[hank alrich]

Tom Evans wrote:

False. Please read carefully; you've clearly misconstrued what was
written, so my statement stands.

So far, big fella, your statements are much like someone talking with
their head up their ass. I admire someone who can talk from that point
while standing. Great work.

Where is that song of yours?

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Sarbanes Oxtard]

In article ,
says...

Tom Evans wrote:

However, reading music magazine instead of Macintosh magazines, I'd
waste some time (as I wrote before) learning about things that don't
apply to me and it's not a matter of being lazy; it's a matter of
saving time and being efficient.

You are burdened with assumptions. You have no real idea what you are
doing yet, but you talk about wasting time, when the rest of us would
call it "learning", and you talk that things don't apply to you when you
know little or nothing of those things.

As for wasting time, you could have read all twenty-six pages twenty-six
times over in the same amount of time it has taken you to post here, and
stood a good chance of already being able to use that particular sample
library. Unless a brick is housed in your cranium.

Have you no respect for the people here who have tried and are still
trying to help you, and the free time they have given you? I urge Scott
Dorsey to send you an invoice for his patiently given time so that you
might get clue ****ing one. That invoice should be followed by one from
Mike Rivers.

Literally hundreds of dollars of free professional consulting time has
been handed you on a platter.

Are you going to show us your work, or keep up with this pretentious
crap? Got balls, or not? These are not rhetorcal questions, Tom.

You are all being trolled. And Tommy the Troll is
doing a very good job of it.
Best to ignore the troll.

[PStamler]

I think Mike Rivers nailed an essential question: what kind of music do you want to compose? What's right for symphonic-style music wouldn't be right for World Beat, and vice versa.

Your first question was about the software, and there I can give you a straight answer: Reaper probably gives the biggest bang for the buck. However, you need to realize that you'll probably need to buy sample libraries, over and above the sounds bundled with sequencing software, which are usually kind of generic. And as I said before, you'll probably have to pay some good money for those libraries, because they cost a lot to produce. You'll also need to spend a good deal of time listening to whatever library you buy, so you know the sounds well enough on a gut level to use them in your compositions. There's no shortcut that'll let you skip that, unfortunately, any more than you can skip the process of learning to use your DAW. We haven't got an "efficient" way to download knowledge into a user's brain directly; we humans learn by listening and trying things. And playing with the equipment when no one's around.

A couple of years ago, I spent a year taking MIDI and sequencing classes as part of getting my Master's degree (at 63!). I discovered several things:

1. I loved it.

2. It took a *lot* of time -- I'd go to the school's MIDI lab as a reward to myself, and I'd look up and it was 1 a.m.. The number of things to tweak ate up a whole lot of time. Fortunately, because of item 1., I was more than happy to spend the time.

3. It ain't cheap. Luckily, Reaper is relatively affordable, but my experience of DAW programs in general is that the samples bundled with them are kind of generic, and as somebody said, they're mostly oriented to contemporary pop music. Since I was trying to do other things, I was kind of limited by that. If I was going to get serious about this, I'd have to spend the bucks for a much more powerful computer than I have, a bunch more hardware, and some seriously expensive sample libraries. I'm sorry, but getting into music in any kind of serious way is going to cost; have you priced a pro-level bassoon lately? Anyway, I realized that, though I loved doing this, I didn't have the money to do it right, or even close. If I ever win the lottery, though, look out.

Tom, I don't know if this helps answer your question, and I suspect the answer will be disappointing in parts. But that's the best info I can give you right now -- there ain't no cheap or efficient road to beautiful sounds, but if you get on a road anyway, you'll probably have a lot of fun on it.

Peace,
Paul

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

In article 2014121019562186494-tomevans9890@yahooca,
writes:
I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work
hard.

Unwillingness to read a 26-page VST sample library manual, while continuing to
post these justifications, seems like unwillingness to work even slightly.

Trying to zero in on what works for my strengths as a musician
is not being lazy; it's being efficient and smart.

Yes, but the kind of zeroing in that you're trying to do is impossible. No one
can know what you will think is a beautiful sample library. No one but you can
truly know whether you like the transients and sustained tones of a given
sample library. And if you need to read a 26-page manual to audition a sample
library, so be it.

I and millions other musicians are not adept at long-term memorization
of all the notes in even one song (let alone a whole portfolio of
songs), numbers or grocery lists.

Every aspect of music performance and creation involves memorization. If you
know what a major scale is, you've memorized seven pitches. If you know what a
minor scale is, you've memorized seven to ten more. If you can recognize tunes
as they're being played, some segment of your mind has internalized them.

Here's a perfect analogy of why you're wrong: Many music stars
couldn't dance a complete song well if their lives depended on it
because they lack innate ability to do so.
So the choreographers and videographers overcome that shortcoming by
stringing together three minutes worth of two-, five-, ten- and
15-second clips, so the finished video gives the illusion that the
singer can dance well.

That illusion only lasts for the video's duration; if they can't dance well,
that will become apparent during live performances.

It's the same with me and playing live. I don't have the innate
ability to remember the three-minute string of notes and chords for
more than a few minutes -- a skill which would be necessary to be a
live performer.

No one here is asking you to become a virtuoso live performer, but many of us
are annoyed that you won't bother to read a mere 26 pages that could help you
find the sample library you seek. Do you expect a sample library with no user
manual?

And to reiterate again: my goal is not to be a live player in front of
an audience; it's to be a composer, just as the singer in his or her
video doesn't have the goal of being a great dancer. The video is just
a means to promote the soongs, and the digital audio workstation that
allows me to record brief music clips is a means for me to make and
promote my songs.

If you can't be bothered to read 26 pages, I question how good your songs must
be. Many of the best theory books are hundreds of pages long, with dense jargon
and musical examples. Of course, plenty of great songwriters have no formal
training in theory. But usually, when people want to write three-chord songs,
they learn to play those three chords on guitar or piano and record themselves
playing an singing. Your preoccupation with sample libraries suggests that you
intend to write intricate music with intricate arrangements.

The fact that some of you guys can't understand and resspect the
differences between musicians' innate skills and diverse goals Ð such
as the differences between live players and digital composers Ð makes
me wonder if you actually know as much about making pro music as you
let on.

Every profession has different levels of general and specific knowledge. Audio
engineers may know which mics and preamps to use during tracking, which
compressors to run during mixdown and which playback speakers to use during
mastering. But a great performer may know exactly how to practice to get a
given passage up to rapid speed. A great composer may lack the technical skill
to perform virtuosically, but can write challenging passages for others to
play. The folks designing your beloved sample libraries also possess very
specific skills: choosing the right performers and the best tracking studios,
editing sample loop or fade points, assigning them logically to keyboard
layouts, etc. But just because different branches of music require specific
skills does not mean that we're all ignorant of each other's specifications.
I've done quite a bit of audio engineering, mastering, performing, composing,
arranging and teaching, all of which have influenced one another. The more I
can do for myself, the fewer consultants I need. If I can orchestrate, I don't
need an orchestrator. if I can produce, I don't need a producer. If I can sing
well, I may not need a vocal coach. If I can tune my own piano, I don't need a
piano tuner. What is taking up so much of your time that you adamantly refuse
to acquire even rudimentary skill sets necessary for choosing a sample library?

This stuff is so axiomatic; digital composers doesn't need the same
skills as a live player. Get it through your heads and stop trying to
mold me into something that I don't want to be and which is unnecessary
for me to be a great musician.

How many digital music composers have gotten famous without ever playing any
instrument well? I don't know any working composer who can't memorize three
minutes of music and perform it at least adequately on an instrument. And while
there have always been illiterate folk poets, I don't know of any poets with
limited vocabularies. You're basically arguing in favor of a limited vocabulary
in the grounds of efficiency. You don't want to waste your time with skills you
think you'll never have to use. And yet, you're currently confronted with a
situation in which you indeed need to use the skills you so vehemently resist
learning.

I didn't write anything about having an ambition to write for real
instruments or having my music performed by human musicians. You just
made that up. To repeat myself: please re-read the subject header.
The topic is which software is best for me; it's not about whether or
not I need to learn to be a live performer and have my songs played by
human players, or whether or not I should be a digital musician.

Even if your music is never played by live musicians, each instrument sounds
certain ways within certain ranges. Most instruments also have pitch
limitations precluding excessively high or low ranges. A violin sample will not
sound like a violin when playing a low C. A cello sample won't sound convincing
in the highest violin register.

See the above analogy re. singers doing videos to accompany and promote
their songs.

Following that analogy, hire yourself a sound designer to scour the net and put
together your beautiful sound sample library. While you're at it, hire an
orchestrator, arranger and perhaps harmonizer to handle all the technical
aspects of music composition that you find so odious. Oh wait! Singers do that
so they can concentrate on putting on a great live show. But you have no
interest in being a skilled performer. So, if music performance isn't your bag
and the technicalities of composition are abhorrent to you, what's left for you
to do? Make other people rich who are willing to do the work you refuse to do.

If I were that tasteless and ignorant, I wouldn't be on a quest to
seek better sounds than my current software provides.

The fact that you chose that software without properly investigating its
capabilities suggests that you wanted an easy fix and are crying because
Garageband didn't provide it.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 06 Dec 2014, Tom Evans wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

What's the best digital music recording program that comes with
many terrific instrument sounds?

I'm thinking of buying Logic Pro 10, as I'm a Mac user and I'm
using Garageband and a controller to record songs on the Mac, but
I'm finding Garageband's instrument sounds are too limited.

The price of Logic seems to be good ($200) but I wonder if there's
a program that easeir to learn and use; Logic seems to be
complicated.

You don't say what kind of music you want to make. Orchestral?
Synthetic? Dance? Do you want to program it in MIDI and then drive
samples? Audio loops?

Todd Rundgren likes Propellerhead Reason as an all-in-one studio-type
environment that he can carry on a laptop.

https://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/

[Phil W[_3_]]

Tom Evans" :
On 2014-12-09 04:06:59 -0800, geoff said:

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

Your two statements are contradictory, Geoff.

Yours are even better at this!

First you wrote, "you get what you pay for" but then you wrote that
Audacity (a free program) could be just aa useful as a paid program.

If you had the slightest clue of audio software and music, you could
understand, what he meant to say.

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/11/2014 1:05 PM, Sarbanes Oxtard wrote:

You are all being trolled. And Tommy the Troll is
doing a very good job of it.
Best to ignore the troll.

Good thing that this is usenet! Tom is raising issues that other readers
may find relevant to their work. So, even if he doesn't benefit from the
many suggestions in this discussion, others can and will probably be
able to make good use of them.

--
best regards,

Neil

[geoff]

On 11/12/2014 5:48 p.m., Jason wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:09:12 +0000 (UTC) "Jeff Henig"
wrote in article 1482054791439949264.775235yomama-



Both Sibelius and Finale have a rather large user base.

I used Cakewalk for a long time, but I've not had a notation program in
several years.

My wife is a compser. She has used both Sibelius and Finale, the latter
for many years. She found Sibelius too simplistic (maybe not any more),
but Finale is complex and buggy (and their support is brain dead).


A university music professor (and ace jazz pianist) who I know seems to
prefer Sibelius, for what it's worth ...


geoff

[geoff]

On 11/12/2014 10:53 a.m., hank alrich wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:

I don't need to know that technical stuff to be a terrific composer.

I see you also aspire to be a comedian.

Time to show your work. If any.



I am always eager to hear some terrific music.

geoff

[geoff]

On 12/12/2014 4:25 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-09 04:06:59 -0800, geoff said:

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

Your two statements are contradictory, Geoff.

First you wrote, "you get what you pay for" but then you wrote that
Audacity (a free program) could be just aa useful as a paid program.

Tom



Didn't read the manual on reading comprehension either then, I guess.

It rather depends on what "you need".

geoff

[geoff]

On 12/12/2014 5:47 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/11/2014 11:01 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
My original question was what's the best digital music software for me,
not if I should record real insruments such as a guitar, so the
suggestion to record real instruments such as guiar was not relevant to
my question.

The answer to that is:
The software that does what you need and works in a way that makes sense
to you.

What you've been harping on (excuse the pun) is that you want virtual
instruments that sound excellent. Virtual instruments are, in a
practical sense, not digital music software, they're chunks of software
that work with just about any music program you choose to use to create
your music.


But he reads exclusive Mac magasines, who music =related articles are
possibly not actually written by 'musicians' per se,just users of thoe
specific application being reviewed. So an easy mistake to make.


geoff

[geoff]

On 12/12/2014 7:01 a.m., hank alrich wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:

False. Please read carefully; you've clearly misconstrued what was
written, so my statement stands.

So far, big fella, your statements are much like someone talking with
their head up their ass. I admire someone who can talk from that point
while standing. Great work.

Where is that song of yours?


Remember that pommy dude who maintained that guitar tone didn't matter
and his MIDI controller was as good as anything, and did post a link to
some of his terrific music ? Which turned out to be totally dreadful ?

geoff

[geoff]

On 12/12/2014 7:22 a.m., PStamler wrote:

A couple of years ago, I spent a year taking MIDI and sequencing classes as part of getting my Master's degree (at 63!). I discovered several things:

You could have done a masters degree in Mac instead !


geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

geoff wrote:
On 12/12/2014 7:01 a.m., hank alrich wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:

False. Please read carefully; you've clearly misconstrued what was
written, so my statement stands.

So far, big fella, your statements are much like someone talking with
their head up their ass. I admire someone who can talk from that point
while standing. Great work.

Where is that song of yours?


Remember that pommy dude who maintained that guitar tone didn't matter
and his MIDI controller was as good as anything, and did post a link to
some of his terrific music ? Which turned out to be totally dreadful ?

Well, that's the thing about being a composer: you don't really have to be
able to play, and you don't have to have a great-sounding demo, it just has
to be good enough so people can tell what you're trying to do.

Mind you, I once worked on a jingle gig in Atlanta, years ago, where the
composer came in with charts and the vibrophone player said that he couldn't
play these chords because he only had two hands. They wound up breaking it
up into two parts and overdubbing, which was fine since we had two tracks for
the band (plus one for the vocalists and one for the voiceover).
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[John Williamson]

On 11/12/2014 16:01, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 10:00:17 -0800, PStamler said:

Just as an aside, it just took me a few seconds using Google to find out
that VST instruments can be made to work inside even the latest version
of Garageband, so that may solve your lack of instruments.

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.

False. Please read carefully; you've clearly misconstrued what was
written, so my statement stands.

I was responding directly to Geoff, who wrote, "I've heard a pair of
musicians make good sounds with a keyboard, a guitar, two voices and a
"Band in a box" machine." Making music with a real instrument is not a
purely digital workflow. I want all my instruments to be digital. My
original question was what's the best digital music software for me, not
if I should record real insruments such as a guitar, so the suggestion
to record real instruments such as guiar was not relevant to my question.

Geoff didn't write that, I did. The only non-digital parts of the
performance were the guitar and the voices. The guitar part *could* have
been played on a digital keyboard, but it was easier to do it on a guitar.

However, to get back to your original question, the best DAW software
for you is the one you are happiest using. You seem to broadly like
Garageband, so I'd say stick with that until you grow out of it and
decide what you actually want your DAW software to do. If you're just
gluing loops together, then there are programs that do that well and
easily. If you want to put a simulated orchestral performance together
note by note, then Audacity will do that, provided you take the time to
learn the interface. You've said you don't want to record live, so that
rules out the likes of Audition. if you just want to put a sequence of
notes together to see what they sound like, then Sibelius or Mozart will
let you do that easily, and will let you play back the music using a
number of basic instruments. If you like it, import the file into a
sequencer which will control the various libraries you'll have bought by
then.

To summarize, John wrote that technology is unnecessary to make music,
so my statement so my statement that I was being directed away from
digital music making is valid. My original question was which is the
best digital software was best for my needs so being steered in the
direction of making music with real instruments was not what I asked
about and was off-topic. So my point stands.

No, I wasn't directing you away from making music any way you want to. I
love Kraftwerk, who once said they intended to make music using no
moving parts except the speaker cones. So they built all their own
instruments from components, and after a few years of doing this, they
became an overnight success with Autobahn. In their case, the musical
ideas came first, courtesy of a piano or other keyboard, then got
elaborated into a multi-instrument digital concept. Not matter *how*
good the instruments had sounded, that hit would never have happened
without the great tune that underlay it. If they'd got bogged down in
"This instrument sounds terrible, I need a better one" while they were
composing it, the good music would probably not have happened, and so
nor would the hit.

My point was that the *main* requirements for making great music are
firstly a *need* to make music (Maybe you wake up in the middle of the
night with this great idea for a tune going through your head, and I
know a few people like that). You also need talent, which is partly
inborn, and experience, which is only got by spending time learning how
to use whatever you have. The hardware is irrelevant. You say you make
good but not great music with Garageband and blame the poor quality
sounds that Garageband uses for the lack of greatness. Fine. If you let
us or others you're talking to hear some, we could help with improving
it. If you don't let us hear it, then we will continue to assume that
you're just another wannabe who thinks that becoming an overnight
success is something that happens overnight without any preparation.

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.

Understood. Nonetheless, but I can shave off some of that time and
effort by asking which ones are most appropriate for my needs. I don't
need to listen to them all if, for example, I know in advance that a
library consists of only heavy metal guitars, because I'm not looking
for such sounds.

There's a bit on the library label that says "Heavy metal guitar
samples" or "Orchestral string samples" or "Handy sounds for film
scores". You can obviously read, so you should be able to get the hint
from the makers' descriptions of various libraries. Then you need to
narrow down what you really need, and look for a sample set that gives
you that. So far, all you've said is that you want lots of different
instruments. General MIDI gives you 128 instruments, albeit not very
good quality ones. I've recently seen what may be the ultimate library
of orchestral string samples advertised, which costs many hundreds of
dollars and takes up many gigabytes of disc space. That's only four
instruments, though. The manual is rather thicker than the 26 pages you
find too long to read, too.

Finally, you say you want to become a great composer. All the great
composers I've heard of start by playing a hook on either a piano or
guitar, or whatever instrument they play best, then write it down and
start working on it from there.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 11/12/2014 5:48 p.m., Jason wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:09:12 +0000 (UTC) "Jeff Henig"
wrote in article 1482054791439949264.775235yomama-



Both Sibelius and Finale have a rather large user base.

I used Cakewalk for a long time, but I've not had a notation program in
several years.

My wife is a compser. She has used both Sibelius and Finale, the latter
for many years. She found Sibelius too simplistic (maybe not any more),
but Finale is complex and buggy (and their support is brain dead).


A university music professor (and ace jazz pianist) who I know seems to
prefer Sibelius, for what it's worth ...


geoff

I think Sibelius began as something much lessor than Finale, and
eventually got up to full speed, with differences, as usual, in some
aspects of the user interface.

Then they got bought by Digidesign/Avid, and apparently service hasn't
been so great. At one point the original crew was trying to buy it back.
Don't know how that worked out.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[hank alrich]

Neil wrote:

On 12/11/2014 1:05 PM, Sarbanes Oxtard wrote:

You are all being trolled. And Tommy the Troll is
doing a very good job of it.
Best to ignore the troll.

Good thing that this is usenet! Tom is raising issues that other readers
may find relevant to their work. So, even if he doesn't benefit from the
many suggestions in this discussion, others can and will probably be
able to make good use of them.

+1

That said, this won't go on forever. ;-)

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 21:35:34 -0600, hank alrich wrote:

geoff wrote:

On 11/12/2014 5:48 p.m., Jason wrote:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2014 00:09:12 +0000 (UTC) "Jeff Henig"
wrote in article 1482054791439949264.775235yomama-



Both Sibelius and Finale have a rather large user base.

I used Cakewalk for a long time, but I've not had a notation program in
several years.

My wife is a compser. She has used both Sibelius and Finale, the latter
for many years. She found Sibelius too simplistic (maybe not any more),
but Finale is complex and buggy (and their support is brain dead).


A university music professor (and ace jazz pianist) who I know seems to
prefer Sibelius, for what it's worth ...


geoff

I think Sibelius began as something much lessor than Finale, and
eventually got up to full speed, with differences, as usual, in some
aspects of the user interface.

Then they got bought by Digidesign/Avid, and apparently service hasn't
been so great. At one point the original crew was trying to buy it back.
Don't know how that worked out.

Finale is pretty much the standard these days, if there is a
standard.

I stay far away from Avid/DD.

I'm so glad I sold my Protools rig years ago and got back much of my
investment.
I've never looked back and for those potential clients who hang up
the phone when they are told I don't run Protools, well, so what. I
have more work than I need and I'm retired. This is just fun stuff at
this point.
--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...current.htm l

[Luxey]

�убота, 06. децембар 2014. 22.35.09 UTC+1, flatfish+++ је напи�ао/ла:
On Sat, 6 Dec 2014 10:59:41 -0800, Tom Evans wrote:

On 2014-12-06 09:40:40 -0800, flatfish+++ said:

On Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:47:35 -0800, Tom Evans wrote:

What's the best digital music recording program that comes with many
terrific instrument sounds?

I'm thinking of buying Logic Pro 10, as I'm a Mac user and I'm using
Garageband and a controller to record songs on the Mac, but I'm finding
Garageband's instrument sounds are too limited.

The price of Logic seems to be good ($200) but I wonder if there's a
program that easeir to learn and use; Logic seems to be complicated.

If you are a composer it's hard to beat Studio One for work flow,
ease of use and a decent compliment of instruments.
IMHO it's probably the least complex of all the DAW software and
while it doesn't have the extreme granularity and superb MIDI control
that say Cubase has, it does have more than enough features for most.

I use the Windows version (Studio One Professional) so can't comment
on the Mac version but it's been ultra stable for me.

http://www.presonus.com/products/Stu...e/what-you-get

Another alternative is to stick with Logic, spend some time watching
YouTube and learn what you might be struggling with. Then spend the
money you save by not DAW hopping on something like Kontact.
Depending on the version, you'll get a bazillion high quality
(mostly) instruments.

In my experience, unless you truly hate a particular DAW, hopping to
a new one rarely solves the problems. The grass isn't always greener
etc.

Good luck!

Thanks, Flatfish.

I'm looking for better software instrument sounds and Garageband's
collection (even with the 30 gigabytes provided by the Mainstage jam
packs seems pretty limited in quality except for some instrument sounds
such as piano and a few of the synths, and even Garageband's function
where you can combine instrument sounds to come up with uniqure sounds
has only given me a few uniqure sounds that sound really cool to me.

It sounds like Logic has far more terrific sounds than Garageband with
Mainstage, so that also seems to contradict your statement that
changing DAWs rarely solve problems. Also, Garageband with Mainstage
is for beginners, whereas I'm hoping to make and publish pro-quality
sounds, so that also seems to contradict your statement that switching
DAWs rarely solves problems.

Tom

You have to compare "Apples with Apples". Comparing Garageband with
Logic is like comparing a Porsche to a Ford Fiesta.

Of course moving to a higher end product is going to provide more
features.

I'm talking about jumping from Cubase Professional to Studio One
Professional to CakeWalk Sonar Producer etc. Not comparing the bottom
product to the top tier product.

I see people spend more time hopping DAW software than making music.
It rarely solves their problems unless like I said there they
absolutely hate their current DAW software.

Good luck.



--
flatfish+++

Linux: The Operating System That Put The City Of Munich Out Of
Business.
Before Switching To Linux Read This:
http://linuxfonts.narod.ru/why.linux...urrent..ht ml

Well, here are some of us loving Fiestas:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azRooC21mm0

[Luxey]

On Saturday, 6 December 2014 07:47:39 UTC+1, Tom Evans wrote:
What's the best digital music recording program that comes with many
terrific instrument sounds?

I'm thinking of buying Logic Pro 10, as I'm a Mac user and I'm using
Garageband and a controller to record songs on the Mac, but I'm finding
Garageband's instrument sounds are too limited.

The price of Logic seems to be good ($200) but I wonder if there's a
program that easeir to learn and use; Logic seems to be complicated.

If you were on WinPC I'd tell you to get yourself the cheapest incarnation
of Cubase ...

(I hear Reaper mentioned a lot, but the last time I checked it was not too good onto Piano Roll music making features, If I remember correctly. It
is dirty cheap, though, so if it may be worth trying anyway),

.... freeware "soundfont" player, than search and download all the freeware
soundfonts from the internet, and there it is. Even I could afford that,
should I wish to.

However, since you're a Mac guy, I've no idea what you could possibly use.
Given the price of Mac, there's nothing in the price range.

The other way to go is "trackers". The most advanced version of the idea is
Fruity Loops. I don't know if there's one for Mac, but I'm sure there are
lots of freeware trackers for PC.

BTW, as far as I know, in recent years all the (lousy?) projects I came
across, by people who thought they could do it, but mid way realized they
could not and came for salvation, originated from Fruity Loops augmented by
some "super extra drum and bass samples" libraries.
So, likely it would be the way for you to go, too. They all thought FL was
the best there is for music making.

[Phil W[_3_]]

Luxey:

If you were on WinPC I'd tell you to get yourself the cheapest incarnation
of Cubase ...

This exists for Mac OS, too. It will probably take too much time to get used
to how Cubase works. Besides that, it does not include "great sounds"
out-of-the-box, but some of the tools to get there. Since the arrogant and
close-minded OP won´t even invest the time to read a short manual, he won´t
get happy with using Cubase, nor any other DAW software.
He should rather get Logic, since it also comes from same the overly great
company as his "MAC!" and then notice, that it also requires the use of
additional processing to get sound sources to sound "great" in a mix.

... freeware "soundfont" player, than search and download all the freeware
soundfonts from the internet, and there it is. Even I could afford that,
should I wish to.

Aynone could, but it would involve taking the time necessary to actually get
to know the soundfonts - just like any other sample format or other virtual
instruments (synthesizing sounds instead of playing samples).

However, since you're a Mac guy, I've no idea what you could possibly use.

First of all, I´d suggest: a real and healthy brain instead of the
junk-filled turd he obviously has now.

Given the price of Mac, there's nothing in the price range.

Cubase Elements is.

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-09 13:33:08 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

In article 2014120909140176423-tomevans9890@yahooca,
writes:
I downloaded Zebralette after reading that thread. But Zebraletter has
a complex, 26-page manaul and requires a separate program to hear the
sounds and it requires all sorts of adjusttments that would take a ton
of time just of test that one collection out of the dozens listed in
the thread.

All of which probably means that there is a robust architecture to map and edit
samples. You may not agree with how the samples are laid out and may wish to
change things. A 26-page manual is peanuts.

I was trying to ferret out by asking you knowledgeable veterans what's
the best route for meeting specific needs.

Your need is evidently a package that comes ready to use, without any need for
sample mapping, wave form editing or MIDI assignments.

I've gone through the same process of learning on other newsgroups
(i.e. for Web site design, fine art, photography, Mac computers) about
how to solve specific problems. I usually get a variety of answers
suggesting every software or hardware or other solution under the sun.
Most the solutions suggested are inappropriate and impractical.
Usually I try one or a few or several of the suggestions that sound
logical, to try to solve my and then usually one or more of the
suggestions works.

This is a proaudio newsgroup primarily about audio recording, tracking, mixing
and mastering. Using it to find a suitable sound sample library may eventually
yield comparable results to the use of a visual art discussion group to discuss
performance art.

For example, I gave the example of Zebralette, which was one of the
many sources of sound libraries suggested and the first one I tried.
After downloading the package and looking at the PDF file, I quickly
learned that that Zebra would not meet my desires because it has a
complicated, 26-page manual with complicated instructions and required
adjusting waveforms, as opposed to, for example a Komplete 30-day demo
I tried several months ago, where I only had to download the Kontakt
player and a sound library and then was immediately able to start
testing the sounds by playing them on my controller via Garageband.

Why not ask about those supposedly complicated instructions in a mere 26-page
manual? You might actually learn that the sample library you would have
dismissed may suit your needs after all.

There's obviously a big difference between those two scenarios. By
availing my self of the expertise of multiple music experts here to
focus on what methods would most likely work for me, I'm able to reduce
the weeks, months or years frustrating experimenting that leads to dead
ends.

Imbibing a 26-page manual is hardly what I'd describe as a dead end. I could
digest such a document in an hour at most.

For example, because of advice given here, I can try Kontakt's
libraries again for my search for a variety of good sounds and also
vstwarehouse.com for free plug-ins instead of adjusting waveforms in
Zebralette, which is of no interest to me.

How do you know it's of no interest to you? Suppose, you find a string sample
with a beautiful tone but an inappropriate attack, decay, sustain or release?
Is it worth searching through hundreds of sample libraries, many of which have
no free demos, to find a sound that you won't have to edit?

Maybe you're right. Okay, I'll try it again.

The purpose of asking questions on newsgroups is to help the questioner to
solve problems
more quickly and effectively than struggling on one's own without the
pooled knowledge of experts like yous.

Actually, the purpose of asking questions in newsgroups is to juxtapose
strangers' recommendations against one's own needs, proclivities and expertise.
For instance, although I may ask detailed questions about various digital audio
workstations, it's unlikely that I'll find a fellow blind user here; what may
be user friendly to our experts here may be completely unusable for me. That
reality obliges me to test user interfaces for myself to see how accessible and
efficient they are. The recommendations you'll likely get here are general
rather than specific to your needs. But if you refuse to engage with software
and hardware on more than a superficial level, you won't even come to know what
your needs truly are. Right now, you think you only need a variety of mapped
samples to use in your Garageband sequences. But what if you're using a Hammond
B3 sample and want to adjust the Leslie speed via system exclusive midi
controllers? What if you don't like how the velocity curves on a piano sample
are mapped out and you need to adjust offsets in order for your parts to sound
as you intend? What if the pitch bend on a sample is set to a fifth rather than
a wholestep? What if there's a resonance filter or LFO that's activating too
strongly along the velocity curve? What if your samples have effects such as
reverb, chorus and delay that can be edited or eliminated?

I understand.

False. For example, if I use the cheezy sax sounds in Garageband, my
compositions would be sure to fail. Those sounds sound like a high
school band's sax or a Casio home keyboard. If I didn't need better
sound libraries, I wouldn't have asked. Compositions are useless
without nice-sounding instruments to express the ideas in the
compositions.

Most musically astute listeners can distinguish poor quality samples from bad
composition. Any Finale or Sibelius user has experienced great music being
played by cheesy general midi sounds.

I don't know about those programs. I think we'll just remain disagreed
about that issue.

just guidance to help with my specific goals to make the searching
process shorter and more efficient by focusing on my specific focus.

That's like asking us to try on clothing or taste food for you. How are we
supposed to know intuitively what will suit your taste and temperament? You
haven't even given us specific requirements: I.E. electric and acoustic guitar
samples of individual strings for under $200, or various articulations of
orchestral samples for under $1000. You haven't asked for piano samples with
damper pedal variants or drum samples with brush variants. You haven't asked
for electric bass samples using various signature amplifiers. So, what you call
efficiency is actually vagary on your part. You know that Garageband's samples
are too cheesy, yet you're unwilling to get specific about the sample libraries
you need and your budget. You just keep saying you want something cheap and
varied, which is difficult to find.

I'm not sure what my budget is, because I'm not sure what my money
would buy. So I can't give a figure, except that $1,000 is way too
much for my budget at this time. I think I might be able to buy
piecemeal; $50 for one suite, $200 for another, $100 for another,
etecetara, to spread out the costs gradually.

I feel that the grand piano and grand piano on stage are among
Garageband's best instruments, so I don't feel I need better pianos at
least for now. The drum loops I also find are fine for now.

I want better sax; bass, electric and acustic guitars; orchestral
strings; and snyth sounds like Garageband's Sci-Fi, Aquatic Sunbeam,
Solo Star and Modern Prophecy.

I'm well aware of what it takes to succeed in various endeavors, having
worked professionally in a variety of fields for decades. I'm not an
ignorant, green youngster fresh out of high school, and I didn't imply
that I am.

You're comping across as a jaded older adult unwilling to put in the time,
effort and expense to learn things that cost most musicians the same time,
effort and expense. I would not shell out my money to download a sample library
on anyone's recommendation. I wouldn't even trust a demo version to reveal
everything about that library's user interface. That leaves me the option of
hands-on and listening demonstrations from friends and colleagues with the
libraries loaded on their computers. This allows me to hear the samples and
test the virtual instrument user interface.

I don't know any digital musicians.

Do music stores have some DAWs set up to allow customers to test any of
the more popular sound libraries on their premises? I guess not
because no one's recommended that.

Tom

[PStamler]

Tom, it would be easier for us to advise you if you'd tell us what genre you're trying to compose in. I'm guessing pop from your comments about drum samples, but it'd be better to know than guess.One way to talk about that is to say who you want to emulate.

Peace,
Paul

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/12/2014 1:58 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
Do music stores have some DAWs set up to allow customers to test any of
the more popular sound libraries on their premises? I guess not because
no one's recommended that.

You do business with a real music store? Well, bless your heart. I think
that you may find a dealer or two in a major city that has a DAW set up
with a number of sounds, but I suspect not a full range of what they
sell. That's why most of them have some sort of limited free trial
period. Or else you READ THE RIGHT MAGAZINES and study the reviews. But
there are far more sound libraries available than there are reviews.

The theory is that if you're looking for more or less normal instrument
sounds, any one will get you 90% there, which is good enough for working
out an arrangement and even publishing the work. If you're really fussy,
you'll have to just try things on your own until you have that AHA!
moment. And of course if you're looking for sounds that don't come from
real instruments, you'll have to use your imagination as to what the
descriptions are telling you.




--
"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

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-09 13:33:08 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

In article 2014120909140176423-tomevans9890@yahooca,
writes:

This is a proaudio newsgroup primarily about audio recording, tracking, mixing
and mastering.

Out of curiosity: Do any of you gentlemen make a full-time living from
DAW music you composed and recorded?

Tom

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 12/13/2014 12:00 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Out of curiosity: Do any of you gentlemen make a full-time living from
DAW music you composed and recorded?

Full time living?? Surely jest. Anyone making a full time living
composing music with a DAW is going to be too busy working with
managers, lawyers, producers, and agents to hang out in this forum.

However, I'll bet there are plenty of accountants, IT managers, school
teachers, auto mechanics, and dentists who play music part time, record
their own music, and make gas money at shows by selling CDs.



--
"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

[geoff]

On 13/12/2014 6:00 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-09 13:33:08 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:

In article 2014120909140176423-tomevans9890@yahooca,

writes:

This is a proaudio newsgroup primarily about audio recording,
tracking, mixing
and mastering.

Out of curiosity: Do any of you gentlemen make a full-time living from
DAW music you composed and recorded?

Tom


No, you need to check rec.composer.performer for that. We typically
record and produce music performed by others, with some notable exceptions.

geoff

[hank alrich]

Mike Rivers wrote:

On 12/13/2014 12:00 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Out of curiosity: Do any of you gentlemen make a full-time living from
DAW music you composed and recorded?

Full time living?? Surely jest. Anyone making a full time living
composing music with a DAW is going to be too busy working with
managers, lawyers, producers, and agents to hang out in this forum.

However, I'll bet there are plenty of accountants, IT managers, school
teachers, auto mechanics, and dentists who play music part time, record
their own music, and make gas money at shows by selling CDs.

Meanwhile we have not been led to our erstwhile composer's work over at
CD Baby. I took a look over there, and there are a bunch of folks with
his handle. Some of them may have a grip.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-11 12:01:39 -0800, geoff said:

On 12/12/2014 4:25 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-09 04:06:59 -0800, geoff said:

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

Your two statements are contradictory, Geoff.

First you wrote, "you get what you pay for" but then you wrote that
Audacity (a free program) could be just aa useful as a paid program.

Tom



Didn't read the manual on reading comprehension either then, I guess.

It rather depends on what "you need".

geoff

My reading comprehension has been tested, and the results showed that
it's above average.

Tom

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-11 13:41:37 -0800, John Williamson said:

On 11/12/2014 16:01, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 10:00:17 -0800, PStamler said:

Just as an aside, it just took me a few seconds using Google to find
out that VST instruments can be made to work inside even the latest
version of Garageband, so that may solve your lack of instruments.

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.

False. Please read carefully; you've clearly misconstrued what was
written, so my statement stands.

I was responding directly to Geoff, who wrote, "I've heard a pair of
musicians make good sounds with a keyboard, a guitar, two voices and a
"Band in a box" machine." Making music with a real instrument is not a
purely digital workflow. I want all my instruments to be digital. My
original question was what's the best digital music software for me, not
if I should record real insruments such as a guitar, so the suggestion
to record real instruments such as guiar was not relevant to my question.

Geoff didn't write that, I did. The only non-digital parts of the
performance were the guitar and the voices. The guitar part *could*
have been played on a digital keyboard, but it was easier to do it on a
guitar.

However, to get back to your original question, the best DAW software
for you is the one you are happiest using. You seem to broadly like
Garageband, so I'd say stick with that until you grow out of it and
decide what you actually want your DAW software to do.

I feel that I've outgrown Garageband as it is, so I want to expand the
possiblities by adding more insturment sounds to it. I tried that
recommended vstwarehouse.com. I got a couple of nice base guiars, but
it was only those first two in the Mac list out of the 19 that I tried
that I liked enough, and some of the links were dead or required me to
submit my email address to access the sounds. It's an arduous
process. I think it would be more efficient to buy a package of sounds.
Maybe I'll try Native Instruments.

If you're just gluing loops together, then there are programs that do
that well and easily. If you want to put a simulated orchestral
performance together note by note, then Audacity will do that, provided
you take the time to learn the interface. You've said you don't want to
record live, so that rules out the likes of Audition. if you just want
to put a sequence of notes together to see what they sound like, then
Sibelius or Mozart will let you do that easily, and will let you play
back the music using a number of basic instruments. If you like it,
import the file into a sequencer which will control the various
libraries you'll have bought by then.

To summarize, John wrote that technology is unnecessary to make music,
so my statement that I was being directed away from
digital music making is valid. My original question was which is the
best digital software was best for my needs so being steered in the
direction of making music with real instruments was not what I asked
about and was off-topic. So my point stands.

No, I wasn't directing you away from making music any way you want to.
I love Kraftwerk, who once said they intended to make music using no
moving parts except the speaker cones. So they built all their own
instruments from components, and after a few years of doing this, they
became an overnight success with Autobahn. In their case, the musical
ideas came first, courtesy of a piano or other keyboard, then got
elaborated into a multi-instrument digital concept. Not matter *how*
good the instruments had sounded, that hit would never have happened
without the great tune that underlay it. If they'd got bogged down in
"This instrument sounds terrible, I need a better one" while they were
composing it, the good music would probably not have happened, and so
nor would the hit.

As I wrote, that thinkng doesn't work for me. For example, If I had
only stayed with making my art using techniques I don't like, such as
pencil crayons, stone lithography, serigraphy, etching, drypoint,
aquatint or watercolour, instead of my chosen methods of editing my
photos in Photoshop and printing them as giclees, I probably wouldn't
be the international art star that I am today.

The instruments that I use to make my music are just as ciritical for
my succees as a musician as they are for my art. My 30 years of
experience in the creative arts gives me the certaintly to know that. I
need to be inspired to make great music, and starting with an
instrument that sounds terrible is not a way for me to be inspired. If
I use the ukelele to compose a song in Garageband it won't inspire me,
but the melody might be sound great if I used another instrument such
as a piano. That's part of my creative process.

I know what I need to inspire my creativit, and my success as an art
star is proof of that.

As I wrote before, "Different strokes for different folks. Some
people's techniques of making their art or music or movies or books are
the opposite of what other artists use.

My point was that the *main* requirements for making great music are
firstly a *need* to make music (Maybe you wake up in the middle of the
night with this great idea for a tune going through your head, and I
know a few people like that). You also need talent, which is partly
inborn, and experience, which is only got by spending time learning how
to use whatever you have. The hardware is irrelevant. You say you make
good but not great music with Garageband and blame the poor quality
sounds that Garageband uses for the lack of greatness. Fine. If you let
us or others you're talking to hear some, we could help with improving
it. If you don't let us hear it, then we will continue to assume that
you're just another wannabe who thinks that becoming an overnight
success is something that happens overnight without any preparation.

Now that my song has been released for a few months, I feel that it's
not as good as I thought initially, so I must go back to the drawing
board with some different concepts. I know I can do better. Perhaps
I'll link to my second song, but that won't be ready till next year.

I'm a veteran of the creative arts for 30 years and I'm a leader in my
field, and to reiterate, I never even hinted that I expected to be an
overnight success as a composer. That's a false assumption and you put
those words into my mouth. If you go back and reread, there's no quote
of mine that says I want to "become an overnight success".

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.

Understood. Nonetheless, I can shave off some of that time and
effort by asking which ones are most appropriate for my needs. I don't
need to listen to them all if, for example, I know in advance that a
library consists of only heavy metal guitars, because I'm not looking
for such sounds.

There's a bit on the library label that says "Heavy metal guitar
samples" or "Orchestral string samples" or "Handy sounds for film
scores". You can obviously read, so you should be able to get the hint
from the makers' descriptions of various libraries. Then you need to
narrow down what you really need, and look for a sample set that gives
you that. So far, all you've said is that you want lots of different
instruments. General MIDI gives you 128 instruments, albeit not very
good quality ones. I've recently seen what may be the ultimate library
of orchestral string samples advertised, which costs many hundreds of
dollars and takes up many gigabytes of disc space. That's only four
instruments, though. The manual is rather thicker than the 26 pages you
find too long to read, too.

Finally, you say you want to become a great composer. All the great
composers I've heard of start by playing a hook on either a piano or
guitar, or whatever instrument they play best, then write it down and
start working on it from there.

That's what I've done in Garageband. I strung together some drum
loops, then added piano, and/or synths, base guiatars, etcetera.
There's no writing involved in my composing; it's all done by playing
my controller and adjusting things in Garageband.

Tom

[Luxey]

So, you are a star, you know everything about your creative process,
you work with celebreties and you search for help on a newsgroup?
Why don't you just rent some space and hire someone to do the labour, you remain
the author and producer? How many songs you've made? Where can I listen to that
release you speak about?

[John Williamson]

On 16/12/2014 01:25, Luxey wrote:
So, you are a star, you know everything about your creative process,
you work with celebreties and you search for help on a newsgroup?
Why don't you just rent some space and hire someone to do the labour, you remain
the author and producer? How many songs you've made? Where can I listen to that
release you speak about?

And, just out of interest, which one of the dozens of Tom (Or Thomas)
Evans's on the web are you?

Some of them have a good looking portfolio, others are showing what look
like standard, professional stuff that any pro photographer can turn out
by the album.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[geoff]

On 16/12/2014 11:28 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:


I know what I need to inspire my creativit, and my success as an art
star is proof of that.

We are all still eagerly awaiting a link to a sample of that creativit,
in order to add a perspective to what we are trying to help you with.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 16/12/2014 09:35, geoff wrote:
On 16/12/2014 11:28 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:


I know what I need to inspire my creativit, and my success as an art
star is proof of that.

We are all still eagerly awaiting a link to a sample of that creativit,
in order to add a perspective to what we are trying to help you with.


I found a number of "Tom Evans" websites full of photos, and more
"Thomas Evans".

I'd not call the pictures on any of them stellar.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[hank alrich]

Tom Evans wrote:

My reading comprehension has been tested, and the results showed that
it's above average.

Not here "composer".

I figure at this point you have never composed anything, have nothing up
at CDBaby, and have proven to be one of our more interesting trolls.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Gray_Wolf]

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:47:26 -0600, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Tom Evans wrote:

My reading comprehension has been tested, and the results showed that
it's above average.

Not here "composer".

I figure at this point you have never composed anything, have nothing up
at CDBaby, and have proven to be one of our more interesting trolls.


LOL!! What's the deal with this guy. I've seen these type people
appear on other newsgroups like crypto and woodworking with a similar
MO. Same song second verse. :-)

[PStamler]

In the words of the audience member at "The Royal Nonesuch": "Gentlemen, we have been sold."

Peace,
Paul

[hank alrich]

Gray_Wolf wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2014 17:47:26 -0600, (hank alrich)
wrote:

Tom Evans wrote:

My reading comprehension has been tested, and the results showed that
it's above average.

Not here "composer".

I figure at this point you have never composed anything, have nothing up
at CDBaby, and have proven to be one of our more interesting trolls.


LOL!! What's the deal with this guy. I've seen these type people
appear on other newsgroups like crypto and woodworking with a similar
MO. Same song second verse. :-)

That said, I have lost interest. Got my own fishing to do. For real.

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-11 10:22:54 -0800, PStamler said:

I think Mike Rivers nailed an essential question: what kind of music do
you want to compose? What's right for symphonic-style music wouldn't be
right for World Beat, and vice versa.

I want to make a wide gamut of genres: pop, new wave, coutnry,
ambient, smooth jazz, rock, disco, rap, reggae, trance, maybe some
songs with African or orchestral elements, etcetera.

The first decent song I composed, I was trying to compose a disco song,
but it turned out to be country! I never expected that! Recently, I
was struggling with a compostion that sounded kind of new wave/smooth
jazz/ambient, but then I added a track that had a reggae flavour, so I
had to "Save As" to try work on both sounds as separate songs. So I
never know what genres my songs will end up when I begin.

Your first question was about the software, and there I can give you a
straight answer: Reaper probably gives the biggest bang for the buck.
However, you need to realize that you'll probably need to buy sample
libraries, over and above the sounds bundled with sequencing software,
which are usually kind of generic. And as I said before, you'll
probably have to pay some good money for those libraries, because they
cost a lot to produce. You'll also need to spend a good deal of time
listening to whatever library you buy, so you know the sounds well
enough on a gut level to use them in your compositions. There's no
shortcut that'll let you skip that, unfortunately, any more than you
can skip the process of learning to use your DAW. We haven't got an
"efficient" way to download knowledge into a user's brain directly; we
humans learn by listening and trying things. And playing with the
equipment when no one's around.

A couple of years ago, I spent a year taking MIDI and sequencing
classes as part of getting my Master's degree (at 63!). I discovered
several things:

1. I loved it.

2. It took a *lot* of time -- I'd go to the school's MIDI lab as a
reward to myself, and I'd look up and it was 1 a.m.. The number of
things to tweak ate up a whole lot of time. Fortunately, because of
item 1., I was more than happy to spend the time.

3. It ain't cheap. Luckily, Reaper is relatively affordable, but my
experience of DAW programs in general is that the samples bundled with
them are kind of generic, and as somebody said, they're mostly oriented
to contemporary pop music. Since I was trying to do other things, I was
kind of limited by that. If I was going to get serious about this, I'd
have to spend the bucks for a much more powerful computer than I have,
a bunch more hardware, and some seriously expensive sample libraries.
I'm sorry, but getting into music in any kind of serious way is going
to cost; have you priced a pro-level bassoon lately? Anyway, I realized
that, though I loved doing this, I didn't have the money to do it
right, or even close. If I ever win the lottery, though, look out.

Tom, I don't know if this helps answer your question, and I suspect the
answer will be disappointing in parts. But that's the best info I can
give you right now -- there ain't no cheap or efficient road to
beautiful sounds, but if you get on a road anyway, you'll probably have
a lot of fun on it.

Peace,
Paul

Thanks, Paul.

Peace and joyful sounds to you as well.

Tom

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-11 10:56:03 -0800, Nil said:

On 06 Dec 2014, Tom Evans wrote in
rec.audio.pro:

What's the best digital music recording program that comes with
many terrific instrument sounds?

I'm thinking of buying Logic Pro 10, as I'm a Mac user and I'm
using Garageband and a controller to record songs on the Mac, but
I'm finding Garageband's instrument sounds are too limited.

The price of Logic seems to be good ($200) but I wonder if there's
a program that easeir to learn and use; Logic seems to be
complicated.

You don't say what kind of music you want to make. Orchestral?
Synthetic? Dance? Do you want to program it in MIDI and then drive
samples? Audio loops?

Todd Rundgren likes Propellerhead Reason as an all-in-one studio-type
environment that he can carry on a laptop.

https://www.propellerheads.se/products/reason/

Thank you, Nil.

I want to make a variety for genres, such as ambient jazz, new wave,
disco and pop rock.

I want to have both samples and synth sounds.

The loops I use are the audio drum loops in Garageband. Sometimes I
layer two, three, four or even five drum loops to get a richer drum
sound. At the moment I have enough drum loops.

Tom