[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
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@bah.com]
"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]
|
