Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom Evans Tom Evans is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Tom Evans Tom Evans is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
PStamler PStamler is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 882
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Peter Larsen[_3_] Peter Larsen[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,295
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Les Cargill[_4_] Les Cargill[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Neil[_9_] Neil[_9_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 196
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
hank alrich hank alrich is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,736
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Orlando Enrique Fiol Orlando Enrique Fiol is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default Best digital music recording program

In article ,
wrote:
The market for live music is probably bigger and better paying now than
it ever has been.


From my vantage point, it doesn't seem that way. There is certainly money to be
made if one is absurdly famous and deriving merchandising royalties. But most
musicians performing original music do so for door percentages rather than flat
fees, depending on their own mailing lists to bring a consistent fan base to
each gig.

There are also many more chances than there used to be
for a good artiste to get known and build a following, and many people
are willing to sift through the bad ones to find the odd gold nugget.


Can you back up this claim with even informal statistical data? How many
musicians actively making a comfortable living have gotten their starts by
being discovered on Youtube?

If you put up a song on Youtube and it goes viral, then people in the
industry will listen, and you may end up on a catalogue, or more likely,
on the playlist of a site that charges by the play.


You include this going viral criterion as though it were simple to achieve.
Most Youtube videos initially go viral via word of mouth on social media such
as Facebook and Twitter. Most viral videos possess some appealing
characteristic besides artistic talent. I've heard of viral videos being funny,
disgusting, appalling, angry or provocative. But I've never heard of a viral
video of some nerd playing an instrument incredibly well or singing with
breathtaking emotion.

If you're popular enough and good enough, then it's possible to make a

reasonable living at it.

Again, I'd love even some anecdotal evidence of this.

It's certainly easier to get in than it was in the days of 45's
and A&R men at whatever gig felt "cool" to be at that night, and the
band ended up buying the A&R man drinks or whatever... Can you say "Payola"?



As flawed as the former system may have been, it often rewarded talent that
goes unnoticed today. I'm totally blind from birth, incapable of shooting my
own Youtube videos or monitoring their hits, which means I need either helpful
friends or paid assistants that I cannot afford. Even playing gigs is
challenging as a keyboardist because I'm obviously not independently mobile and
therefore cannot afford transportation to unpaying gigs. Blind and other
disabled musicians don't have the luxury of being able to go with the flow,
play for free or hang out all night at jam sessions. Back in the day, industry
people would hear blind genius musicians and help steer us to appropriate
patronage. Today, it's assumed that we'll find our own way. If my life and that
of many colleagues is any indication, that simply is not happening.
Orlando
  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Orlando Enrique Fiol Orlando Enrique Fiol is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 67
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
John Williamson John Williamson is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,753
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Nil[_2_] Nil[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Mike Rivers[_2_] Mike Rivers[_2_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,190
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
geoff geoff is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,812
Default 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

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? Johnny Calvin Audio Opinions 1 December 19th 03 07:08 PM
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? Johnny Calvin Pro Audio 4 December 19th 03 06:49 PM
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? Johnny Calvin General 0 December 19th 03 08:26 AM
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? Johnny Calvin Vacuum Tubes 0 December 19th 03 08:25 AM
(TO EVERYONE)WHERE CAN I GET A DEMO DIGITAL RECORDING PROGRAM ONLINE? Johnny Calvin Tech 0 December 19th 03 08:25 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:10 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"