I think there is a generally fallacy almost all of us fall for: those in positions of authority or power are at the cutting edge or doing things which nobody has done or thought of before.
Here is an interesting article to read:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazin...uck-matters-more-than-you-might-think/476394/
You may not believe me, but I had the exact same idea behind SWARM and I discussed this with Lindon Parker, but instead of trying to do something like SWARM (because Spitfire had just released it), he came up with a crazy granular resynthesis engine for Seurat.
But because there are some people in power with recourses, time, money, and whathaveyou, they can capitalize on the ideas they have and reap the fruits thereof. This is just the way life is.
There are other great minds out there who are not discovered, whether it be because of their circumstances, death, mental illness, natural disaster, not knowing anyone.....and so on. So I think any sample library company should have a certain bit of humility (actually, a healthy dose) knowing that they have been incredibly lucky to grow up in the circumstances they have been in (or anyone with celebrity, fame, power, and whathaveyou). We are merely discovering things. We are stumbling upon things. If we think we had a novel idea or some "avent garde" idea, chances are someone else already had that idea, and in some cases long before you. I know maybe that's actually a bit demotivating? Like, oh, so I'm not so special after all? No, that's not what I mean. I mean that we are more similar than we think, and that the chances of having a novel idea amongst 7+ billion people is next to nothing.
I forgot where this was going.
Oh, that's right. I am getting sick of people saying things like "it must be good if Hans worked on it" or "Spitfire wouldn't have done this if they didn't think it would work well."
That's backwards. We need to look at the state of things as they are right now and judge whatever it is in that state.
If someone never struck out at the plate in 12 plate appearances (I hope you guys understand baseball?), does that mean that they will never stike out?
Simple facts:
Spitfire Released a buggy, flawed instrument.
That's about the only "fact" in this discussion.
All of the other stuff seems to be opinion, and it's been somewhat haughty and arrogent on both sides (at times).
But, really, why are there sides anyway?
Criticism should only help Spitfire improve more.
Spitfire should be graciously accepting critism (even if they privately don't agree with everything) and use whatever they know is the "legitimate" critism to improve their future products (and current ones with updates).
Alright. I think I need a break from this.
