Quote:

My point was that if a guitar or keyboard limits you to certain notes you will never go beyond those notes.






Gotcha. I agree. But *MY* point is that such products aren't usually used as a substitute for actually learning to play an instrument. I contend that most people on this forum already know how to play one or more instruments pretty well, and they would be more inclined to use technology as a production aid to add background tracks of an instrument they don't play.

In that case, the result only has to be "good enough" to blend into the mix.

But, let me take your logic to the extreme and put you on the spot:
The people here on the forum who are recording songs solely with real tracks, not playing ANY part of the song themselves... are they using the software as a crutch? Or are they using technology to quickly put their ideas into tangible form?

Which element is more creative... the idea? Or the physical execution of it?

Is Mozart's talent diminished if others execute his ideas? Or does the composition have merit that is separate from the merit earned by those who have the skill to perform it?

Quote:


Also, comparing BiaB to this isn't right. BiaB in skilled hands can do a LOT, because of the musical knowledge of the user. An instrument that only allows certain notes will limit that same user.





while I agree that drawing BIAB into the comparison is inappropriate to your argument, it is totally appropriate to the (different) argument I am trying to set forth.

Where our points take a different path is in the presumption (or lack of it) that people who avail themselves to technological aids always do it as a crutch. I don't think that is always the case, and so I chose to argue the benefits of using technology as an aid, not as a crutch.

I'm not saying you're wrong by any means.. we are simply making different points. I object to the blanket presumption that technology is always a crutch.

Last edited by Pat Marr; 11/13/10 08:10 AM.