[Laurence Payne]

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:13:53 -0800, "Richard Crowley"
wrote:

Let's stop picking holes in the question, and try to find what he
really needs!

If his method of "composing music" requires considerable computer
power, I think we can assume he uses a sequencer with lots of software
synthesizers/samplers and plenty of plug-in effects. This is one of
the few activities where getting near the cutting-edge of computer
performance CAN be a real advantage, and a quad-core CPU is not a
foolish choice.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that if he were that
sophisticated, he would have included a few of those facts
in his question.

Also remember that *composing music* doesn't involve the use
of synthisizers, simple or sophisticated. Most of this planet's
great music was *composed* with little more than an old,
rickety piano. Yes, I will be the first to admit that is is very
gratifying to hear your composition played back, bar by bar,
instrument by instrument (or tutti), on a great synthisizer, but it
is not *required* for music composition. And lack of a good
synthisizer cannot be logically argued to "limit" a composer.
A great synthisizer is a "nice to have" at best.


You're starting from the supposition that his question was stupid.
Therefore your responses are mere mockery. You seem to do that quite
a lot round here. Whatever floats your boat :-)