|
>We all understood what you said and meant, and no amount of deflection changes it. I beg to defer. I understood what the parent said, but agree with him and disagree with your take. You also come of as rude. And, to my experience with musicians, also wrong in making those general statements. Many pro musicians don't know about DAWs, and are too intimidated to even use If your experience is mostly with modern pop/electronic/hip-hop etc mucisians, of course they'll know about DAWs. Or someone playing keyboards in bands, will too. And of course if you are a dev and have dev friends who play guitars and keys and such, they'll also know DAWs. But there are many many genres outside that, and many pro musicians, or musicians that are not techy, where conventional instruments rule, and musicians who even take pride in not dealing with computers and DAWs, whereas other would like to, but find them intimidating. And I'm not talking about 50-year olds here. I've recently had a music seminar with 20 or so other musicians, mostly 30 and below, with many at their early 20s, and people playing instruments like cellos, trumpet, etc could barely use basic external effects units, didn't know what things send/return is, and were totally lost of using a DAW. >Your other two examples, essentially both being folk musicians, are completely wrong and you have zero basis for your assertion, which is apparently that folk musicians don't have any interest in sounding good. This is not only wrong, but a bad faith strawman... |
> If your experience is mostly with modern pop/electronic/hip-hop etc mucisians, of course they'll know about DAWs. [...]
These three paragraphs you wrote are baseless, and you're making massively generalized statements (that are overwhelmingly untrue) while claiming that I'm wrong to be making generalized statements (even though they're overwhelmingly true). Your hypocrisy is staggering.
> This is not only wrong, but a bad faith strawman...
You apparently misread this completely, because your response doesn't make sense. The parent literally said that folk and acoustic performers don't have any need to learn about audio, which is nonsensical and untrue of greater than 90% of folk musicians I've met and worked with (which is many hundreds). If you are trying to back up their claim that a entire swath of a million musicians don't care about how they sound, then your arguments are being made in even worse faith than the parent.
Given that the point of my original comment was that DAW development has always had music production in mind -- and not claiming that absolutely 100% of everyone knows 100% of everything about music and engineering -- you're strictly making bad faith arguments by trying to nitpick semantics.