Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/8/2014 10:47 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
I thought that velocity and touch-sensitivity are determined by the computer program and keyboard, as the MIDI interprets how hard and fast you hit the keys on the keyboard. If you're playing on a music keyboard and the keyboard supports velocity, it will sense it and send that information to the computer. The computer will pass it to the program that's playing the sound, and if the sound supports it, then you'll hear it. If you're composing on the computer alone, most composition programs will allow you to set velocity for the note. You have to consider the entire system, from input to output, and know what data are supported by each link in the chain. Fortunately, MIDI has been around long enough so that it's pretty fully implemented anywhere that it's supported at all. It's not operating system dependent. And any sound library that doesn't support playing dynamics isn't worth consideration for most forms of music - but that's what you'll learn by reading reviews of sound libraries, not about computers or computer music in general. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#82
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-08 06:48:09 -0800, Scott Dorsey said:
Try the demo of Logic Pro and see if you like it. Thanks, Scott. Demos of Logic Pro are no lonager available. Tom |
#83
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
I think it's more logical to read magazines that are tailored to music-making using the Apple operating system because Apple is one operating system out of several. There's no point in reading articles that don't fit that Apple category, because I can't apply information about hardware and software that's designeed for -- or is preferential to -- other operating systems There is nothing OS specific _about musical composition_. There is nothing much OS specfric about sample libraries, either. What you are after has nothing to do with OS. What would be logical would be for you to endeavor to understand how samples are acquired, and shaped, learn why a virtual "instrument" is pretty much useless, while the library representing that instrument is useful, and therefrom come to appreciate your desire to pay pennies for thousands of dollars worth of value. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#84
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 04:27:56 -0800, Mike Rivers said: On 12/8/2014 3:17 AM, Tom Evans wrote: Instead of reading magazines, I've already published my much-unanticipated debut single that I made using Garageband, mastered by Diskmakers and available since September on Itunes, Amazon, Soundcloud, Spotfiy and C.D. Baby. Have you paid off the with the royalties Lexus yet? I didn't write -- or even vaguely imply -- that I had made much money from the song. You clearly have a vivid imagination, but poor reading skills, based of that wild misinterpretation. Also, that snide sarcastm is impolite. Tom Snide sarcasm might seem impolite, but sometimes either hit the mule upside the head, or send him down the road. I see anyone's entitled attitude as unworthy of attention. You're getting close to that category. Here it is without sarcasm: you seem to me to be lazy in almost every way except posting here. Not only is it too much trouble to learn to play an instrument or few, it is apparently too much trouble for you to study how the resources you desire are assembled. If you have that litttle learning gumption, expect your fair share of abuse in this forum. If no one else steps up with that 2 x 4, I will. Once people have outlined reality for you, as has now been done repeatedly in this thread, they expect you to have paid some attention to the valuable advice they have given you freely. So far we are getting nowhere helping you, because amidst your whining about reading comprehension, you offer no indication that you have understood much of what has been told you here. How about a link to that composition? -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#85
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 04:25:59 -0800, Mike Rivers said: On 12/8/2014 2:27 AM, Tom Evans wrote: I'm confused; I'm looking for instrument sounds, but you've separated that into instruments and libraries of sounds. What's the difference? There isn't just a single sound that a piano or a violin or a tuba or an electronic drum makes. A good sample "library" will have many versions of each instrument played in different ways, over different ranges (you don't just play middle C, shift the pitch up and down the scale, and have a piano), and at different volumes. So your "Steinway 8 foot Grand Piano" is actually a library of sounds from a single piano. A good VSTI will detect things like the MIDI velocity and pick the sounds from the library that sound like a piano played with that touch. Since real piano players play with dynamics, throughout a song, there may be a number of different samples of the same piano playing the same note. I thought that velocity and touch-sensitivity are determined by the computer program and keyboard, as the MIDI interprets how hard and fast you hit the keys on the keyboard. Tony Nobody cares what you thought. It's time for you to look for educational resources and put in the necessary study time to get to the point that we are no longer trying to fill in blanks that have saran wrap over the openings. Hint: where do you suppose that information comes from that allows expression to change with different key velocities? Go figure that out, and you will have at least the beginning of a portion of a clue. Right now you are ****ing on your own boots and telling us it's raining. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#86
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 00:50:52 -0800, John Williamson said: On 08/12/2014 07:10, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-07 01:37:45 -0800, John Williamson said: On 07/12/2014 09:19, geoff wrote: On 7/12/2014 6:07 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: It's not a matter of speakers, amplifier, headphones, soundcard or room. I think it's more a matter of my preferences. Luckily, most VSTis and sample libraries have free demo versions .... And if you're on a tight budget, most VSTis can be used with Audacity. You lose the pretty graphics, but the functionality is all there. Thanks, John. Is Audacity as good as Garageband? As I've never used Garageband, I couldn't say. Thanks, John. If Audacity isn't better than Garageband, I won't bother to learn Audacity. It already took me a lot of work and time to learn Garageband, so if I swtich programs, I want to learn a program that's vastly superior to Garageband. There's no point in investing time and effort into learning a program that does the same things that my current program can do. Tom The principal limitation of the program is you, the user. You wouldn't believe what some folks can do in Garage Band. Buying Logic or any other program will not make you smarter or more experienced, nor will it do anything for your compositional skills. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#87
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote: If you want it both cheap and lazy you may have come to the wrong hangout here. Doing this work well requires learning about the tools, saving the money for good ones, and investing the time/work it takes to become proficient. Even when all that is in place, the results still fall or stand on the quality of your compositions, which has exactly nothing to do wth anyone's sample library. On the other hand, doing it cheap and lazy worked for Los Del Rio with the Macarena.... Funny how doing it cheaply and efficiently can work when done by people who know what they're doing. The path of the dilettante is level and smooth, in general, but the way of the warrior offers considerably more challenge, not to mention the cost of the boots. When I grow up I want to be a dilettante. --scott I know! I love those casual sandals, the breeze through my toes. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#88
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-08 01:02:08 -0800, John Williamson said:
On 08/12/2014 07:04, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-07 06:50:32 -0800, Scott Dorsey said: Tom Evans wrote: Most of the Kontakt sounds are not my cup of soup style-wise. (To put it more simply, I don't like most of them.) Then purchase a third-party sample library. Pick the software you like, then purchase sounds for it, not the other way around. Or make your own samples. --scott I have softwa Garageband. I considered buying Logic Pro, but have been assured in this thread that I don't need Logic Pro to make pro-quality soongs. You don't *need* any particular program to make pro-quality songs. What you need is talent and patience, and a basic recording setup. People have been making music for Centuries without computers, and recording stuff for decades using various recording technologies. The only thing they all have in common is a need to make music for others to hear. If you have that need, then you will find a way to do the job with whatever you've got. But I still need to add some swell instrument sounds to the software to make those swell songs. See above. It's quite possible to make very good music using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio keyboard, if you're talented enough. I've heard a pair of musicians make good sounds with a keyboard, a guitar, two voices and a "Band in a box" machine. It was just a shame they started their set with "Smoke On The Water"... Are there any wealthy, successful music stars who became successful and rich using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio keyboard? If so, they're a tiny fraction of today's music stars. (Even more absurd is the example given here of a musician who makes music with a bicycle.) I instinctively know what's right for my music-making needs. I want to make digital music. I've had that strong urge for at least 15 years. And I'm a composer type of musician -- not a player type. Therefore digital means are appropriate for me. I want to take advantage of the modern technology because it opens vast music-making possibilites that never existed before, at relatively low cost. Previous generations of musicians never even dreamed of the digital tools available today. Therefore t's ridiculous to try to steer me away from digital music-making given the fact that it can empower me so much. I've embraced high-tech, digital software and hardware (cameras, computers and printers, etcetera) in my career and that's empowered me to be a self-sustaining, professional fine artist for the last dozen years. Most of my colleagues -- on the other hand -- who paint one-of-a-kind paintings by hand -- the old fashioned way -- without digital technology -- have to subsidize their art-making by being restaurant servers or supermarket clerks, or are only able to make art a hobby. I left most of my fine art colleagues (even the ones who work digitally) in the dust many years ago, and I achieved that success by embracing digital technology. Digital music composing is appropriate for me and no amount of advice from anyone will change that, and there's nothing wrong with my desire to approach music digitally. Tom |
#89
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Monday, December 8, 2014 11:17:35 AM UTC-6, Tom Evans wrote:
Digital music composing is appropriate for me and no amount of advice from anyone will change that, and there's nothing wrong with my desire to approach music digitally. Sd I read this thread, no one in it said any such thing. All they said was that it's going to take a lot of work on your part -- mastering the art of digital composition takes as much work as mastering a wood'n'steel instrument, though it'd a different kind of work. And yes, you'll have to spend weeks (more like years) going through the sample libraries to learn what they sound like. That's part of the territory. Why do sample libraries cost so damn much? Because the companies producing them have to pay professional musicians and audio engineers to produce them, that's why. As for the magazines, if you don't want your head polluted or time wasted by Windows-oriented thinking, you should know that Electronic Musician's articles are mostly Mac oriented, and Recording's articles on this topic are too. because Mac is the most common platform that musicians who play this kind of music use. and they write the reviews. Computer magazines are worth reading too for the useful info they provide on the mechanics of keeping your box running (data management, backup strategies, stuff like that), but if you want to learn about audio or music making on a computer, they won't get you very far, because that's not what they're mostly about. For that, you need to read the mags that focus on the topic of electronic music making. Peace, Paul |
#90
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Jeff Henig wrote:
flatfish+++ wrote: On Sun, 7 Dec 2014 22:56:30 -0800, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-06 19:30:57 -0800, flatfish+++ said: On Sun, 07 Dec 2014 14:17:00 +1300, geoff wrote: On 7/12/2014 8:57 a.m., Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote: Most of these 'sounds' are EXTERNAL to the core DAW itself, and are third-party plug-ins which can be added to, replace, or deleted. geoff Here is a thread in GS discussing "sounds"... https://www.gearslutz.com/board/musi...endations.html Thanks, Flatfish. Wow, that's quite a list! I haven't even heard of most of those collections of sounds. Sounds like some obscure collections of sounds! Actually many of those "sounds" are used to make the music you are listening to on the radio. It could take me weeks to go through all those collections! Welcome to the world of electronic music. That's just the way it is. If you want a well rounded collection with just about every kind of sound known to mankind, get Komplete. Even the lighter versions cover just about all bases. However, you will still have to fish through the thousands of sounds to find what you are looking for although they are grouped for easy searching. If you are looking for free, try this site: http://www.vstwarehouse.com/ Another thing about Kontakt is that there are a lot of third-party companies making sound libraries for it, such as 8Dio and Soundiron. You might look into EastWest, as they've some really good sound libraries--and a good player--as well. Kontakt is a total resource hog. sfz is less so, to the extent that sfz and Kontakt support the same formats. It may be the way I am using it, but Kontakt also seems to lose metadata when you save project files. -- Les Cargill |
#91
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
John Williamson wrote:
On 08/12/2014 08:53, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-08 00:46:43 -0800, John Williamson said: On 08/12/2014 07:45, Tom Evans wrote: I'm looking a splendid sound library for a variety of realistic and unique sounds for a variety of genres Ð orchestral, classical guitars, brass, choir, electronic, soft rock, hard rock, new wave, folk, ambient, funk, hip-hop, jazz, house, rap, reggae, country, experimental, disco, blues, etcetera. Hope you've got lots of storage space and money available, then. A`decent set of orchestral string samples on its own can run to over 10 gigabytes and over a grand in money. I don't need the world's finest, big collection of strings -- just a few superlative ones would be fine. That's your problem right there. The reason the best collections are big is because they have many layers and many styles of playing which the smaller sets can't have by definition. The reason they're expensive is because making a decent sample set is hard, painstaking work. You get what you pay for, mostly. This is nature's way of telling you you don't need strings after all. -- Les Cargill |
#92
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
I want to take advantage of the modern technology because it opens vast music-making possibilites that never existed before, at relatively low cost. That's right. And therefrom it derives that a few thousand dollars worth of sample libraries in the hands of an actual composer is a nice alternative to several times that much money for three hours of in-studio time with an actual orchestra in order that have those sounds on three compositions. Previous generations of musicians never even dreamed of the digital tools available today. Bull****. Just yesterday I was talking with a friend of mine who uses Logic, and now the most recent version, and he was speaking of how he and his cohorts used to talk about having the facilities now available to him. Those discussions, for him, began in the 1970's. You seem burdened by many assumptions that you could abandon if you would take time to study. Therefore t's ridiculous to try to steer me away from digital music-making given the fact that it can empower me so much. It will empower you not at all while you cling to your ignorance. Nothing we can tell you here that we have not already told you will fix that. The rest, as they say, is up to you. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#93
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom,
And I'm a composer type of musician -- not a player type. Therefore digital means are appropriate for me. To understand what time is and how the heart generates it you need to play an actual instrument. That does not exclude using it with midi as the actual output, follow your heart. Digital music composing is appropriate for me and no amount of advice from anyone will change that, and there's nothing wrong with my desire to approach music digitally. Nenia Zenana taught me what part of Mendelssohns Elias she considers the most important AND loudest. Wanna make a guess at just what part it is? Digital robots are wonderful replacements for the mechanical skills one doesn't have and they can play with a repetitive precision that humans can not deliver. In my opinion machine polyrythm is a valid creative landscape to explore and one that I will venture into. Thank you very much for bringing this topic up, found a local superdeal on Studio One Professional, it will be interesting to see if it is a good supplement to Noteworthy Composer and fits what I want to try to do. Regarding sample libraries perhaps you should also look at Sony's offerings, ACID may also interest you. Many daw's and music programmes have cross-grade options that are well worth looking into. Tom Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#94
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
geoff wrote:
On 8/12/2014 8:27 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: snip But seriously, I think you need to dive into some magasines Yuck. "My God, it's fill of ads" - Futurama. to get a good basic grounding which you seem to be lacking. I guess they are all available online now. Sound On Sound is. Do Computer Music and Electrponic Musician still exist? In some fashion. I stopped trying to keep up 15 years ago. geoff -- Les Cargill |
#95
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 18:12, Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote: On 08/12/2014 08:53, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-08 00:46:43 -0800, John Williamson said: On 08/12/2014 07:45, Tom Evans wrote: I'm looking a splendid sound library for a variety of realistic and unique sounds for a variety of genres Ð orchestral, classical guitars, brass, choir, electronic, soft rock, hard rock, new wave, folk, ambient, funk, hip-hop, jazz, house, rap, reggae, country, experimental, disco, blues, etcetera. Hope you've got lots of storage space and money available, then. A`decent set of orchestral string samples on its own can run to over 10 gigabytes and over a grand in money. I don't need the world's finest, big collection of strings -- just a few superlative ones would be fine. That's your problem right there. The reason the best collections are big is because they have many layers and many styles of playing which the smaller sets can't have by definition. The reason they're expensive is because making a decent sample set is hard, painstaking work. You get what you pay for, mostly. This is nature's way of telling you you don't need strings after all. I *lovee* strings. Properly played, by a proper player... -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#96
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 15:53, Tom Evans wrote:
Thanks, John. If Audacity isn't better than Garageband, I won't bother to learn Audacity. It already took me a lot of work and time to learn Garageband, so if I swtich programs, I want to learn a program that's vastly superior to Garageband. There's no point in investing time and effort into learning a program that does the same things that my current program can do. Think of Garageband as a nice, mature piece of cheddar cheese. Think of Audacity as some nice pickle. Neither of them on their own will make the perfect sandwich. Put both together, and the sandwich is more than the sum of its parts. The bread is, of course, the music, and if that's good, then it's hard to make a bad sandwich. If the bread's bad, then no amount of cheese or pickle will make it a good sandwich. There are things that Garageband does well that Audacity doesn't, and vice versa. To get the best out of your music, you need to know how both programs work, and which does what best. I use Audacity and Adobe Audition for recording and editing, mostly. If, on the other hand, I just want to glue a few loops together for a quick and dirty soundbite, I use a program that does only that, and does it very well indeed. then I tidy the result up using the tools in Audition. Or maybe Audacity, depending on my mood. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#97
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 14:52, hank alrich wrote:
Tom Evans wrote: I don't need Logic Pro to make pro-quality soongs Making "pro quality songs" requires nothing more than writing worthy material. Fail that and all the tech in the world makes no difference. Beautifully orchestrated ****ty songs are still ****ty songs. Succeed at composition and all you need is a voice and an instrument. This. Exactly. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#98
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 17:17, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 01:02:08 -0800, John Williamson said: See above. It's quite possible to make very good music using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio keyboard, if you're talented enough. I've heard a pair of musicians make good sounds with a keyboard, a guitar, two voices and a "Band in a box" machine. It was just a shame they started their set with "Smoke On The Water"... Are there any wealthy, successful music stars who became successful and rich using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio keyboard? If so, they're a tiny fraction of today's music stars. (Even more absurd is the example given here of a musician who makes music with a bicycle.) Maybe they're not using such things live now, but almost all of the famous and wealthy ones I can think of started by using a thirty dollar guitar and maybe a cheap amp from the market or a cheap sampling keyboard, or a dodgy PA system and a cheap microphone. Or a cheap computer running a basic sequencer. The only limits as to how far you can go are in yourself. I can even think of at least one hit record that was recorded almost entirely using a Casio VL-Tone calculator. http://www.vintagesynth.com/casio/vl1.php The song? :- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM-v3cvX8M4 Oh, yes, they also used a guitar and a decent singer. I instinctively know what's right for my music-making needs. I want to make digital music. I've had that strong urge for at least 15 years. And I'm a composer type of musician -- not a player type. Therefore digital means are appropriate for me. Fine, just don't expect technology to work instead of talent. Nobody here is trying to stop you making music in any way you wish, we're just trying to help you get the most bang for your buck while getting rid of a few of your misconceptions about making music. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#99
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/12/2014 4:33 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 00:36:35 -0800, geoff said: On 8/12/2014 9:17 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: Never heard of Electroponic Musician. I haven't read any magazine music articles for several years. If I read magazine articles, I prefer them to be Mac mazagines cuz I'm a Mac man. Make that "Electronic Musician". Um Mac magasines ?!!! You want to learn about music try music magasines. Restricting your scope to Mac magasines will give you a very blinkered and narrow view of things, especially cult ones. I think it's more logical to read magazines that are tailored to music-making using the Apple operating system because Apple is one operating system out of several. No, no logical. Music isn't an operating system. A Mac mag will not even cover all software relating to Mac, or cross-platform, and will likely not cover actual musical aspects at all. A computer-orientated MUSIC mag may widen your outlook - try one. Another way to garner experience and tips is by networking. Maybe there are some other kids at you school with similar interests. Put the word out and see who pops out of the woodwork ! geoff |
#100
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/12/2014 7:08 a.m., Les Cargill wrote:
Another thing about Kontakt is that there are a lot of third-party companies making sound libraries for it, such as 8Dio and Soundiron. What's a sound library ? geoff |
#101
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/12/2014 3:56 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
hank alrich wrote: If you want it both cheap and lazy you may have come to the wrong hangout here. Doing this work well requires learning about the tools, saving the money for good ones, and investing the time/work it takes to become proficient. Even when all that is in place, the results still fall or stand on the quality of your compositions, which has exactly nothing to do wth anyone's sample library. On the other hand, doing it cheap and lazy worked for Los Del Rio with the Macarena.... The path of the dilettante is level and smooth, in general, but the way of the warrior offers considerably more challenge, not to mention the cost of the boots. When I grow up I want to be a dilettante. --scott I don't know what I'll do if I ever 'grow up' .... geoff |
#102
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 21:09, geoff wrote:
On 9/12/2014 7:08 a.m., Les Cargill wrote: Another thing about Kontakt is that there are a lot of third-party companies making sound libraries for it, such as 8Dio and Soundiron. What's a sound library ? A collection of samples gathered together, usually with a common theme, such as "Orchestral wind instruments" or "Cheesy synth sounds" for use with a playback program and sequencer. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#103
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 21:10, geoff wrote:
On 9/12/2014 3:56 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: When I grow up I want to be a dilettante. --scott I don't know what I'll do if I ever 'grow up' .... Growing old is compulsory, growing old is optional. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#104
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 21:32, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/12/2014 21:10, geoff wrote: On 9/12/2014 3:56 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote: When I grow up I want to be a dilettante. --scott I don't know what I'll do if I ever 'grow up' .... Growing old is compulsory, growing old is optional. Sorry, growing *up* is optional. D'oh! -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#105
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/8/2014 3:04 PM, John Williamson wrote:
Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. OK... please explain this comment! Are you suggesting that an arpeggio has to contain more than two notes, or that one can't pick more than two strings at a time? AFAIK, neither is the case! ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
#106
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Les Cargill wrote:
John Williamson wrote: On 08/12/2014 18:12, Les Cargill wrote: John Williamson wrote: On 08/12/2014 08:53, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-08 00:46:43 -0800, John Williamson said: On 08/12/2014 07:45, Tom Evans wrote: I'm looking a splendid sound library for a variety of realistic and unique sounds for a variety of genres €“ orchestral, classical guitars, brass, choir, electronic, soft rock, hard rock, new wave, folk, ambient, funk, hip-hop, jazz, house, rap, reggae, country, experimental, disco, blues, etcetera. Hope you've got lots of storage space and money available, then. A`decent set of orchestral string samples on its own can run to over 10 gigabytes and over a grand in money. I don't need the world's finest, big collection of strings -- just a few superlative ones would be fine. That's your problem right there. The reason the best collections are big is because they have many layers and many styles of playing which the smaller sets can't have by definition. The reason they're expensive is because making a decent sample set is hard, painstaking work. You get what you pay for, mostly. This is nature's way of telling you you don't need strings after all. I *lovee* strings. Properly played, by a proper player... I like 'em too. But I don't *NEED* 'em, especially not enough to pony up to do them right. So.... I just let the kid play fiddle and away we go. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#107
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Neil wrote:
On 12/8/2014 3:04 PM, John Williamson wrote: Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. OK... please explain this comment! Are you suggesting that an arpeggio has to contain more than two notes, or that one can't pick more than two strings at a time? AFAIK, neither is the case! ;-) I think what John is getting at is that intelligent use of a library representing a virtual orchestra's worth of sources requires that one understand the range and capabilities of every one of those sources. In the case of guitar, if using a plectrum, one cannot excite all the strings simultaneously. Therefore, to some degree, any guitar chord played with plectrum is a type of rapid arpeggio. Overlook that and one's virtual guitar doesn't sound like a guitar; it sounds like a fake guitar being imitated by a keyboard player who does not understand why a guitar sounds as it does. If played with fingers instead of plectrum, and if there is a finger for each note of the chord, we now have a different type of result from playing a chord on guitar. This is obvious to experienced guitarists with any degree of intellectual curiosity for their instrument, but it may be less obvious to someone whose idea of a "musical instrument" is a MIDI controller. Given that every instrument in the orchestra has something unique attending the way it works, absent the expereince of each and the knowledge of how to fit one's concepts into the parameters offered by each instrument, one is likely to produce the equivalent of digital musical gibberish. That's a great way to **** up a great song, that could have been better represented by a vocal and one instrument in the hands of a decent player. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#108
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
|
#109
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
|
#111
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
In article , rednoise9
@REMOVETHIScomcast.net wrote: They're not equivalent tools. Garageband (as I understand it from my minimal exposure to it) is a simple all-in-one environment that lets multi-track-record live sound alongside samples. Audacity is a stereo audio editor, good for surgical editing down to the sample level, if needed. It's not intended or well-suited for multi-track recording, although it can do a bit of it within its limitations. Both kinds of tools are good to have. I do all my editing and mastering in Sound Forge Pro 10. Might Audacity be better suited to my needs in terms of editing control and plugins? |
#112
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 08/12/2014 22:03, Neil wrote:
On 12/8/2014 3:04 PM, John Williamson wrote: Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. OK... please explain this comment! Are you suggesting that an arpeggio has to contain more than two notes, or that one can't pick more than two strings at a time? AFAIK, neither is the case! ;-) Most pop and rock guitarists that I've watched play, strum across the strings, even when a chord is indicated in by the dots, and this is, in fact, the only way it is possible to play a chord using a plectrum. I've seen and heard some classical guitarists come darn close to a real, simultaneous chord, though. Perfect alignment of notes is a trivial thing to do when using a DAW, but it doesn't quite sound right.. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#113
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 09/12/2014 04:12, hank alrich wrote:
Neil wrote: On 12/8/2014 3:04 PM, John Williamson wrote: Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. OK... please explain this comment! Are you suggesting that an arpeggio has to contain more than two notes, or that one can't pick more than two strings at a time? AFAIK, neither is the case! ;-) I think what John is getting at is that intelligent use of a library representing a virtual orchestra's worth of sources requires that one understand the range and capabilities of every one of those sources. In the case of guitar, if using a plectrum, one cannot excite all the strings simultaneously. Therefore, to some degree, any guitar chord played with plectrum is a type of rapid arpeggio. Overlook that and one's virtual guitar doesn't sound like a guitar; it sounds like a fake guitar being imitated by a keyboard player who does not understand why a guitar sounds as it does. If played with fingers instead of plectrum, and if there is a finger for each note of the chord, we now have a different type of result from playing a chord on guitar. This is obvious to experienced guitarists with any degree of intellectual curiosity for their instrument, but it may be less obvious to someone whose idea of a "musical instrument" is a MIDI controller. Given that every instrument in the orchestra has something unique attending the way it works, absent the expereince of each and the knowledge of how to fit one's concepts into the parameters offered by each instrument, one is likely to produce the equivalent of digital musical gibberish. That's a great way to **** up a great song, that could have been better represented by a vocal and one instrument in the hands of a decent player. Well said. That's exactly what I was trying to say. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#114
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/12/2014 7:48 p.m., Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
In article , rednoise9 @REMOVETHIScomcast.net wrote: They're not equivalent tools. Garageband (as I understand it from my minimal exposure to it) is a simple all-in-one environment that lets multi-track-record live sound alongside samples. Audacity is a stereo audio editor, good for surgical editing down to the sample level, if needed. It's not intended or well-suited for multi-track recording, although it can do a bit of it within its limitations. Both kinds of tools are good to have. I do all my editing and mastering in Sound Forge Pro 10. Might Audacity be better suited to my needs in terms of editing control and plugins? Hell no ! geoff |
#115
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/12/2014 10:31 a.m., John Williamson wrote:
On 08/12/2014 21:09, geoff wrote: On 9/12/2014 7:08 a.m., Les Cargill wrote: Another thing about Kontakt is that there are a lot of third-party companies making sound libraries for it, such as 8Dio and Soundiron. What's a sound library ? A collection of samples gathered together, usually with a common theme, such as "Orchestral wind instruments" or "Cheesy synth sounds" for use with a playback program and sequencer. I should have put a smiley ;-) geoff |
#116
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 09 Dec 2014, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote in
rec.audio.pro: I do all my editing and mastering in Sound Forge Pro 10. Might Audacity be better suited to my needs in terms of editing control and plugins? I don't know Sound Forge very well, but I believe it's the same class of program as Audacity. I expect that Sound Forge has more features and supports various industry standard plugins better than Audacity. It should, for the price! Still, Audacity does some things very well, especially for free! It will cost you nothing to find out - give it try, you might find another good tool for your toolbox! Another nice thing about Audacity is that the developers listen to the users via a mail list, so if you have suggestions or problems, you may get an answer right from the horse's mouth. |
#117
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/9/2014 1:48 AM, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
I do all my editing and mastering in Sound Forge Pro 10. Might Audacity be better suited to my needs in terms of editing control and plugins? No. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#118
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/8/2014 12:17 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
Are there any wealthy, successful music stars who became successful and rich using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio keyboard? If so, they're a tiny fraction of today's music stars. And today's stars are a fraction of yesterday's stars, when you compare the number of players available to become stars if they're made into stars. While not necessarily becoming sustained stars for a lifetime career, there have been profitable hits recorded with cheap equipment. It's more about marketing than anything else. Do you have a market for your music? Do you think that better samples will get you a market? The biggest paying two markets for programmed music today are music for TV and programming for recording stars. But the music that you hear on TV is composed for a specific purpose, not just something that a wannabe composer dreamed up. And they don't use cheap drum machines and keyboards, because they know that their customers are only using them because they can't afford to hire a real orchestra, but expect the sound of one. -- "Today's production equipment is IT based and cannot be operated without a passing knowledge of computing, although it seems that it can be operated without a passing knowledge of audio" - John Watkinson Drop by http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com now and then |
#119
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 9/12/2014 9:21 p.m., Nil wrote:
Audacity does some things very well, especially for free! It will cost you nothing to find out - give it try, you might find another good tool for your toolbox! And you get what yo0u pay for. Of course Auda****ty may well do all you need just as well as any other app can..... geoff |
#120
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 10/12/2014 12:50 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/8/2014 12:17 PM, Tom Evans wrote: Are there any wealthy, successful music stars who became successful and rich using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio keyboard? If so, they're a tiny fraction of today's music stars. And today's stars are a fraction of yesterday's stars, when you compare the number of players available to become stars if they're made into stars. While not necessarily becoming sustained stars for a lifetime career, there have been profitable hits recorded with cheap equipment. It's more about marketing than anything else. Do you have a market for your music? Do you think that better samples will get you a market? The biggest paying two markets for programmed music today are music for TV and programming for recording stars. But the music that you hear on TV is composed for a specific purpose, not just something that a wannabe composer dreamed up. And they don't use cheap drum machines and keyboards, because they know that their customers are only using them because they can't afford to hire a real orchestra, but expect the sound of one. Not much from Tom today. Must have a detention .... geoff |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|