so many soundfonts for sale.)

Mr. Evans, not knowing what a soundfont was, did a google search on it
and found a piece of software called Soundfont. (This software is to
soundfonts what The Sound Of Music is to music.) Immediately something
made a connection in his brain that people were trying to make him use
non-Mac software and he began waving around like a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll
screaming about how this was terrible advice and that he wasn't going to
use this software.

And, I understand that sometimes misunderstandings like this occur, but
I do find it sort of hilarious that Mr. Evans still hasn't figured out
what was going on and what people really were seriously suggesting he do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Luxey]

�убота, 27. децембар 2014. 00.05.50 UTC+1, Scott Dorsey је напи�ао/ла:
Luxey wrote:
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said:
question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign=20
operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise=20
decision. =20

That question is logical, however ...

The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic=20
advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group=20
reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey.

The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested
such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse
is quite a sign.

Here's what seems to have happened. Someone gave the very reasonable
advice that one should purchase soundfonts from a different source than
one purchases their synthesizer software. (This is, I might add, excellent
advice, and it's the reason why you see so many soundfonts for sale.)

Mr. Evans, not knowing what a soundfont was, did a google search on it
and found a piece of software called Soundfont. (This software is to
soundfonts what The Sound Of Music is to music.) Immediately something
made a connection in his brain that people were trying to make him use
non-Mac software and he began waving around like a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll
screaming about how this was terrible advice and that he wasn't going to
use this software.

And, I understand that sometimes misunderstandings like this occur, but
I do find it sort of hilarious that Mr. Evans still hasn't figured out
what was going on and what people really were seriously suggesting he do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mr. Dorsey, you're a nice person so it's natural for you to do such a thing,
but I really don't think Mr. Evans deserved it, being so confident about
everything and anything. Nevertheless, thank you, hopefully it'll put an end on
the play.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 12/26/2014 7:08 PM, Luxey wrote:
�убота, 27. децембар 2014. 00.05.50 UTC+1, Scott Dorsey је напи�ао/ла:
Luxey wrote:
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said:
question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign=20
operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise=20
decision. =20

That question is logical, however ...

The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic=20
advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group=20
reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey.

The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested
such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse
is quite a sign.

Here's what seems to have happened. Someone gave the very reasonable
advice that one should purchase soundfonts from a different source than
one purchases their synthesizer software. (This is, I might add, excellent
advice, and it's the reason why you see so many soundfonts for sale.)

Mr. Evans, not knowing what a soundfont was, did a google search on it
and found a piece of software called Soundfont. (This software is to
soundfonts what The Sound Of Music is to music.) Immediately something
made a connection in his brain that people were trying to make him use
non-Mac software and he began waving around like a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll
screaming about how this was terrible advice and that he wasn't going to
use this software.

And, I understand that sometimes misunderstandings like this occur, but
I do find it sort of hilarious that Mr. Evans still hasn't figured out
what was going on and what people really were seriously suggesting he do.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mr. Dorsey, you're a nice person so it's natural for you to do such a thing,
but I really don't think Mr. Evans deserved it, being so confident about
everything and anything. Nevertheless, thank you, hopefully it'll put an end on
the play.

Oh please don't put an end to this mess! I'm really enjoying the show.
Heck, the whole thread has almost achieved British humor status. :-)

[Um, also happy holidays and such to all! ]

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[hank alrich]

Ron C wrote:

Oh please don't put an end to this mess! I'm really enjoying the show.
Heck, the whole thread has almost achieved British humor status. :-)

If Tomb Evans wanted to know something about orchestration he could've
asked his cousin Gil.


--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-10 23:01:18 -0800, Peter Larsen said:

"Tom Evans" skrev i en meddelelse
news:2014121019562186494-tomevans9890@yahooca...

On 2014-12-10 10:12:50 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

That's absolute rubbish, Orlando.

Skip expecting politeness as from a seller in a shop, this is usenet,
the politeness is when people follow up and disagree. Posters who write
follow-ups do however not only write to and for you, they write for all
in a similar situation and that will occasionally lead to follow-ups
that are broader than what they follow up to.

I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work hard.

Count me as having gotten that impression from your dislike of a 26
page manual, with new software concepts it helps understanding how the
programmer thinks.

Trying to zero in on what works for my strengths as a musician is not
being lazy; it's being efficient and smart.

To reiterate, "different strokes for different folks." Everyone has
different strengths and weaknesses.

I and millions other musicians are not adept at long-term memorization
of all the notes in even one song (let alone a whole portfolio of
songs), numbers or grocery lists.

It is like learning to ride on a bicycle or driving a car, sure you can.

It's not like learning to ride a bicyle or driving a car, because the
same procedures are used for riding a bicycle or driving a car, whereas
with songs, every sequence of notes and chords that one must remember
is different. And I don't know how to read music notes.

Here's a perfect analogy of why you're wrong: Many music stars
couldn't dance a complete song well if their lives depended on it
because they lack innate ablitiy to do so.

Performing a piece of music is to dance.

So the choreographers and videographers overcome that shortcoming by
stringing together three minutes worth of two-, five-, ten- and
15-second clips, so the finished video gives the illusion that the
singer can dance well.

That is because the choreografer comes up with something physically
challenging or silly - or because the images are to change. Find
Singing in the Rain on youtube. THAT is a music star, I think cold
water from a firehose and continuously rolling camera, one contiguous
shot, be it take 3 or take 327, but perhaps I'm wrong.

You miss the point. The choreographer and/or videographer can give the
illusion that a singer can dance by using short clips to give the
illusion that a singer can dance, just as the DAW can give the illusion
that the composer can play his song in its entirety even though he may
only be able to record it in short clips. I don't know how I could
make my point any more clear.

It's the same with me and playing live. I don't have the innate
ability to remember the three-minute string of notes and chords for
more than a few minutes -- a skill which would be necessary to be a
live performer.

You're talking around a stage fright.

No, I wasn't referring to stage fright. That's a different issue and problem.

Get over it. Try storytelling, it is an interactive art in which you
work with your audience but in a slightly different way, except that
for a barfly musician or someone playing at a barn dance it is probably
the same - the local barn dance musician will know - you need to dare
go up on stage and BE. It is when you dare be you the music starts
flowing also in the living room sessions.

And to reiterate again: my goal is not to be a live player in front of
an audience; it's to be a composer, just as the singer in his or her
video doesn't have the goal of being a great dancer. The video is just
a means to promote the soongs, and the digital audio workstation that
allows me to record brief music clips is a means for me to make and
promote my songs.

If you can record brief music slips I fail to comprehend what you need
a music library for, I think you could need a mechanically good stage
piano and a multitrack recorder.

If a writer writes his book a few sentences at a time, instead of
several pages or chapters at a time, that doesn't necessarily reduce
the quality of the book that is published. So, yes, you do fail to
comprehend.

Fostex MR8HD and MR16HD's are out there new or on the second hand
market, both allow 5 simultanous tracks and quasi-endless overdubbing.
The design seems to invert absolute polarity, something that is easy to
fix in post and possibly irrelevant for musicians use, they probably
saved a few opamps in it.

At another pricepoint it could be worth complaining about that snag, at
their cost you just have to know it. Record on them and move it to your
daw and mix there. Or get a HD24.

If I were that tasteless and ignorant, I wouldn't be on a quest to
seek better sounds than my current software provides.

You are certainly asking some very good questions and raising some
important issues, it will be interesting to see how that Studio 1 Prof
I found in a local shop at a very good price is.

Music is storytelling without words, work not only with your strong
sides, also with what you might not be so good at and in the end
improve your instrument. It is you, you yourself.

Tom

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

Tom

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-09 15:19:55 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

In article , writes:

Now here we have someone wanting into a complex activity of which they
appear to know very little and they find twenty-six pages daunting.

That strikes me as unreasonable. I could understand a plea for help after a few
frustrating months reading manuals and not being very productive. but it
doesn't seem as though Tom has even tried.

Am I expected to think this person takes musical composition and
orchestration seriously?
Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston,
Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.?
This is what I meant when I wrote that he looked lazy to me. He wants to
eat almost free pie without having to learn how to bake, because he'd
have to read a recipe.

Worse still, those of us who put in decades of hard work are not always
rewarded for it. People come up singing intuitively, writing without training
or even playing instruments. If they happen to touch a hot nerve, their work
goes viral. The viral video model tends to be reactive rather than meritorious.

Videos don't go viral because they exhibit awesome talent; they touch on
whatever momentary tendencies are afloat online.

We need a better system.
Orlando

Baloney. Sounds like sour grapes.

For example, Ronald Jenkees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8LfoyDFUM
Over 7.1 millions hits and his talent is awesome.

You don't need hard work alone; you must also have talent. If you were
as talented as Ronald Jenkees, I'm sure you would be rewarded for it.
All you would need would be one video of one fantastic song, as Ronald
Jenkees has amply proved.

People come up singing intuitively, writing without training
or even playing instruments.

You've just admitted my longstanding point: that doing things
conventionally is not always the best route to success, yet you -- and
others here -- keep on hammering away that I must work conventionally
for many years before having a hope of success. So your advice is
contradictory.

Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston,
Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.?

There are countless successful musicians who didn't undertake the study
of orchestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etcetera --
whoever the hell those guys are.

Tom

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-11 10:47:09 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

In article 2014121019562186494-tomevans9890@yahooca,
writes:
I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work
hard.

I and millions other musicians are not adept at long-term memorization
of all the notes in even one song (let alone a whole portfolio of
songs), numbers or grocery lists.

Here's a perfect analogy of why you're wrong: Many music stars
couldn't dance a complete song well if their lives depended on it
because they lack innate ability to do so.
So the choreographers and videographers overcome that shortcoming by
stringing together three minutes worth of two-, five-, ten- and
15-second clips, so the finished video gives the illusion that the
singer can dance well.

That illusion only lasts for the video's duration; if they can't dance well,
that will become apparent during live performances.

That's beside the point, which you obvioulsy don't get. A singer
doesn't necessarily have to be a dancer to succeed, and a composter
doesn't necessarily have to be a live performer to succeed.

It's the same with me and playing live. I don't have the innate
ability to remember the three-minute string of notes and chords for
more than a few minutes -- a skill which would be necessary to be a
live performer.

No one here is asking you to become a virtuoso live performer, but many of us
are annoyed that you won't bother to read a mere 26 pages that could help you
find the sample library you seek. Do you expect a sample library with no user
manual?

And to reiterate again: my goal is not to be a live player in front of
an audience; it's to be a composer, just as the singer in his or her
video doesn't have the goal of being a great dancer. The video is just
a means to promote the soongs, and the digital audio workstation that
allows me to record brief music clips is a means for me to make and
promote my songs.

How many digital music composers have gotten famous without ever playing any
instrument well?

That's irrelevant because DAWs make live performing unnecessary for
those who want to be composers.

I don't know any working composer who can't memorize three
minutes of music and perform it at least adequately on an instrument. And while
there have always been illiterate folk poets, I don't know of any poets with
limited vocabularies. You're basically arguing in favor of a limited vocabulary
in the grounds of efficiency. You don't want to waste your time with skills you
think you'll never have to use. And yet, you're currently confronted with a
situation in which you indeed need to use the skills you so vehemently resist
learning.

I didn't write anything about having an ambition to write for real
instruments or having my music performed by human musicians. You just
made that up. To repeat myself: please re-read the subject header.
The topic is which software is best for me; it's not about whether or
not I need to learn to be a live performer and have my songs played by
human players, or whether or not I should be a digital musician.

See the above analogy re. singers doing videos to accompany and promote
their songs.

Following that analogy, hire yourself a sound designer to scour the net and put
together your beautiful sound sample library. While you're at it, hire an
orchestrator, arranger and perhaps harmonizer to handle all the technical
aspects of music composition that you find so odious. Oh wait! Singers do that
so they can concentrate on putting on a great live show. But you have no
interest in being a skilled performer. So, if music performance isn't your bag
and the technicalities of composition are abhorrent to you, what's left for you
to do? Make other people rich who are willing to do the work you refuse to do.

So what you mean is that composers can't be successful musicians. Ever
heard of, let's say, Burt Bacharach? That was another senseless
comment.

If I were that tasteless and ignorant, I wouldn't be on a quest to
seek better sounds than my current software provides.

The fact that you chose that software without properly investigating its
capabilities suggests that you wanted an easy fix and are crying because
Garageband didn't provide it.

Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston,
Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.?

There are countless successful musicians who didn't undertake the study
of orchestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etcetera --
whoever the hell those guys are.

You complained in another message in this thread that you're "lounging
in obscurity" despite much conventional musical training.

You took the conventional, studious approach to music-making, yet
you're still "lounging in obscurity" after many years of struggle.

I don't want to lounge in obscurity. I want to lounge in the V.I.P.
lounge with my groupies.

Taking advice from you about how to become a successful musician is
like taking advice from a beggar about how to get rich. The beggars
all have advice on how to make it and they're all adamant that their
theories are correct, despite being failures.

Tom

[John Williamson]

On 28/12/2014 17:24, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-09 15:19:55 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

The viral video model tends to be reactive rather than
meritorious.

Videos don't go viral because they exhibit awesome talent; they touch on
whatever momentary tendencies are afloat online.

True.

We need a better system.
Orlando

For example, Ronald Jenkees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8LfoyDFUM
Over 7.1 millions hits and his talent is awesome.

You don't need hard work alone; you must also have talent. If you were
as talented as Ronald Jenkees, I'm sure you would be rewarded for it.
All you would need would be one video of one fantastic song, as Ronald
Jenkees has amply proved.

Contrary to your theory about how you need to progress as expressed many
times in this thread, he has become successful by using not only the
cheesy sounds that are the default on his keyboards, he also uses the
cheesy built in rhythms. If he doesn't need great sounds to be a
success, why do you?

It would seem that he can play live reasonably well, if you're not too
critical, which is a skill you clam not to need.

Incidentally, 7 million hits on Youbend does not indicate great talent
or even commercial success.

His latest album has been listened to about 100,000 times, but
Soundcloud don't say how many people listened to the complete tracks,
just the number who clicked play.

People come up singing intuitively, writing without training
or even playing instruments.

You've just admitted my longstanding point: that doing things
conventionally is not always the best route to success, yet you -- and
others here -- keep on hammering away that I must work conventionally
for many years before having a hope of success. So your advice is
contradictory.

No, the advice you have repeatedly been given for free is that now you
think that you have outgrown your chosen, simple tool, you need to make
at least a minimal effort to learn new tools in order to proceed.

Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston,
Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.?

There are countless successful musicians who didn't undertake the study
of orchestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etcetera -- whoever
the hell those guys are.

Name one composer who became very successful *without* studying the
theory and practice of music first.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.