Slashdot Mirror


Apple Wins the 2002 Technical Grammy Award

Therlin writes "For the first time the first technical Grammy given to a PC Company, and that company is Apple. From the original Macintosh with its built in recording capabilities to iTunes and iPod, Apple has stayed ahead of the game." See Apple's Press Release for the official spin.

20 comments

  1. neat by Hadlock · · Score: 1

    first post (my first)...neat stuff. apple might be in a few more movies than it already is in as a result of this. more stuff for mac addics to rave about. maybe this'll convince apple to be comming out with final cut pro even faster now ;)

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  2. No built in mic or recording program by cappadocius · · Score: 0, Troll
    That's great and all, but doesn't this just highlight the fact that the new G4s don't come with any built in sound recording?

    I remember having loads of fun with an old powerbook recording all sorts of neat stuff. I miss this on my new computer.

    Okay, that's just me up on a soapbox. I think Apple getting the award is pretty cool though.

    --

    omnia tua castra sunt nobis

  3. My heavens... by JMZero · · Score: 0, Troll

    This isn't news, it's a press release. Written by Apple. An advertisement you might say. And not a very interesting one.

    Far as I know, more release quality music is done on an Atari ST's than is done on a Mac. Why not give them a Mac? They were revolutionary. But oh yeah, they're not cool.

    Why not give a grammy to Moog, or someone else who really advanced digital music? Hell, Roland and Creative Labs both did more for digital music than Apple.

    iPod? A useful device, but it hasn't exactly changed the world. There's nothing it does that hasn't been done before (by a number of devices sometimes, but whatever).

    Why not give Sony a grammy for the Clie with an integrated MP3 player? Or to the other companies that actually innovated music, digital or otherwise?

    But they're not cool enough. The hundreds of important technical innovations were ignored, because their creators just weren't as kewl as Apple.

    .

    --
    Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    1. Re:My heavens... by p940e · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yo....at Berklee college of music we use only macs for production/composition and stuff. Berklee alumni account for a good chunk of the music industry and it's 'release quality music.' Go pick up a 'keyboard player' or 'electronic musician' magazine. See how many artists are using macs (often with Digital Performer and or Pro Tools).

    2. Re:My heavens... by Otter · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is the first Technical Grammy to a computer company. Robert Moog is the other recipient this year. Les Paul won one for the electric guitar last year.

    3. Re:My heavens... by JMZero · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Fair enough. Go to Europe and see how many Atari's, Amigas, and Linux PC's you find. And analog equipment, and cheap synthesizers.

      In any case I don't have any statistics (and you haven't given any, only your own little anecdote) - if anyone does I'd be interested to see.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    4. Re:My heavens... by JMZero · · Score: 0, Troll

      OK, I'm stupid.

      Still, it seems wierd to put Apple in the same company as a Moog and Les... And even among companies, Apple still seems an odd choice.

      Have a good day.

      .

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    5. Re:My heavens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It seems that you just have a little chip on your shoulder regarding Apple. Check yourself.

      Apple's getting the award because they've done more than any company in terms of making the non-linear recording/production studio accesible to the little guy and big guy alike. The PowerPC *still* handles audio better than either the Athlon or Pentium, and the systems that are built around them by Apple are better suited for the task.

      Ask anyone worth their salt in Audio Engineering... And stop shooting from the hip when you post here ;)

    6. Re:My heavens... by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 4, Informative
      Far as I know, more release quality music is done on an Atari ST's than is done on a Mac. Why not give them a Mac? They were revolutionary. But oh yeah, they're not cool.

      All the ST could do was MIDI sequencing. And the main reason people used them was they had built in MIDI ports and were cheap! Steinberg made music software for the ST and the C64 too. Most pro studios run ProTools on Macs nowadays to record, edit and mix audio. I remember two years ago when every Grammy winning CD was either recorded, edited, mixed or mastered on a Mac. I'm a musician and run a few apps, mainly Stienberg's Cubase VST on my G4 using an M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496 sound card for both audio and MIDI.

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
    7. Re:My heavens... by JMZero · · Score: 1
      All the ST could do was MIDI sequencing. And the main reason people used them was they had built in MIDI ports and were cheap! Steinberg made music software for the ST and the C64 too. Most pro studios run ProTools on Macs nowadays to record, edit and mix audio. I remember two years ago when every Grammy winning CD was either recorded, edited, mixed or mastered on a Mac. I'm a musician and run a few apps, mainly Stienberg's Cubase VST on my G4 using an M-Audio Delta Audiophile 2496 sound card for both audio and MIDI.


      If there wasn't idiots like me ranting about everything, just look at the information we would be lacking...

      Have a good day.

      -Dave

      .
      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
  4. Why is this here??? by Microsift · · Score: 0, Troll

    The subtitle of slashdot is "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." This story fails on both counts. It was announced weeks ago that Apple would win a Grammy, so this is not news. And I think it's obvious that it doesn't matter(as the headline says, it's just a Grammy, not an Oscar!).

    --
    My other sig is extremely clever...
  5. Most importantly... by PoiBoy · · Score: 3, Informative
    For those too impatient to read the press release firsthand, here's the most important paragraph in the article:

    Apple strives to protect the rights of both intellectual property owners and consumers alike and believes there is a "middle path" in digital music distribution which actively discourages the theft of music, while at the same time preserving consumers' rights to manage and listen to their legally-acquired music on whatever devices they own. Apple's iTunes and iPod are leading examples of responsible, successful digital music solutions that are embraced by both consumers and the music industry.

    --
    Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
  6. apple v apple by cosmo7 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    makes you wonder whatever happened to the beatles' beef with apple.

    the company (apple computer) was expressly forbidden to take part in the music industry.

    1. Re:apple v apple by Skrap · · Score: 1

      Now this is entirely apple-legend, but I have heard that the "sosumi" system alert sound was the first musical alert sound. The name, when said out loud, is "So Sue Me", and I've heard that it was a jab at the law suit Apple Corp. threatened over getting into music with the (then new) computer. It might be a complete load of poo story, but its fun anyways :-)

    2. Re:apple v apple by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 3, Informative
      OK here's the whole story, and it wasn't a legend! When Apple Computer came out, Apple Records' lawyers contacted Apple and told them to change their name. Apple responded that since they made computers and not records, no one would get them mixed up. Apple Corps said "OK but you have to agree not to go into the sound recording business."

      Flash forward to 1984, and the new Apple Macintosh could play back sound. One of the sound files was a xylophone. Apple legal said "No instruments or music!" so the sound was changed to the familiar Sosume. When Apple legal asked what the name meant the engineer said "It's a Japanese word."

      As a foot note, since Apple had become such a fixture in the recording industry, Apple Corp decided to take them to court again in the 90's and won some undisclosed settlement.

      Ironically George Martin use a Mac to mix and master the Beatles Anthologies!

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
  7. Built in recording on original mac? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't the the original macs had recording capabilities built in. I had to buy an external mic/digitizer that connected through the serial port. I think it was called MacRecorder or MacRecorder II.

    Apple's press release says "built-in audio capabilities" but I think that is referring to the ability to play audio.

    1. Re:Built in recording on original mac? by cosmo7 · · Score: 1

      the first mac to have a built-in mic port was the classic.

  8. Jobs is pissed by D_Fresh · · Score: 1
    But only because he was hoping to win Best Actor in a Dramatic Miniseries for his keynote performances. Especially that bit where he threw the digital camera.

    Is there a technical Grammy for Best RDF?

    --

    Was that out loud?
  9. A few links for more info by Mononoke · · Score: 2
    Here's the official Grammy site's take on Apple's award.

    Previous Tech Award winners are listed here.

    (Yes, the Grammy site is hosted on AOL. Almost as good as akamai, I suppose.)

    --
    NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
  10. Probably not for the iPod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Serves that industry right to have to share the stage with the only computer vendor with the cojones to protect our rights. I'd love to see the look on Hilary Rosen's face when this one's announced. (BITCH)