Quote:
Originally posted by Diki:
There was no debate here... You have to have a point that is valid before there IS an actual debate. Here is the original post on the thread you quoted, genesys.
Please tell me where any of that refers to sound and style editing?

The thing is, just about ANY feature, if you take as broad a definition as you have taken, no matter WHAT it does, COULD, if you were maniacally one-tracked minded about it, be taken as tangentially pertaining to style editing. Even turning on the machine and booting up has to do with style editing (because you can't edit styles while it is switched off! ). So, I guess by YOUR broad definition of the term, then yes, I asked for style development to go on hiatus while he worked on the styles. As absurd as that premise is, have it your way...

Mind you, there appears to be sufficient absurdity to go around. Here you are, championing the MS, telling those of us that are MORE than cognizant exactly what you can and can't do with an MS (for Pete's sake... if you have actually READ my posts once again, you would have read that I have an extensive VSTi collection based round my computer, and have been using them since the very start of the protocol). Trouble is, apparently, you don't actually HAVE an MS! So, what's the deal? Where's your major malfunction? Why don't you have one? If it is THAT superior, why are you using that piece of s**t whatever you DO have? By your own admission, you understand the MS no better than anyone else who hasn't got one!

What is this, Debating 101 at high school? Pick ANY position, and argue it no matter how little you actually know? I am sorry, but I'm done with you. This wasn't a debate, it was a debacle. And I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[This message has been edited by Diki (edited 06-07-2009).]


Remember that the cry was that the sounds that the MS use for styles and the styles themselves did not sound good so Dom was in his own way trying to fix that problem.

Any intelligent person would have gotten from past post on the MS that there was a call for DOM to stop technology development and concentrate on content. Now after the fact some people want to play semantics in order to avoid sounding contradictory.


Whether or not you agree with his approach is a different story. You would have preferred Dom getting musicians to program the styles. However, Dom’s approach is he will give the user the technical tools to create new styles and edit existing styles best suited for them.

I never said you don’t use VSTs. So I don’t know where you got that from. While I do not have an MS, like you, I use VSTs to on a computer to help in production. On my arranger, I also include sample sounds in my user styles. That is another feature that Dom was developing for the MS. VSTs on the MS is just but one of many features on the MS.
So know one is saying you do not know how to use VSTs, computer and musical instruments. Actually I think your vast knowledge and experience could be what is preventing you from understanding the concept of the MS.

The concern is whether persons actually understand the concept of the MS.

You can not say the MS should be like a T2 OTB and say you understand the concept of the MS. They are two completely different things. Comparing both and trying to make one like the other only demonstrates a lack of understanding of one.

When I said good debating with you I was referring to Spalding.
Interesting you should use the word “debacle” because that is how I would characterize the unraveling of your prier post on the MS and the apparent need to now step away from them by subtle technicalities and definition of terms.


[This message has been edited by to the genesys (edited 06-07-2009).]
_________________________
TTG