Contrast it to a more general computer running macOS or Windows, which does a poorer job at what iPad does best, but it has a much longer tail where the complexity ramps up linearly, compared to the hockey stick of iOS.
Computers seem to be awesome tools for refining ideas yet really bad at facilitating their creation.
There’s also an analogous situation in hip-hop with the very limited SP-1200 and MPC 60 samplers. They don’t do much but what they do, they do well, so it’s up to producers to work to that and try to transcend it. Having an unlimited workspace in the computer to replicate the same doesn’t lead to better hip hop.
So you’re right to invoke metaphysics, because the machines have a kind of ontology, same as the mode of life of the artists using them. It doesn’t have to be a metaphysical quest, but there can be better and more interesting ways of creating on limited tools, particularly if you’ve used them for a long time. Some writers such as Jean Baudrillard stuck with typewriters as a writing tool long after the introduction of the desktop computer (he died in 2007) because he found it was simpler and better, less distracting, more focussed on the word and him. You could invoke the same “omfg you could be pasting in hyperlinks and doing referencing and surfing at the same time you’re just doing it for your own sake!” toward someone like that, but actually it’s not for its own sake, he only needs to think and produce text and it’s the perfect tool for that, the computer is only ever pretending to be a typewriter and comes with a load of noise and headache alongside.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally limiting about the iPad or iPhone computationally. The only limiting factor is the interface. Which if you're trying to cultivate frustration in order to pour it into your album, sure. But mere frustration is better had elsewhere, imo.
I think that staying with the typewriter to write books is entirely different than adopting a curated, sandboxed mobile device as one's medium. Firstly, it was at one point the gold standard for writing. Never the case with touch screens. Secondly, iPhones and iPads are not simpler or less distracting than a typewriter, or even a computer not connected to the internet. playing with the chmod command from 1970 is really not that interesting.
But also I seriously doubt that people will look back on iPhone 5 videos like they do and will do vinyl records, LaserDiscs, or even CDs.
Yeah, my point. Please read my comment before negating it as matter of course.
Beethoven’s ears breaking is a slightly different issue than technological limitations - his technology of ink on paper was still the same. He wasn’t playing each orchestral part one by one when he wrote his symphonies, he just couldn’t hear his main composing instrument any more, but had obviously internalised the skill of hearing it all in his head long before he lost the ability to hear it outside of his head upon playback, sadly.
Nujabes didn’t pioneer lo-fi.
What do you want? I guess you mean he only pioneered good lo-fi that wasn't Grandmaster Flash cringe. How did Niggaz Of Destruction pioneer lo-fi?
You completely skipped over my point about the internet but ok.
Nujabes steals Gigi Masin's "Clouds" totally wholesale for a remix of Five Deez https://youtu.be/Yu_hqMfXIN8
It had even been stolen wholesale before by To Rococo Rot in 1999: https://youtu.be/Dzx7p2HyKik and by Bjork in 2002: https://youtu.be/A-AukyfMTKE
what are you talking about? Five Deez is credited. The song is even called Latitude! LOLLLL. where's the theft? also, I'm surprised that you couldn't find any actual wholesale theft (it's DEFINITELY there, ahem Aruarian Dance https://www.reddit.com/r/Nujabes/comments/3fagps/the_story_o...) because lo-fi as a genre IS ENTIRELY CONSTRUCTED AROUND SAMPLING OTHER PEOPLE, often uncredited, looping it, and making it sound like vinyl on a tube amp or some shit. What did you think lo-fi was? LOL. it's like vaporwave. not like electronic pop rock or rap. So your argument that theft is what prevents someone from having pioneered a genre built on theft is not just absurd, the exact opposite is true. Theft is what make lo-fi lo-fi.
What is your actual argument? That the songs stolen weren't obscure enough to count as authentic lo-fi stealery? Are you some kind of lo-fi hipster that only listens to tracks with the most obscure samples from the 17th century or something?
To Rococo Rot isn't lo-fi nor is that song. Björk isn't lo-fi either. It's electronic. You're not even in the same genre. So how in the fuck could they have pioneered the genre they've never been part of? Or are you off on some idiotic pedantic technicality that nujabes didn't pioneer the genre, the sounds themselves did. OOOOOHHHH. We're all so impressed.
You probably think it's really insightful to blather on about how pop art is derivative because it's remixing the label from a soup can. Ten thousand IQ.
This is lo-fi, from 1991 https://youtu.be/ZWCQQ1ZWi04
Def Leppard is the polar opposite of lo-fi but you think they're lo-fi artists because they have shitty demo tapes? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU2XiEq5eE4 holy shit. this means that everyone pioneered lo-fi. LOL, bro. get it together. this is embarrassing.
By all means, strictly delimit a made-up genre (based upon the confusion of internet neckbeards) and fix it by definition to ensure you remain correct - musically and musicologically your lo-fi genre and the artists within are replicating music that is sonically and functionally identical to music made a decade or two earlier. And try telling Pete Rock, The Bomb Squad, JayDee, MF Doom, RZA, almost any actual pioneer producers: “Wait you guys are mistaken, Nujabes was the pioneer of lo-fi hip hop, even though he came out years after you guys.” Try even doing the same with DJ Krush even if you want to remain in Japan. And even worse, you’re defending the honour (for some strange reason) of a producer whose music and beats are beyond lame. Keep enjoying your crappy music.
I would love to hear you tell Daniel Boone that he's not a pioneer because some skeleton turned up. LOL.
However, by saving those thoughts to a computer suddenly they are more likely to be tweaked than discarded. I’m not bound to include them they just get sticky and slow down my exploration of novel ideas.
A whiteboard lends itself to constantly erasing things rather than meaningless tweaks. Collaborate with a few people and nobody suggests moving a box you just drew on a whiteboard, but on a computer someone will want to move it around. The capacity itself becomes a distraction.
At least I think that is the point.
“The best camera is the one you have with you” is common photography advice
Whether or not the author is limited by his perception of iPad’s ability is needless hair-splitting.
How does BitTorrent work via the app store by the way? Kappa.
There's thousands of "they"s.
I don't think torrents are at any risk of being taken over by a small number of actors.
I guess some people like to be managed and set strict boundaries, but that's a far cry from creativity. If creativity happens, as it always does, its despite these hard limits
I’ve used a PowerBook / MacBook since about 2002, and even had one with me at the time when I was writing, but nevertheless found the iPad Air a perfect tool for the task at hand. I needed to read and write and create, and it did that brilliantly. When I needed to get more involved and manage heaps of files and format them into a multi-gigabyte publication, yeah of course I switched to doing that on a MacBook, but it remains that I wasn’t hamstrung in creative terms by carrying an iPad around all day, and indeed, more inspired by being able to use a computer more often and more effectively. Some of the images in my book were also taken with the iPad, which the MacBook couldn’t have done. So yeah, some limitations but some new freedoms.
Only if you stipulate that it was never designed to handle text editing, multi-object selection, and a number of other fundamental use cases that apparently no one at Apple bothers to do on their iPads — if they did, they’d either 1. Experiment to find better solutions; or 2. Admit that there is no good touch-based solution for this UX scenario.
I would argue that some form factors are better for some use cases, others for other use cases, and we are still figuring out how to best take advantage of each particular form factor.
Despite how popular it seems to be, I think framing it as "it's bad for certain use cases because Apple is evil" is a bit reductionist, and sort of gives up on the power we do have to mold tools to our needs.
You can see it in this short explanation video at the very start. And when he goes into the explanation, the very first thing he says is that the iPads control Ableton.
That’s actually the definition of a product. To create something for specific use cases. That’s not an Apple problem/issue.
Sure, I could use my Toyota Camry (iPad) to haul lumber - but it’d make more sense to use a truck (MacBook) that was designed for those use cases.
In your analogy, it's like a truck is clothed as a Camry but it really needn't be.
I guess it's the difference between a geek's and generalist's viewpoints.
Now clearly the hardware is different too. But I think the whole “appliance” thing is software.
Maybe refining the argument to: It’s a Camry with the same horsepower as the truck?
Funny thing I was at the hardware store today looking at modern trucks and was laughing to myself that they seem so much more car-like than when Steve Jobs made that comment. They have pretty interiors with cup holders and infotainment centers. And cars these days have horsepower approaching trucks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Why are people trying to use a tool it wasn’t designed for?
Eg the iPad does not have a built in keyboard. Why are people trying to use it to write long form essays/books when it’s designed default keyboard is on display - and then they get upset at Apple.
And that's without acknowledging the keyboard they sell!
> … computer running macOS …