1¶382¹TECHNIQUE AND BEAUTY a5by Sound Aestesis / NGC 91Some people say that only qualified people sould be authorized to vote for the charts, this means that only coders could vote for the best coder, only musicians could vote for the best musician and so on. Other people think that every one can judge if a work is good or not. That's true, but not entierly right... dMud 9wrote a very good article about it in dTop Secret number 12. 9He says : "Personally I have always thought that the best tunes were the ones I liked to listen to". Ok guy, you're right, anyone can tell if a music is pleasant to hear, if a picture is beautiful or not, or if a screen is nice or not. I will sum up this point of view by saying that anyone can feel the beauty in a production, and vote for it. But you can do beautiful things without being a good technician (please stop throwing me tomatoes until the end of this article). For example, on one hand, I love chessmaps and starfields (not 3D ones, just the classic ones you can see in demos such as bDragons megademo 19). But I know that it's just a picture and copper bars (for the chessmaps). On the other hand, I think that the 3D bitmap in bRazor 1911's Voyage 9demo isn't nice (I love the rest of this demo). But I know that this screen has been very well coded and that few people can do the same (who said that a starfield wasn't easy to code ?). So, I will vote for Sim on his 3D even if I prefer starfields and chessmaps, just because the charts want me to tell who's the best coder and not who does the most beautiful screens. I want to make you understand that very easy things can seem to be very hard to realise while it's really easy. Let's take another example. I remember that when I had just bought my Amiga, I admired a picture in which the gfx artist has managed to give a kind of steam effect. I would have voted for this guy if I had had a vote sheet. But soon after, I was told that this effect was made thanks to the smooth of Deluxe Paint... Now, when I like a picture, I always ask a gfx artist if it's easy to realise or not, and why. I'm a musician, and I can tell you that there are many well known ways to make a tune be pleasant to hear. I'll take one example : Shadow of the beast II plays a beautiful music when you die (enjoy the guitar, dudes !). This tune is nice thanks to the quality of the guitar samples, but if you ask a guitarist to tell you about the melody, he will say that it's classic and easy to compose (I've tried with 5 different guitarists and they all told me that it was pure shit!). It's nice, but you don't have to be good to realise that kind of music. Another example : I saw an intro of xxxx xxxx in which the music w±c1as csuperb9. In fact, I loved the rythm of this tune, it was perfect, that was good work. I asked my favourite swapper to rip this tune for me (he did it!). When he gave me the module, I saw that the rythm had been sampled from a record ! I wanted to vote for xxxxxxxx, who had made this tune, but I voted for someone else. His rythm was perfect, his technique was none. In fact, I wanna tell you that beauty and technique are sometimes very far one from another. So, what shall we do ? I think that we just have to ask qualified people if a music, a picture or a code is easy to do or not. I would be glad if the charts could be separated in 2 categories : One part would tell us about the best technicians (and the voters would of course be qualified people) and the other part would tell us about the guys that create the most beautiful things (anyone could vote). I think that the most important thing in a demo is its beauty, but don't say that xxxxxxxxx of xxxxx xxxxxx is the best coder cause his copper bars are nice!×