Look at this punk, how is going to have any creative thoughts sitting down there?
"creation" in and of itself is neutral.
One can create good stuff as well as bad stuff.
Actually, it's a lot easier and more common to produce bad stuff. A good example is today's electronic sounds accompanied by a whiny voiced "singer" masquerading as music.
It is music. It may not be music that suits your taste, but it definitely is music. Music in and of itself is neutral.
Dismissing an entire genre of music as "masquerading" is such a generational tripping wire. Why do fools always end up making the same mistakes their parents did? "Rock and roll is corrupting youth", "disco is mindless", "metal is just noise", "rap is just fast talking", "punk is just angry kids", "electonica is just sounds accompanied by a whiny voiced singer".
Bob Dylan was whiny voiced too. And a lot of his music was shit too. You need to expand your horizons a bit dude.
If you understand the history, you'll know that the sophistication and complexity of music has been declining since the 19th century:
It started with 100+ piece orchestras of about 15 different types of instruments playing complex pieces
Went to 10-30 piece bands of a half dozen types of instruments playing "popular" music
Dropped to 4 pieces of 2 different instruments (guitars & drums) playing variations of a single genre
Now, we have a girl sitting on her living room floor with no instruments....
I guess some call that progress...
Yes, some would.
At one point in history you'd need a cottage industry of an accounting department to churn a companies profit and lost forecasts over the course of a week. Now a single person can update some values in a spreadsheet and do the same in minutes.
At one point in history you'd need a legion of people in a design and print department to arrange and typset the consitutent parts of a pamphlet. Now a single person can manipulate some components in InDesign and do the same in minutes.
Your argument is against progress, and the democratisation of the technology that powers the creative part of music. That it has been taken away from being the exclusive domain of elites with the wealth to patronise a 100+ piece orchestra is a good thing.
Orchestras still exist. They're great. Big bands still exist. They're great. 4 pieces still exist. They're great. And a girl (gender is relevant?) sitting on her living room floor (pretty sure it's her studio, but keep digging your hole) with the most powerful instrument in the world, a computer that can synthesize any sound exists too.
You don't have to listen to any of it if you don't want to, but the fact that it all exists is great!
I think your assumption that transitioning from music produced by professionals using professional equipment in a professional setting to a girl sitting in her living room is "progress" is incorrect. It's just a cheap, easy way to produce something she can sell.
A better analogy might be to compare a stone mansion to a wooden shed -- and call it "progress".
If the stone mansion still exists, and the wooden shed gives you somewhere to store your garden tools that were previously left out in the rain because they weren't fancy enough to store in the stone mansion, then yes I'd call it progress.
Though it's obviously a nonsense analogy.
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
I don't know to define mainstream these days. There are non-mainstream artists at are household names and there are mainstream musicians that aren't. She's certainly more than popular to headline her own tours and have other artists supporting her. You can find countries pictures of these tours with all the complex gear with technicians and sound engineers that setup at each event. You know, traveling by tour bus with vechicles with gear and people in toe, which George said Grimes didn't have any of because he saw ad of her selling a Mac for Apple.
I think your assumption that transitioning from music produced by professionals using professional equipment in a professional setting to a girl sitting in her living room is "progress" is incorrect. It's just a cheap, easy way to produce something she can sell.
A better analogy might be to compare a stone mansion to a wooden shed -- and call it "progress".
How can one man be so right about music and so wrong about everything else? I’m reading everything you say and am saying to myself, “This guy understands the foundation of objective beauty,” and yet am baffled why you can’t see it anywhere else. I say go into music production–or at the very least become one of the people at these big companies who approves of new content. They all need to learn how to say no. Like Apple does!
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
I don't know to define mainstream these days. There are non-mainstream artists at are household names and there are mainstream musicians that aren't. She's certainly more than popular to headline her own tours and have other artists supporting her.
Yeah, that's probably fair. I don't consider her mainstream, but it depends what your barometer is. Classical music fans may well consider any and all pop music to be mainstream, and they're not exactly wrong. It's a subjective term.
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
I don't know to define mainstream these days. There are non-mainstream artists at are household names and there are mainstream musicians that aren't. She's certainly more than popular to headline her own tours and have other artists supporting her. You can find countries pictures of these tours with all the complex gear with technicians and sound engineers that setup at each event. You know, traveling by tour bus with vechicles with gear and people in toe, which George said Grimes didn't have any of because he saw ad of her selling a Mac for Apple.
Grimes? That's funny....
... I never mentioned her...
But, nice try at a take down. But, when your argument includes Alternative Facts distorted from real ones it usually fails...
I think your assumption that transitioning from music produced by professionals using professional equipment in a professional setting to a girl sitting in her living room is "progress" is incorrect. It's just a cheap, easy way to produce something she can sell.
A better analogy might be to compare a stone mansion to a wooden shed -- and call it "progress".
How can one man be so right about music and so wrong about everything else? I’m reading everything you say and am saying to myself, “This guy understands the foundation of objective beauty,” and yet am baffled why you can’t see it anywhere else. I say go into music production–or at the very least become one of the people at these big companies who approves of new content. They all need to learn how to say no. Like Apple does!
I love and appreciate good music. And I love(d) making music. Unfortunately, and much to my dismay, I am just not very good at making it.
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
I don't know to define mainstream these days. There are non-mainstream artists at are household names and there are mainstream musicians that aren't. She's certainly more than popular to headline her own tours and have other artists supporting her. You can find countries pictures of these tours with all the complex gear with technicians and sound engineers that setup at each event. You know, traveling by tour bus with vechicles with gear and people in toe, which George said Grimes didn't have any of because he saw ad of her selling a Mac for Apple.
Grimes? That's funny....
... I never mentioned her...
But, nice try at a take down. But, when your argument includes Alternative Facts distorted from real ones it usually fails…
You mentioned her constantly to paint your bias about her and I'll guess all music that was made after the first time you got laid. Here's one such quote: "…as we see in the commercial, with a girl [Grimes] sitting on the floor of her living room generating (mostly) crap that is then propagated out as $0.99 songs…" You couldn't even be mature enough to refer to her by her name, profession, or call her a woman. Instead you take your insult even further so maybe your bias toward her extends well beyond electronic music.
fastasleep said: The Air is a dead man walking, and will be gone as soon as the MacBook can get down to $999.
I'd like to see it be the first step in getting an ARM variant. I think that the Air moniker would be a terrific in ushering in and helping keep the ARM and Intel-based Mac separate for what I assume will be a very long transition period.
This makes zero sense to me. Why would they not just use them in the MacBook? Using an established (and dated) "Air" moniker to differentiate processors in a brand new product in a newly bifurcated Mac line would be confusing as hell to the average consumer.
You know Grimes is wildly popular and successful, right? No?
And publicly dating Elon Musk as of May of this year.
Not sure how that's in any way relevant to her professional career.
1) You think when they do offer ARM and Intel side-by-side they'll just call them the same thing without any easy way for the customer to know the difference? I don't see how it can be a full conversation like in previous architecture additions, like to Intel or to 64-bit. I expect the ARM-based Macs will serve the low-end of the market while the Intel-based Macs will continue to server the higher-end for many years to come.
2) Being a celebrity is absolutely relevant to careers in entertainment, but more to my point is to connect those saying "I've never heard of Grimes" to note the Musk affiliation since he's assuredly known to everyone here.
I don’t know anything for sure, but I’m fairly certain they’re not going to use the Air moniker to differentiate chip architectures. I would assume they’re going to make this transition as seamless as possible to the average consumer, so why wouldn’t they simply move from low power Intel chips in the MacBook to ARM and not call it anything different? The average MacBook buyer literally does not care.
fastasleep said: The Air is a dead man walking, and will be gone as soon as the MacBook can get down to $999.
I'd like to see it be the first step in getting an ARM variant. I think that the Air moniker would be a terrific in ushering in and helping keep the ARM and Intel-based Mac separate for what I assume will be a very long transition period.
This makes zero sense to me. Why would they not just use them in the MacBook? Using an established (and dated) "Air" moniker to differentiate processors in a brand new product in a newly bifurcated Mac line would be confusing as hell to the average consumer.
You know Grimes is wildly popular and successful, right? No?
And publicly dating Elon Musk as of May of this year.
Not sure how that's in any way relevant to her professional career.
1) You think when they do offer ARM and Intel side-by-side they'll just call them the same thing without any easy way for the customer to know the difference? I don't see how it can be a full conversation like in previous architecture additions, like to Intel or to 64-bit. I expect the ARM-based Macs will serve the low-end of the market while the Intel-based Macs will continue to server the higher-end for many years to come.
2) Being a celebrity is absolutely relevant to careers in entertainment, but more to my point is to connect those saying "I've never heard of Grimes" to note the Musk affiliation since he's assuredly known to everyone here.
I don’t know anything for sure, but I’m fairly certain they’re not going to use the Air moniker to differentiate chip architectures. I would assume they’re going to make this transition as seamless as possible to the average consumer, so why wouldn’t they simply move from low power Intel chips in the MacBook to ARM and not call it anything different? The average MacBook buyer literally does not care.
And they did change tup their banding to account for their movie to Intel. And since I don't think we should expect x86_64 virtulation on an entry-level MacBook Air product (which effectively is the current MacBook with Apple silicon), I don't think calling them both MacBook would make any sense, nor do I see a need to get rid of the Intel-based MacBook itself.
...Thunderbolt 3 is the future and no amount of whining is going to bring back USB-A ports or SD/HDMI that most people don't need bespoke ports for. ... ...keep whining as if Apple is only capable of doing one thing at a time and making Mac ads somehow has prevented them from updating Macs.
For someone "fast asleep" you whine as much as the rest of us, about the topic of whining! :-)
USB-A won't go out of style for at least another decade, I guarantee you that. Apple came out with the USB-C only MacBook quite some time ago, and we still haven't seen the USB-C revolution become widespread yet. Widespread means "find it literally everywhere you go, all around the world." Apple designers responsible for the late 2016 and newer MacBook "Pros" were a band of fools for not instead coming out with a machine that bridged the future with today. You know, a machine that would offer mostly USB-C ports but also would have at least 1 USB-A port so as to eliminate some dongles.
I know full well USB-C is the future, and that's the keyword here -- the FUTURE. That future isn't here yet even though USB-C Macs have been out a long time. Yes, a few years is A LONG TIME in computer time frames. Dongles and that rats nest of wires is stupidity. It's the polar opposite of the Johnny Ive minimalism aesthetic. And that proves Mr. Ive has taken his minimalism too far. His ideology has minimized the ports on a huge 15" MBP (where there's plenty of space for numerous ports) to such an extent that a huge number of external dongles are now required. Minimalism done well focuses not only on the core machine but how peripherals are attached too. As such, I think it's high time for Mr. Ive to retire and let Apple hire fresh blood.
Even if some of you disagree with me about USB-A, the fact remains there's still no excuses for having removed the SD card slot, especially when people once used it for always-in storage, not just for photos and videos. Besides, this is a MacBook named "Pro," so it's only fitting that we laugh and mock it for not offering us those features we consider "pro." And yes, the SD card slot is a pro feature even if some status quo defenders and "Cupertino is infallible" worshippers in this forum personally don't use it. Why some Mac users in pro-Apple forums feel that something is "not needed" only because YOU and perhaps your friends don't use it is beyond all comprehension to me. Again, I'm talking about the 15" MBP with plenty of space, not the 13" model here.
And all the while we argue about this, Apple is truly the one "fast asleep" at the Mac design wheel in Cupertino. During their slumber though, they happened to kick out a few ADs, hoping we won't notice the lack of WOW and buy existing Macs anyway. Sorry, Tim Cook, you need to do better than that!
You have a better word for it? The longer they kept all sorts of legacy ports around, the slower we’d all be moving away from them. I personally don’t think on a portable device it’s necessary. Any true “Pro” worth their salt will simply carry the tools they need to get the job done, like a cheap USB-C SD/USB-A adapter if that’s what it is. And the “rat’s nest” is easily tamed by a dock under your desk with a single cable to your Mac for literally every connection including power you could possibly need. It’s not difficult. YES, they could’ve thrown you a USB-A port but they didn’t, and they’re not going to do it now or in the future. I personally can’t wait to move forward.
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
I don't know to define mainstream these days. There are non-mainstream artists at are household names and there are mainstream musicians that aren't. She's certainly more than popular to headline her own tours and have other artists supporting her. You can find countries pictures of these tours with all the complex gear with technicians and sound engineers that setup at each event. You know, traveling by tour bus with vechicles with gear and people in toe, which George said Grimes didn't have any of because he saw ad of her selling a Mac for Apple.
Grimes? That's funny....
... I never mentioned her...
But, nice try at a take down. But, when your argument includes Alternative Facts distorted from real ones it usually fails…
You mentioned her constantly to paint your bias about her ....
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
I don't know to define mainstream these days. There are non-mainstream artists at are household names and there are mainstream musicians that aren't. She's certainly more than popular to headline her own tours and have other artists supporting her. You can find countries pictures of these tours with all the complex gear with technicians and sound engineers that setup at each event. You know, traveling by tour bus with vechicles with gear and people in toe, which George said Grimes didn't have any of because he saw ad of her selling a Mac for Apple.
Grimes? That's funny....
... I never mentioned her...
But, nice try at a take down. But, when your argument includes Alternative Facts distorted from real ones it usually fails…
You mentioned her constantly to paint your bias about her ....
L I E !
"…as we see in the commercial, with a girl [Grimes] sitting on the floor of her living room generating (mostly) crap that is then propagated out as $0.99 songs…"
"...music produced by professionals using professional equipment in a professional setting to a girl [Grimes] sitting in her living room is "progress" is incorrect."
"It's just a cheap, easy way to produce something she [Grimes] can sell."
If her and she aren't referring to Grimes then to whom are you referring with your pronoun?
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
I don't know to define mainstream these days. There are non-mainstream artists at are household names and there are mainstream musicians that aren't. She's certainly more than popular to headline her own tours and have other artists supporting her. You can find countries pictures of these tours with all the complex gear with technicians and sound engineers that setup at each event. You know, traveling by tour bus with vechicles with gear and people in toe, which George said Grimes didn't have any of because he saw ad of her selling a Mac for Apple.
Grimes? That's funny....
... I never mentioned her...
But, nice try at a take down. But, when your argument includes Alternative Facts distorted from real ones it usually fails…
You mentioned her constantly to paint your bias about her ....
L I E !
"…as we see in the commercial, with a girl [Grimes] sitting on the floor of her living room generating (mostly) crap that is then propagated out as $0.99 songs…"
"...music produced by professionals using professional equipment in a professional setting to a girl [Grimes] sitting in her living room is "progress" is incorrect."
"It's just a cheap, easy way to produce something she [Grimes] can sell."
If her and she aren't referring to Grimes then to whom are you referring with your pronoun?
Stop bickering on the forums. If you want to bicker, do it in DM.
Comments
Though it's obviously a nonsense analogy.
You seem to have a real hang up about Grimes' motivations and talents. She isn't a mainstream star at all, her most celebrated music has been deeply personal and was championed by indie channels long before she achieved any fame. As I've already said, she's a multi-instrumentalist, who nevertheless has adopted electronica as her musical artform of choice. She composes, writes, plays, sings, and does most/a lot of her own graphic and video design work. She outclasses many of those who you would label as "real musicians" simply because they pluck strings or blow into tubes.
"It's just a cheap, easy way to produce something she [Grimes] can sell."
If her and she aren't referring to Grimes then to whom are you referring with your pronoun?