Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yep. The programmer's version of 'Band-In-A-Box'. Someone else writes the riffs, then one picks a style, picks some chords, and voila, out comes a rhythm track and now all one has to do is invent a melody. People might be surprised to find out how many songs are actually "Happy Birthday" below the melody. It is composition by the numbers, but given a trope ridden environment, it works. Otherwise a lot of modern artists would never get out the first album. The hidden dilemma: learning to sing (pitch can be fixed but not articulation, phrasing, and so on). One can automate the orchestration, but the melody/choreography requires some know-how. Then there is the cost competition. If I and my competitor use identical templates, then the cost differentiators come down to things like labor. That is what the article says: coding is a grunt job so go where the grunts are good at what they do and cheap. The problem is as it has been, homogenized products require social differentiators. The sale is in the politics because the performance is always the same. I like tools as long as I can optimize and hide that optimization. That is one reason VisualScript lets you hide the scripts, and yet another reason to prefer binaries. Sad but so; view source is a leveller and who wants that? Coding makes you dumb; not coding makes you bland. Expensive coding makes you unemployable: see outsourcing. len From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@b...] "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote: > [snip] > Attempts to program-by-Visio are legendary. Just attended a great demo along those lines - check out VisualScript XML [1]
|
