The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
Everyone is a musician
Old 15th December 2019
  #571
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by shreddoggie View Post
If an infinite number of code monkey's were operating an infinite number of Ableton instances (with Push controllers) and using an infinite number pencil tools on an infinite number of piano rolls with an infinite number of virtual instruments for an infinite length of time, they would never compose the Brahms violin concerto.

Probably not, but those are pretty inherently inexpressive and limited.

Stringed instruments are a naturally expressive instrument. Pencil tools and push controllers aren't. You have to go to something like a MIDI guitar, or even a continuum (which is still limited in resolution) or a theremin to get the level of expression required.

However, you can program these kinds of expressive passages into software. It's just that nobody really focuses on it.

Music is much more than a collection of notes. It's the squeaks in the violin. If those squeaks weren't there, if it was just harmonic spectra of a violin at a single position then it wouldn't sound like a violin - it would sound like something else. That's why we have to have 50 gigabyte sample libraries, the level of harmonic spectra change is just way too high.... Physical modelling is the answer to this, but it's still stuck in academia. However, a lot of the reason is because again, the lack of controllers capable at reproducing these nuances even with physical modeling to the point you have to re-create a digital version of the instrument controller (and still failing because until very recently anything beyond 8 bit encoders is crazy expensive).

So basically at this point, you're stuck with coding the physical models directly or dividing them into subsections that can be controllable by standard physical controls.
Old 15th December 2019
  #572
Lives for gear
 

Or you have the problem that now that you’ve properly modeled some of the complexity of the physics of the instrument you are modeling, it takes the skills of an increasingly small set of players to use effectively.

So the pressures of commercial synth-making, which like everything else focuses on the largest possible market, reduce the incentive to go deep with the techniques.
Old 15th December 2019
  #573
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

I have an opinion too. A true musician loves music and his fellow musicans and would never ask himself whether they are inferior or superior to him, use it too promote himself on the internet or to display contempt for other’s preferences, tastes and skills. People who do that are called “losers”, not musicians. No, instead he/she will just say: “Let’s play”, and this is basically what it takes to be a musician. So yes, there are true musicians, but you ain’t gonna find any around threads like this.
Old 15th December 2019
  #574
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
I have an opinion too. A true musician loves music and his fellow musicans and would never ask himself whether they are inferior or superior to him, use it too promote himself on the internet or to display contempt for other’s preferences, tastes and skills. People who do that are called “losers”, not musicians. No, instead he/she will just say: “Let’s play” and this is basically what it takes to be a musician. So yes, there are true musicians, but you ain’t gonna find any around threads like this.
First of all I never stated a superior sense. There’s no superior to being a musician or not being one. One either is it isn’t. There’s no value placed in that.
Old 15th December 2019
  #575
Gear Head
 

There is no doubt that making convincing Daffy Duck sounds with turntables takes practice and skill. Which made me wonder: are WWE protagonists martial artists?
Old 15th December 2019
  #576
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognistudio View Post
Which made me wonder: are WWE protagonists martial artists?
Not anymore than Robert De Niro is a gangster.
Old 15th December 2019
  #577
Gear Head
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
A true musician loves music and his fellow musicans and would never ask himself whether they are inferior or superior to him
Until it's time to audition people for his band, at which point he will ruthlessly categorize people by how good of a musician they are, never mind the true lover of music stuff.
Old 15th December 2019
  #578
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
Or you have the problem that now that you’ve properly modeled some of the complexity of the physics of the instrument you are modeling, it takes the skills of an increasingly small set of players to use effectively.
Perhaps, but I think it's within the realm of most decent keyboardists or touch pad players to do convincing physical model playing.

You have to understand that a huge amount of these models are actually quite good. There's nothing scientifically holding them back per se on a theoretical level.

However, the effective resolution of a tablet point to point is 14 bits for a top of the line tablet, mostly 8 bit... And this gets worse as the screen gets larger. MIDI is only 7 bit. With MIDI you can stack CCs and get 14 bit resolution but few controllers will actually encode this. Compared to the models that will be able to use 32 or 64 bit floating point resolution internally that's a really big gap. And you don't get anywhere near "natural" levels of states physical objects can be in until you have those kinds of bit depths. 16 bits gets close, 24 bits get closer (and very good), and that's basically the limit of electronics today.

For years controller (and plugin) manufacturers have hid this by just interpolating the slew deltas.. Sneaky bastards. :P Same with your fancy automation consoles...

Even in your DAW.

I've searched high and wide for a TRUE high resolution controller to no avail. It might be worth it to run CV and use a CV ribbon controller mapped to a VCA through a DAC like silent way did to get around this limitation...

Last edited by systematika; 15th December 2019 at 07:39 AM..
Old 15th December 2019
  #579
Quote:
Originally Posted by systematika View Post

Tone, timbre, and rhythm is all you need to make music. If you write it, then you are a musician. Even more so, you are a composer which requires you to understand placement of different instruments' timbres and a higher level of understanding generally. And that is very, very, hard to do effectively even in a computer, which is probably the most expressive instrument available.

I've read and reread this statement. Not sure what you mean by the last sentence.
Well oiled composers working with traditional orchestral instruments have probably got second nature with how timbres combine, blend, and the various registers the instruments occupy. If it's very hard to do, they need some more schooling and more practice. Yep, some of you may want to cover your ears and go la la la la la real loud or blink past this part because I'm gonna say it again.

Practice.

It may be hard to do with a computer, if the composer has no actual instrument experience or skills to speak of and they've never heard the real instruments, only samples in a computer that apes them. But IMO the only way a computer could be the most expressive instrument available is if the composer has no skills on traditional instruments and the sample counterparts are all that's available to him. Or said composer knows no other humans that play the actual instruments and will never be able to find or gain access to any. IOW, it might be hard to do with only a computer compared to having a broad understanding of the real instruments or the ability to play a few of them, even and especially the piano.


Or are you saying that a computer is the most expressive instrument available to any composer anywhere regardless of what other instruments might be available to them or what their skills with them might be... bar none?

The device the gentleman in the vid is demonstrating is interesting. But it in no way compares to the expressive potential of a competent pianist at the piano, or of a good conductor in front of a good orchestra, from what I've heard. And I think the conductors that told him that they like to conduct the first movement of Beethoven 5 in one were pulling his leg, I hope they were. Bernstein and Barenboim certainly don't. I've played the piece many, many times as a violinist in various orchestras. Never for a conductor that took it one beat to a bar. Not enough control at something approaching tempo giusto. And it could only work if the goal is to race through the piece at a tempo it's very unlikely Beethoven ever intended, or that does the music any service. That device's best use is probably something quite different from what he's trying to do with it. And it may be quite valid artistically, but that doesn't mean he's a musician.
Old 15th December 2019
  #580
Yo-Yo Ma, on one of the most expressive instruments ever.




Old 15th December 2019
  #581
Here for the gear
 
AFunkyRhythm's Avatar
 

I feel that if you can create something that inspires a desired emotional response in someone, then you are an artist.

If you can create this using sound, melody and harmony, you are a musician.

The more you practice, the more tools you are proficient at, the bigger “vocabulary” you have in order to say what you want to say.
Old 15th December 2019
  #582
Lives for gear
Quote:
Originally Posted by GearFiddler View Post
.

Or are you saying that a computer is the most expressive instrument available to any composer anywhere regardless of what other instruments might be available to them or what their skills with them might be... bar none?
Yes.

1. There are no limitations to harmonic spectra that you can generate within the computer within audible range. If a ADC can record it, and a DAC can play it back with a margin of error of .002%, then it can also generate the numbers required to reproduce it with 100% accuracy every time with no input source. If it couldn't, computers would be *really* lousy. It might not be able to do it in real time, and definitely wasn't back in the day even for simple single cycle wavetable synthesis (which Max Mathews invented), but it's still possible.

And you can do it without samples.

2. Because of this lack of limitation, you can both meet and exceed a real player on a real instrument.

And as I said before you posted, the limitations are mostly the human interface devices that we use to interface with the computer, not the computer itself. A computer is quite happy generating 20,000 individual sine waves, phase locking them, and sweeping through them with a resolution of 2,147,483,647 32-bit float points, far exceeding that of the spectral information (though it is not that efficient)... Doing it with a controller that supports 127 or 255 points? Eh, that's really really bad news.

However, for a composer who can write some code, it is quite possible to do. Some plugins, not all (and very few instruments) support a 32 bit resolution with native automation.



Quote:
The two computers used are a Macintosh IIci and a NeXT. The Macintosh computer receives serial data from the Radio Drum and MIDI data from the Zeta violin and does event processing, using software built by the composers with the MAX system. It then sends MIDI data to the NeXT computer, which does further event processing, algorithmic generation and DSP (digital signal processing) synthesis, as well as sending MIDI data to a Yamaha TG77 synthesizer. The NeXT computer is running software built by the composers using Ensemble and the NeXT Music Kit system.

Note that no stored sequences or pre-recorded material of any kind are used. All sound is produced in response to physical and musical gestures of the performers. Although the music is worked out in great detail, the performers are given freedom to spontaneously alter its flow on micro and macro time scales.

This recording is a live performance at the Stanford University Centennial Concert in Frost Amphitheater on Sept. 27, 1991. This was a historic event for several reasons, not the least of which was the presence of Leon Theremin, who was approaching 100 years himself.
Note these computers used were running probably at less than 100 MHZ. David Jaffe now works for Universal Audio and does UAD so.. There's that.

Last edited by systematika; 15th December 2019 at 10:27 AM..
Old 15th December 2019
  #583
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
First of all I never stated a superior sense. There’s no superior to being a musician or not being one. One either is it isn’t. There’s no value placed in that.
Did I mention you in particular? Hmm....interesting.....
Old 15th December 2019
  #584
Lives for gear
 

BTW I can’t thank @ systematika and @ GearFiddler enough for elevating this thread to a far more interesting level of conversation; great stuff!

I think to systematika’s point, the thing is that the actual computing bandwidth, processing power, basically already far exceeds — aside from the controller bandwidth limitations — what is needed to produce musical subtlety which can, under proper, practiced, trained musical control (to Gearfiddler’s point), rival anything else out there.

The limits are not in processing power; they’re in the human-computer interface.

If a musician is “composing their score” (a phrase that hardly needs quotes around it) via pure programming, there’s nothing saying in that case that the ensuing results can’t be every bit as expressive as a Yo Yo Ma or Pablo Casals on cello. The programmer would just have to be that good in the mastery of their compositional skills. No small challenge.

Plus I keep going back to what I like about electronic music, what I find striking: its mechanical and electronic qualities. A Kraftwerkianism, maybe. In other words, does computer music need Casals Plays Cello expressivity to be valid as music? I would say, no.

The dripping, quavering, barely on-key tones that are the YouTube performance fad of the moment (and which are meant to signify “Analogue!”), to my taste, have nothing to do with the starker strengths of what I’ve come to recognize as electronically made sound, computer music.

Of course, that historical preference is as arbitrary as anything else, but it’s one I adhere to so far.
Old 15th December 2019
  #585
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
Did I mention you in particular? Hmm....interesting.....
Of course. not. But this is a group conversation, no? Hm. Interesting.
Old 15th December 2019
  #586
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Of course. not. But this is a group conversation, no? Hm. Interesting.
That was not what was interesting, but that you felt you had to defend yourself against this opinion.
Old 15th December 2019
  #587
Lives for gear
 

.... or we could have an argument.....

sigh.....
Old 15th December 2019
  #588
Gear Guru
 
henryrobinett's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by IncarnateX View Post
That was not what was interesting, but that you felt you had to defend yourself against this opinion.
Because I've had a lot of posts about this opinion. It's a conversation. I haven't been participating in it the last few days because I'm on my 30th wedding anniversary, out of town, having a great time with my wife, so I'm not paying attention. But it was somewhat my posts that spurred some of these contra opinions.
Old 15th December 2019
  #589
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
Because I've had a lot of posts about this opinion. It's a conversation. I haven't been participating in it the last few days because I'm on my 30th wedding anniversary, out of town, having a great time with my wife, so I'm not paying attention. But it was somewhat my posts that spurred some of these contra opinions.
Happy anniversary!
Old 15th December 2019
  #590
Lives for gear
 
Snorktop's Avatar
 

A machine can't compose great music, and never will. Even in electronic music, the machines are just instruments, just like a violin. Without the human to compose with them, they are nothing. Your talk of programming a machine to compose has already been disproved, even if it has the processing power of every computer on earth,
Old 15th December 2019
  #591
Lives for gear
 
spaceman's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
If a musician is “composing their score” (a phrase that hardly needs quotes around it) via pure programming, there’s nothing saying in that case that the ensuing results can’t be every bit as expressive as a Yo Yo Ma or Pablo Casals on cello. The programmer would just have to be that good in the mastery of their compositional skills. No small challenge.
.
I think a lot of the confusion in this thread ( which I admit not having read all of it ) comes from the fact that people are talking about 2 different things which can't always be compared:

- the PERFORMING aspect of music, which is inevitably very physical, and may necessitate lots of dexterity and training over the years ( especially for classical performers), whether you're performing on keys, strings, vocals, or turntables.
But for which you absolutely do not need to be able to compose any music at all, as long as you can perform music composed by others.

- the COMPOSING aspect of music, which essentialy cerebral and doesn't need any physical talent or dexterity at all. All you need is something to put in the instructions of what is what is to be played, be it a pen and paper to write solfège, or a computer and mouse to step enter notes , or more abstract sound instructions in something like Max or Processing. Essentially, it is REALLY the same process.
And here again you do not need to be physically apt to perform your own music at all. The symphonic orchestra, or the MIDI synths will do it for you if you give them the precise sequence of things to do.

Great compositions of music can be badly performed. And very average compositions of music can be superbly and expressively performed.
Old 15th December 2019
  #592
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snorktop View Post
A machine can't compose great music, and never will. Even in electronic music, the machines are just instruments, just like a violin. Without the human to compose with them, they are nothing. Your talk of programming a machine to compose has already been disproved, even if it has the processing power of every computer on earth,
No but we already use computers as scoring/composition machines. The music created derives from human choices and intention, no matter how automated the playback might become. But at some level, the minute you enter a note in a DAW or sequencer, you’re writing computer music; you are asking the computer to reflect your creative intentions within the constraints of what it can do as a playback device.

An orchestra is at some level nothing more than a playback device for the composer’s score.
Old 15th December 2019
  #593
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by henryrobinett View Post
But it was somewhat my posts that spurred some of these contra opinions.
Yours and everybody else's posts. Did not have your posts in mind in particular, but kind of glad you accepted my premise when defending yourself against it. You could have disagreed.

And Happy anniversary.
Old 15th December 2019
  #594
Gear Maniac
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
An orchestra is at some level nothing more than a playback device for the composer’s score.
This is true. Before the advent of recorded music and playback devices, performing musicians were the playback devices. Sheet music was the CD/vinyl/mp3.

Classical music education used to be very practical, it prepared instrumentalists for the numerous playback jobs available. If a grocery store wanted music, they had to hire an instrumentalist. Now its become something of "this is the way its taught because this is the way its taught." Generation after generation prepare themselves for jobs in the 1800s that aren't there, and then, in order to actually have a job (teaching), they have to convince the next generation that they need to learn it too. Theres a reason most of the renowned creative minds in music don't come from this system anymore.
Old 15th December 2019
  #595
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnorionsound View Post
This is true. Before the advent of recorded music and playback devices, performing musicians were the playback devices. Sheet music was the CD/vinyl/mp3.

Classical music education used to be very practical, it prepared instrumentalists for the numerous playback jobs available. If a grocery store wanted music, they had to hire an instrumentalist. Now its become something of "this is the way its taught because this is the way its taught." Generation after generation prepare themselves for jobs in the 1800s that aren't there, and then, in order to actually have a job (teaching), they have to convince the next generation that they need to learn it too. Theres a reason most of the renowned creative minds in music don't come from this system anymore.
There's also the whole question of interpretation of the score, though, that's another big discussion. Machines do not interpret a score, they transcribe it and reproduce it "perfectly." The question is, how to introduce the interpretive nuances into the present machines (digital) as they playback? That's a far trickier proposition.

A Barenboim conducting the Vienna Philharmonic is going to play very differently from an Eric Kunzel conducting the Cincinnati Pops, even if they're playing the same piece.

But yes, the economics of orchestras, as much as the economics of a number of traditional disciplines and practices, no longer jibes with the economic structure of the present and future world. That's one of the fundamental, fast-moving change factors we all see without knowing what to do about it, really.

To tie a couple of threads here together, you can see why a lot of people on the Roland MC-707 threads are currently complaining about a lack of song mode. The MC-707 isn't really the composition machine it would appear to be; it's more designed to be a performance machine, although the matrix of clips available for playback makes it more than possible to produce 2-3 hours of varied music on it. "MC," after all, in Roland's history stands for "Micro Composer," with Micro not meaning small, but in the parlance of the '80's, Microchip. Personal computer.

But many clearly want a full composition machine, that is not a DAW, that's clear. Something they don't "conduct," as performers, the way a conductor would conduct an orchestra playing a score, but something they use to capture and record and play sequentially a full composition, without any further human interference (or limited interference, a few filter sweeps, etc.).

Even a Eurorack player is a conductor, changing the machine as it plays back to produce changes in sound that consitute music: changes in pitch, timbre, rhythm, amplitude, counterpoint.

The question, once you get to a machine complex enough to capture your musical thoughts and record them, what do you want your role to be, vis-a-vis that machine? The more creative will want full-time involvement throughout the performance, I think; the less creative, or perhaps it would be safer to say, more purely compositionally focused, would simply want their scores played back "correctly," without further interpretation or variation.
Old 15th December 2019
  #596
Lives for gear
 
IncarnateX's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cognistudio View Post
Until it's time to audition people for his band, at which point he will ruthlessly categorize people by how good of a musician they are, never mind the true lover of music stuff.
Well, A baker does not bake all day, sometimes he has to be an employer and thus an asshole.

(...the Marxist said. “Oh, go mind your own employees”, the Pragmatist answered, “all you idealists of the seventhies are stinking rich today and betrayed your kin ages ago, hypocrite”. “Ha!“ The postmodernist interrupted, “are you old hags still caught up in lame social constructions like ‘class divisions’?”, and got beaten up by both of them.)
Old 15th December 2019
  #597
Lives for gear
 
Shadowkast's Avatar
I'm a Para Musician, meaning that for most sounds, I can only suck at 2 musical skills at a given time. Under certain conditions, this can be simulated to be "Polyphonic" suckage if I leave the chorus and vocoder on.
Old 16th December 2019
  #598
Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
BTW I can’t thank @ systematika and @ GearFiddler enough for elevating this thread to a far more interesting level of conversation; great stuff!

I think to systematika’s point, the thing is that the actual computing bandwidth, processing power, basically already far exceeds — aside from the controller bandwidth limitations — what is needed to produce musical subtlety which can, under proper, practiced, trained musical control (to Gearfiddler’s point), rival anything else out there.

The limits are not in processing power; they’re in the human-computer interface.

If a musician is “composing their score” (a phrase that hardly needs quotes around it) via pure programming, there’s nothing saying in that case that the ensuing results can’t be every bit as expressive as a Yo Yo Ma or Pablo Casals on cello. The programmer would just have to be that good in the mastery of their compositional skills. No small challenge.

Plus I keep going back to what I like about electronic music, what I find striking: its mechanical and electronic qualities. A Kraftwerkianism, maybe. In other words, does computer music need Casals Plays Cello expressivity to be valid as music? I would say, no.

The dripping, quavering, barely on-key tones that are the YouTube performance fad of the moment (and which are meant to signify “Analogue!”), to my taste, have nothing to do with the starker strengths of what I’ve come to recognize as electronically made sound, computer music.

Of course, that historical preference is as arbitrary as anything else, but it’s one I adhere to so far.
You're welcome. I'm trying to stay out of the mud anyway. I might like to rib some general populace a bit, but I certainly don't mean to offend, directly or otherwise. If I have, then I apologize, anyone that wishes to may think me a loser as they like.

But I have been around. And I'm actually not some stuffy, moribund classical cat. I'm an experimenter too. If anyone wonders they can check out my Soundcloud. (I have been waylaid though by a gnarly neck injury.)

So, having caught a random javelin or two, I'll also say that I'm not backing down on anything I've said, yet. I really don't hold a DJ that presses play and does a few arbitrary moves that could have been this or that...doesn't matter...in the same esteem as one that brings considerably more art and perhaps even enough of what a musician does to blur the lines somewhat with what they do. I can put a pair of tennis shoes in the dryer and they might by some chance clunk out "Shave And A Haircut." I'm nothing more than someone doing their laundry though.

There's a dj and then there's a DJ. Same with musicians, IMO...so someone who is sitting down with a Volca or two, who's quite musical but doesn't know an octave from an octopus, might come up with something quite special and I might be well inclined to say that they are acting as a musician. That doesn't mean I would then hold them in the same esteem as Prince...whom I miss dearly. A kid in karate with his white belt has made a commitment and is a young martial artist, or martial arts student IMO. And then there's Bruce Lee.

To the point of your post realtrance. Yeah, you know, one can bring the barn door up to the plate. But if you can't get aroun...woops, there went the ball. Needs a soundystem and for the lights not to go out, also. Advantage cello.

Re the Zeta. I traded rigs over the weekend with another electric violinist who was playing the same orchestra gig about the time the above vid was made and got to give the Zeta a thorough whirl. Not my thing. Interesting, to me, on a novelty sort of level. Just not the way I would want to attempt to reach people I suppose. My aim was at a different chakra. I couldn't wait to get my own rig back.
The two guys in the vid are sporting some large traditional chops with their controllers, I might add.

But I wholeheartedly support the experimentation.

Last edited by GearFiddler; 16th December 2019 at 03:55 AM..
Old 16th December 2019
  #599
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearFiddler View Post
Your welcome. I'm trying to stay out of the mud anyway. I might like to rib some general populace a bit, but I certainly don't mean to offend, directly or otherwise. If I have, then I apologize, anyone that wishes to may think me a loser as they like.

But I have been around. And I'm actually not some stuffy, moribund classical cat. I'm an experimenter too. If anyone wonders they can check out my Soundcloud. (I have been waylaid though by a gnarly neck injury.)

So, having caught a random javelin or two, I'll also say that I'm not backing down on anything I've said, yet. I really don't hold a DJ that presses play and does a few arbitrary moves that could have been this or that...doesn't matter...in the same esteem as one that brings considerably more art and perhaps even enough of what a musician does to blur the lines somewhat with what they do. I can put a pair of tennis shoes in the dryer and they might by some chance clunk out "Shave And A Haircut." I'm nothing more than someone doing their laundry though.

There's a dj and then there's a DJ. Same with musicians, IMO...so someone who is sitting down with a Volca or two, who's quite musical but doesn't know an octave from an octopus, might come up with something quite special and I might be well inclined to say that they are acting as a musician. That doesn't mean I would then hold them in the same esteem as Prince...whom I miss dearly. A kid in karate with his white belt has made a commitment and is a young martial artist, or martial arts student IMO. And then there's Bruce Lee.

To the point of your post realtrance. Yeah, you know, one can bring the barn door up to the plate. But if you can't get aroun...woops, there went the ball. Needs a soundystem and for the lights not to go out, also. Advantage cello.

Re the Zeta. I traded rigs over the weekend with another electric violinist who was playing the same orchestra gig about the time the above vid was made and got to give the Zeta a thorough whirl. Not my thing. Interesting, to me, on a novelty sort of level. Just not the way I would want to attempt to reach people I suppose. My aim was at a different chakra. I couldn't wait to get my own rig back.
The two guys in the vid are sporting some large traditional chops with their controllers, I might add.

But I wholeheartedly support the experimentation.
Nothing I would disagree with here!
Old 16th December 2019
  #600
Lives for gear
 
12tone's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by realtrance View Post
Nothing I would disagree with here!
Mr GearFiddle is too demure about wrestling with pigs though...everyone gets a little dirty, whether one enjoys it or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GearFiddler View Post
Your welcome. I'm trying to stay out of the mud anyway.
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump