Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#241
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 21/12/2014 22:40, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: On 20/12/2014 3:36 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: There's more ways to skin a cat, as the saying goes. That especially applies to creative people such as musicians. So you swallow the clever advertising brain-washing that implies if you are an MacAddict you are therefore creative ? You are not alone there - they were very cunning the way they deliberately contrived to instil that thinking into artists of several types. The vast majority of creative people use Macs because Macs are more suited to creative work. Plus, they're less problematic; you don't get cryptic "registry errors" for example. And they aren't nearly as prone to viruses. And Macs are more logically designed. But you wouldn't know much about logic. Creative people in the graphics art area now use Macs because they had the first decent DTP programme, and as newspapers and magazines like using a lot of good pictures, that was leveraged into forcing programmers to write other graphics programs for the Macintosh, because Macs had the best displays in the 1980s. In other words, they now use Macs because they always have. Nowadays, it's as easy to use Windows as Mac OS, and the reliability is about the same on both platforms. Both types of computer even use the same chips now that Apple have gone over to Intel processors. This is why a lot of previously Mac only programs are now available for Windows (And more than a few will also run on Linux, but that's a different discussion). For a long time, musicians wouldn't touch Macs, as their choice of computer (Mostly the Atari) had better sound quality, better software, and handled MIDI better than anything else. Macs have traditionally been easier to use and more reliable due to Apple's insistence on making a walled garden, controlling both the software and the hardware tightly. They have now knocked down a few of the walls round their garden with the inevitable results. PC users, on the other hand have always had complete freedom to use whatever hardware and software they wish. I could even run most Mac software perfectly well on a PC before the reverse was true. In other words, Mac users have swallowed the marketing hype hook, line and sinker. Macs insist you do the job the Mac way, which you dismiss (Only one way to do the job, not the computer being a Mac) as being inherently inefficient, whereas in Windows there are many ways to do most jobs, and you can choose which is best for you, which you claim is a more inherently efficient way to work. If you spent some more time learning about Macs instead of bashing them, and bashing users like me, you would know these well-known facts and you might actually discover why Macs are superior. So speaks a true Mac fanboi. They're not better or worse than Windows computers, they're just different. Also, I'm a Mac user because that's what I've come accustomed to using for 20 years -- not because I'm an addict. Dummy. You are the dummy for being afraid to try something new, which will probably give you better results after a short learning period. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#242
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 10:20 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:
If you hadn't attacked me by calling me a high school kid Before you explained who you are, or you think you are or pretend to be, your posts here gave most people the distinct impression you were a likely a self-opinionated petulant teen. Little has changed. wet behind the ears, and other insults such as having a "turd-filled" brain, Not me. I'm filled with button-busting pride.I wouldn't have displayed that, but you forced me too by calling me names, such as ignorant and kid. You haven't demonstrated anything here to be proud about. And your refusal doesn't add to your credibility. Your self-importance and button-busting pride comes across as nothing more than cheap talk. No.I didn't write that and didn't even imply that and the idea never even occurred to me.You really have a way of twisting people's words dramaticlly.You've totally misinterpreted almost everything I've written in this thread, to the point that you've made yourself look like a fool.Where did I write that being a Mac Addict would make me creative.I guarantee you won't find that quote anywhere in this thread or any other. You didn't, but you appear to be prime example of the arrogance displayed by such devotees. You should stop advising me because the more you write, the more you show your stupidity and you keep on insulting me with false insults and I'm beginning to wonder if you're a troll or is it just that you're stupid? Oh it's me, and everybody else here, who are the stupid ones. Clearly. Also, giving a link to my only published song would be misleading because it's only one genreand I'm interested in a variety of instrument sounds. And all the other stuff you are so fantastic at ? This, too, shsould be obvious to an intelligent person, Well that counts me out, apparently. geoff |
#243
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 11:40 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:
The vast majority of creative people use Macs because Macs are more suited to creative work. Plus, they're less problematic; you don't get cryptic "registry errors" for example. And they aren't nearly as prone to viruses. And Macs are more logically designed. But you wouldn't know much about logic. If you spent some more time learning about Macs instead of bashing them, and bashing users like me, you would know these well-known facts and you might actually discover why Macs are superior. Also, I'm a Mac user because that's what I've come accustomed to using for 20 years -- not because I'm an addict. Dummy. Tom Hook, line, and sinker apparently. geoff |
#244
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 10:43 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:
My point was that I don't like the process of stone lithography. The writer insulted me (after I explained that I've been a professional fine artist for many years) Surely real profession fine artists would describe themselves as 'professional artists'. I'd like to hire musicians who play real instruments, but I can't afford to. That's why I'm constrained to the digital workflow only. Sell some more fine art. geoff |
#245
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/21/2014 5:40 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
...gigantic snip..... Also, I'm a Mac user because that's what I've come accustomed to using for 20 years -- not because I'm an addict. Dummy. Tom In my professional career I've used UNIX, Mac, PC, and more, as needed. Tools is tools! Sort through stuff and pick the best for your needs. If "what I've come accustomed to using " is your limiting factor, that ain't our problem. Your world ...your art,. ...but you do have other options. [YMMV] == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#246
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:
Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the master evangelist of the digital age". He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs -- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using. His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history. Bozo. Tom |
#247
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/21/2014 8:04 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the master evangelist of the digital age". He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs -- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using. His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history. Bozo. Tom Conflating quality with popularity.... ? == Later.... Ron Capik -- |
#248
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-21 13:59:15 -0800, John Williamson said:
On 21/12/2014 21:20, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: On 20/12/2014 3:36 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: Why are you trying to educate me on stone lithography?I already wrote that I've been a fine artist for 30 years.I'm a veteran, yet you imply that I'm an art novice.How cheeky. I know quite a few 'fine artists.None would have the gall to describe themselves as fine artists. How does that relate to anything?So because you don't know of any professional fine artists, therefore there aren't any professional artists on the world? That's not what he's saying. He's saying that the "Fine artists" he knows don't describe themselves as such, they let their work speak for itself, which you consistently refuse to do. Hell, I *could* say I'm the greatest mixer and sound recording engineer in the world, but you'd be asking for proof of that before you believed me. No, I wouldn't be asking for proof because that wouldn't be important to me. I wouldn't care enough to keep on asking for proof, because I'm only seeking good advice to help me to improve my music. If your advice sounds logical, that would be sufficient; I wouldn't need you to verifty that you're the world's best sound engineer or mixer to help me. I have better things to do with my time. I have an excellent, intuitve sense of rhythm. I'm a terrific dancer, and dancers must have terrifc rhythm. And such modesty. I'm modest about the things that I should be modest about (such as my playing ability and current composing ability) and proud of those things I excel at.My girlfriend and I won a spot dancing contest at a discoteheque once, so obviously that indicates that I got "da ridim" (as the cool, black guys put it). All that proves is that you may have good motor skills and the ability to follow a rhythm. If that was all it took, then by your claims, all good dancers would be good composers. They provably aren't, as the skills required are totally different. No, the skills of dancers and composers are not totally different. A good dancer can keep time with his body to the rhythm of the songs, and similarly a good composer can press the keys on the keyboard with his fingers to keep time tothe rhythm of his songs, and can detect when the timing of his compositions is off. Both good dancers and good composers must possess a good timing ability. That skill overlaps. I didn't write or even hint that good dancers are good composers. Timing is only one of several aspects of composing. So again my words have been severely warped. And again my points are so obvious they shouldn't even need to be explained. And I just got paid about $1,200 today for four prints I sold to two sets of customers, so I'm proud of that and the fact that I'm an established fine artist.I've paid my dues after many years of struggle as an artist and writer, editor, photographer, grahic artist, graphic designer, Web site creator and business communicaitons company president and founder.Now the hard work is paying off more, so when people here call me names for not kow-towing to all of their advice (not all of which is good advice) then it pressures me to defend myself by explaining my to try to stop their unwarranted put-downs. Congratulations. The perceived value is obviously the reason you're unwilling to let us see them. You're afraid we'll pirate them. No. The files on my Web site are too small to be of much use when printed. And to repeat, my site is getting about 140,000 hits annually, so obviously I'm not afraid to show my Web site images, under normal circumstances. This is abnormal because it's a disrespectful slugfest that I don't want my fanst to read and I already explained that, too, and that's something else that shouldn't need explaining. Now explain to us why you don't think it's going to take the same amount of effort to master a new medium? I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented. I have no illusions about the difficulties involved and I've repeated that thought several time. I had a friend who was enthusiastic photographer.He had a foot-long, heavy lens, a variety of other lenses, a moter drive, all the bells and whistles, he could spout all kinds oftechnical know-how, but he couldn't take a great photo if his ****in' life depended on it. Sounds like you and your ideas about making music. I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented by a careless reader. I have no illusions about the difficulties involved and I've repeated that thought several time. Anyway, taking great photos is easy. All you need to do is be in roughly the right place at about the right time and push the button. Any mistakes can be fixed in post. ;-) We are all panting, waiting to see you terrific photos, fine art, and fantastic music. Then we can have a context of what sort of advice to offer,ignore you, or carry on this bizarre thread out of some sort of morbid curiosty. You don't need that context to be able to recommend a variety of good instrument sounds for a variety of genres and I've already made that point repreatedly, so again you're not paying attention to what I wrote. If you hadn't attacked me by calling me a high school kid wet behind the ears, and other insults such as having a "turd-filled" brain, I wouldn't have been prompted to explain my credentials. But clearly you're not smart enough to have thought of the very obvious point that when you attack people, they tend to defend themselves. So if it seems like a bizarre thread, try to learn not to make stupid, insulting, false assumptions about people to avoid them having to defend themselves and boast about their credentials as part of their defense. And you still haven't explained your credentials in a credible manner. Links to one or two of your "great" pictures would help your credibility no end. As would a link to the music you're so ashamed of, so that constructive comments can be made for your guidance with good data to back them up. Nobody here is going to negatively criticise you, but listening to your efforts will help us make better suggestions, so improving the efficiency of your attempts to get help. I never claimed that my music is excellent and I've written that repeatedly here. Please show me where I wrote that.You won't find it. I guarantee that. You wrote that you have reached the limits of Garageband, and there are some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software. I wrote that I thought that my song was good before, but because a few months have elapsed since I published it, I not longer think it's good enough. This shows I'm improving. there are some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software. That's other composers. I'm not them. Everyone has different composition needs and I already wrote that often here. Therefore, you are implying that you are better than the users who have made excellent music using the program, but are unwilling to show yourself in public. I implied no such thing, and again, that idea never even occurred to me. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented by a careless reader. There's way to much insistence in fields of creativity that a particular method or set of methods that 'must' be used to achieve creative greatness.That is one of the biggest crock of crap from conventional thinkers.There is a myriad of ways to achieve works of creativty, and there's no one way that must be foundational to achieve creative success. Maybe you're right, and maybe you're wrong. There are many ways to do any job, but until you understand the limitations of the normal method, then you have no way to know that your way is better. You claim to have set up a successful business. Do you expect your employees to follow your methods, or do you give them free rein? I'll guess with a fair degree of confidence it's the former. Yes, you're right about that. I fear that if I had employees, I'd be frustrated with them because they would be unlikely to meet my exacting standards of perfectionism and professionalism. And I don't like giving in to the pressures of people who bully me. Says someone who claims to admire a well known bully. This is the third time now that I'm writing that I don't admire Steve Jobs for having been a bully. I alluded to him because -- like me -- he was a maverick and school drop-out who disregarded the status quo of conventional thinking -- not because he was a bully. His bullying is obviously beside the point, and again that's so obvious I shouldn't even need to explain it. Also, giving a link to my only published song would be misleading because it's only one genre and I'm interested in a variety of instrument sounds. This, too, should be obvious to an intelligent person, but i have to keep on pointing out axioms to you. You keep saying this, but you are totally unwilling to invest the time to find out which of the many solutions that have been suggested in this thread are the best for you. In spite of your claims to be a leader, you seem to want your hand holding every step of the way to success. I haven't had much time to check the suggested solutions yet, because I have to wade through all of the responses first and respond to them multiple times in great detail, because many of the readers can't apparently understand simple ideas. (And that is also an obvious point that I shouldn't need to explain; look at the number of responses I've had in thsi thread that are critical of me.) And even with my repeated explanation in a variey of ways I must keep on making the same, basic points to try to clear up the bizarre, sweeping misinterpreations and false conclusions you've made about me and what I'm doing. And that makes me wonder if I'm communcating with some twelve-year-old school boys, because that's the mentality some of you have exhibited. I hope that some of you critics don't enter any debating contests or get your intelligence formally tested, because the results could be demoralzing for you. I'm reminded of the saying that goes, "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of the population is even more stupid!" Ha, ha! Ho, ho! Tom |
#249
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 2:04 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the master evangelist of the digital age". He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs -- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using. His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history. Bozo. Tom God, you've even memorised the speil. geoff |
#250
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 4:35 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took me to master art, nor did I imply that. ..... but reading a simple manual or learning the basic use of an easy intuitive application is apparently too much effort. geoff |
#251
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 4:35 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
I'm reminded of the saying that goes, "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of the population is even more stupid!" Ha, ha! Ho, ho! Tom "And They're coming to take me away Ha Ha They're coming to take me away ho ho he he ha ha to the funny farm where life is beautiful all the time, and I'll be happy to see those nice young men in their clean white coats and they're coming to take me away ha ha" (Jerry Samuals, 1966) geoff |
#252
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
Also, giving a link to my only published song would be misleading because it's only one genre and I'm interested in a variety of instrument sounds. Chicken**** troll, and nothing more. No work to show All horn to blow Let him crow Elsewhere -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#253
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
John Williamson wrote:
All that proves is that he makes up bull**** stories about nonexistent "accomplishments". -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#254
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
geoff wrote:
On 22/12/2014 4:35 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took me to master art, nor did I imply that. .... but reading a simple manual or learning the basic use of an easy intuitive application is apparently too much effort. He masters art Just one small part A bold starting Defecation -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#255
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
"Tom Evans" skrev i en meddelelse
news:2014122117045625147-tomevans9890@yahooca... Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the master evangelist of the digital age". I saw brick paint be applied to objects on the first Mac that arrived in Denmark the day after it was brought home by a video producer. He also told the ITVA members on that evening about a much more interesting new computer that was on its way to release. What Microsoft copied as fast as contracts allowed them was that one, the Amiga. Bozo. Yes. Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#256
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 01:04, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the master evangelist of the digital age". No, you're thinking of Bill Gates. :-) Who is also considered by some to be a bullying intellectual property thief who had a few good ideas. He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs -- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using. The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it. His Imacs becamse the fastest-selling pcs in history. This is only because the Intel based PCs are made to an open design by thousands of makers, while Imacs are only made by Apple. Incidentally, Imacs were and are not "PC"s. PC was a trademark owned by IBM, designating the combination of DOS based software running on Intel hardware. They *were* personal computers, though. Imacs are also currently being outsold by Apple laptops, so aren't even the fastest selling Apple devices at the moment. Incidentally, Apple's share of the market is now about 30%, so more than twice as many PCs are being sold as Apple computers of all sorts. Although, to be fair, both desktop environments are falling in popularity compared with Android tablets, which are outselling the iPad by a healthy margin. Bozo. Yes, you are. You seem to known as much about computers as you do about music. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#257
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Sunday, 21 December 2014 21:27:12 UTC+1, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 23:14:10 -0800, Luxey said: On 2014-12-18 02:24:30 -0800, Phil W said: Tom Evans: ... 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. Soundfont player requires Boot Camp, which I don't want to have to download and learn. That ONE soundfont player, that you found... The truth is, there are more of them out there! Yes, even for your MAC! ... and they even capable of running without bootcamp. YOU have to choose a different one and it will work just fine. Just one example, that I know of: http://www.camelaudio.com/AlchemyPlayer.php a free synth plug-in, which has its own sounds, as well as soundfonts (sfz). On the other hand, it might be too much of an actual instrument for you. Seems like a roundabout course. Yes, definitely. Ignorant jibber from your side instead of some insight. Thanks, Phil. Efficiency is always desirable and logical -- not gibberish. You claim that downloading, learning and using Boot Camp is not a disadvantage. Why use Boot Camp if I can get the Alchemy sounds without it? Time and effort are valuable and therefore shouldn't be wasterd. You not understanding that is gibberish. It seems that to the men in this newsgroup, doing things that require unnecessary, extra work is considered a virtue, whereas doing things efficiently to save time and effort is considered is considered being lazy. That sounds to me like a form of insanity. And by the way, the word you were trying to remember is "gibberish" , not "jibber." Tom Evans ****, I hoped it will not happen, but you just proved, beyond doubt, beingeither a troll or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak. I'm out of thisdisscussion. Trying to save time and be efficient it trolling? Only on a newsgroup. Everyone I meet in the real world who's sane agrees that doing things efficiently to save time and effort is desirable. I guess you would never take any courses or read books on time management, productivity or efficiency, Luxey. You only resorted to calling me names instead of responding directly to my logical question of why I should download, install and learn Boot Camp, which is not just another unncessary program but also another operating system, given the fact that I can get the same sounds without doing that. Why not answer my good question directly and logically instead of calling me names? The answer is that you don't have a good answer. Only an idiot would learn a new operating system in order to get the same sounds he could get with his existing operating system. It is some of you who are trying to force your ways on me and calling names (now including "troll') for not submitting to your ways and claiming that you are always right and not seeing that there are different ways to solve problems, expecailly when it comes to creative problems. I have a right to choose the advice that suits me. Trying to be efficient doesn't make me a troll, and only an idiot would think it does. You're stupid, hypocritical, disrespectful and narrow-minded not to understand these axioms, as is typical of many controlling Internet advisors I've encountered. If you can't be respectful to people who don't submit to your narrow way of thinking, then you should refrain from advising people. Tom Tom, I know I said I was out of discussion, but that was in regard to attempting to help you on the subject. Seams, however, you need different kind of help. So, after all the insults I received from you, for no reason whatsoever, except your unwillingness, or inability to follow the conversation, on the topic, in its continuity within constraints of time (and space), I have to give you a friendly advice, a free one, though: Please, take your medication regularly, as prescribed and try to act as if you were normal, as in not mentally ill. People live with AIDS now days, so mild psychosis should not be to much of a problem. |
#258
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 22/12/2014 03:35, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-21 13:59:15 -0800, John Williamson said: On 21/12/2014 21:20, Tom Evans wrote: I'm modest about the things that I should be modest about (such as my playing ability and current composing ability) and proud of those things I excel at.My girlfriend and I won a spot dancing contest at a discoteheque once, so obviously that indicates that I got "da ridim" (as the cool, black guys put it). All that proves is that you may have good motor skills and the ability to follow a rhythm. If that was all it took, then by your claims, all good dancers would be good composers. They provably aren't, as the skills required are totally different. No, the skills of dancers and composers are not totally different. A good dancer can keep time with his body to the rhythm of the songs, and similarly a good composer can press the keys on the keyboard with his fingers to keep time tothe rhythm of his songs, and can detect when the timing of his compositions is off. Both good dancers and good composers must possess a good timing ability. That skill overlaps. A good *composer* has a grasp of what rhythms will sound good and can happily compose using even very basic sounds such as the general MIDI soundset, or just by drawing dots on a page to be played later. A *composer* has no need to be an excellent player, and doesn't need to be able to play in time, though it does help. A *player* needs a good sense of rhythm. A player will also have the skills needed to make any composition he plays sound as good as possible. You don't seem to understand the difference. I know quite a few people who combine both these skills, and I am very jealous of their skills, and of a few famous composers who have made a very good living while being mediocre players. If you're using a digital only workflow, you don't even need to use a musical keyboard to get good results, it can all be done by editing a piano roll type display with a mouse or touchscreen. I didn't write or even hint that good dancers are good composers. Timing is only one of several aspects of composing. So again my words have been severely warped. And again my points are so obvious they shouldn't even need to be explained. You wrote that you are a good dancer, and claimed that because that shows you have a good sense of rhythm you could be a good composer. And I just got paid about $1,200 today for four prints I sold to two sets of customers, so I'm proud of that and the fact that I'm an established fine artist.I've paid my dues after many years of struggle as an artist and writer, editor, photographer, grahic artist, graphic designer, Web site creator and business communicaitons company president and founder.Now the hard work is paying off more, so when people here call me names for not kow-towing to all of their advice (not all of which is good advice) then it pressures me to defend myself by explaining my to try to stop their unwarranted put-downs. Congratulations. The perceived value is obviously the reason you're unwilling to let us see them. You're afraid we'll pirate them. No. The files on my Web site are too small to be of much use when printed. And to repeat, my site is getting about 140,000 hits annually, so obviously I'm not afraid to show my Web site images, under normal circumstances. This is abnormal because it's a disrespectful slugfest that I don't want my fanst to read and I already explained that, too, and that's something else that shouldn't need explaining. Shrug I note your lack of confidence in your abilities. Now explain to us why you don't think it's going to take the same amount of effort to master a new medium? I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented. I have no illusions about the difficulties involved and I've repeated that thought several time. You said that the only thing holding you back was the tool available to you. You are not even willing to spend a few minutes reading a 26 page manual for a program you were recommended to use. This implies that you think that you can master the art of composition in a few minutes, rather than the years you say it took you to master the visual arts. I had a friend who was enthusiastic photographer.He had a foot-long, heavy lens, a variety of other lenses, a moter drive, all the bells and whistles, he could spout all kinds oftechnical know-how, but he couldn't take a great photo if his ****in' life depended on it. Sounds like you and your ideas about making music. I didn't say it wouldn't take as much effort to master music as it took me to master art, nor did I imply that. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented by a careless reader. I have no illusions about the difficulties involved and I've repeated that thought several time. You posted here asking for the best way to make music, with the implication that the only thing holding you back is the tool you have chosen to use. That sounds to me exactly like your friend with the camera bag full of kit who you say couldn't take a decent picture to save his life. I'll bet he's always chasing the next greatest tool, too. Anyway, taking great photos is easy. All you need to do is be in roughly the right place at about the right time and push the button. Any mistakes can be fixed in post. ;-) We are all panting, waiting to see you terrific photos, fine art, and fantastic music. Then we can have a context of what sort of advice to offer,ignore you, or carry on this bizarre thread out of some sort of morbid curiosty. You don't need that context to be able to recommend a variety of good instrument sounds for a variety of genres and I've already made that point repreatedly, so again you're not paying attention to what I wrote. And we've repeatedly pointed you at collections of good instrument sounds for various genres, all of which you've rejected as being too hard to learn to use. If you hadn't attacked me by calling me a high school kid wet behind the ears, and other insults such as having a "turd-filled" brain, I wouldn't have been prompted to explain my credentials. But clearly you're not smart enough to have thought of the very obvious point that when you attack people, they tend to defend themselves. So if it seems like a bizarre thread, try to learn not to make stupid, insulting, false assumptions about people to avoid them having to defend themselves and boast about their credentials as part of their defense. And you still haven't explained your credentials in a credible manner. Links to one or two of your "great" pictures would help your credibility no end. As would a link to the music you're so ashamed of, so that constructive comments can be made for your guidance with good data to back them up. Nobody here is going to negatively criticise you, but listening to your efforts will help us make better suggestions, so improving the efficiency of your attempts to get help. I never claimed that my music is excellent and I've written that repeatedly here. Please show me where I wrote that.You won't find it. I guarantee that. You wrote that you have reached the limits of Garageband, and there are some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software. I wrote that I thought that my song was good before, but because a few months have elapsed since I published it, I not longer think it's good enough. This shows I'm improving. No, it only shows that that song was and always will be "not good enough". What has changed is your involvement in that particular song. Now it's not the latest thing you have done, you are no longer looking at it through the rose tinted spectacles of novelty. You also misread what I wrote, I wrote that linking to one or two of what you consider to be great pictures would help your credibility, I did *not* write that you or anyone else considered your song to be great. I wrote that if we could hear your song, we might be more able to suggest the best software to help improve any future songs. there are some damn good tracks being made with that piece of software. That's other composers. I'm not them. Everyone has different composition needs and I already wrote that often here. Eventually, they all grow out of Garageband and move onto better things. You have said that you have grown out of Garageband. You are implying that you are a better composer than those who still use it. The best all round tool for composing and recording is normally reckoned to be Pro Tools, but that would probably be *far* too much effort for you to learn how to use, as well as being too expensive. One reason it's so good for the job is that it allows easy collaboration with others. Therefore, you are implying that you are better than the users who have made excellent music using the program, but are unwilling to show yourself in public. I implied no such thing, and again, that idea never even occurred to me. So again my writing has been seriously misrepresented by a careless reader. No, your comprehension of what you write is coloured by your perception of what you wanted to write. I haven't had much time to check the suggested solutions yet, because I have to wade through all of the responses first and respond to them multiple times in great detail, because many of the readers can't apparently understand simple ideas. (And that is also an obvious point that I shouldn't need to explain; look at the number of responses I've had in thsi thread that are critical of me.) If you were serious about improving your music, you'd have been on your computer learning how to do it, rather than wasting your time here defending yourself. Then, you could come back and say "I've tried such and such, and so and so, but they don't do this and that, can anyone suggest how to do these things". Or you could come back and say "This is what I did woth what you told me. Good, isn't it?" And even with my repeated explanation in a variey of ways I must keep on making the same, basic points to try to clear up the bizarre, sweeping misinterpreations and false conclusions you've made about me and what I'm doing. And that makes me wonder if I'm communcating with some twelve-year-old school boys, because that's the mentality some of you have exhibited. Strangely enough, that's what we're all wondering, too. You come across as a petulant teenager who asks for help and when you don't get exactly the answers you'd already decided that you wanted, is throwing a tanrum. I hope that some of you critics don't enter any debating contests or get your intelligence formally tested, because the results could be demoralzing for you. I have been formally tested, and the results not demoralising. I can also spell. :-) I'm reminded of the saying that goes, "Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of the population is even more stupid!" Ha, ha! Ho, ho! From your posting here, you seem to be in the lowest quartile. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
#259
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
geoff writes:
On 22/12/2014 2:04 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the master evangelist of the digital age". He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs -- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using. God, you've even memorised the speil. Sounds like. Jobs was really more of a P. T. Barnum. When you dig down, perhaps much less technical genius and way more marketing cleverness. Just like Gates, he's given far too much personal credit for many different things. Remember, Xerox PARC actually (mostly) invented the What-You-See-Is-All-You-Get interface with their "Star" system in the mid-70s, maybe even a tad bit earlier. The mouse pointing device came out in the early 1960s, but it was a lab curiousity as no commercially-released hw or sw could use it until many years later. The peanut-sized brain in the 100 ton Xerox corporate behemoth didn't really know what to do with what they had. Oh sure, they tried a little bit, but a $70,000 workstation (in late 1970s dollars) was not going to have much penetration in the consumer marketplace. (Those workstations were pretty cool for the day -- an acquaintance of mine had one. And IIRC, you didn't actually buy the thing, you leased it -- the old IBM model. And here we go again now, with Adobe leading the charge with leased software. But I digress.) So Jobs saw the obvious application (obvious to just about anyone outside of that lummox corporate mentality), stole the idea, and ran with it. And so with both Jobs and Gates, lots of clever underlings (among others) did the real innovative work while those two did the figurative struts on stage with their cardboard megaphones, wide brim straw hats, zoot suites, and bamboo canes. And Job's zoot was far flashier than anything Gates ever wore. The first Apples were really not-very-good toys compared to what else was out there in the S-100 world (Northstar and Polymorphic being two examples of companies that made business-useful and affordable "personal" computers), and Apple probably would have disappeared just like most of those companies had Jobs not made that trip to PARC. Depending on the day, perhaps most of us could either curse or thank Jobs and Gates. I'm much more inclined to consistently thank the real technology heroes such as the research folks at the old Bell Labs and PARC, with the appropriate nods to Cal-Tech and MIT, among others. Frank Mobile Audio -- |
#260
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-13 18:49:54 -0800, geoff said: 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 And are any of you full-time, professional recorders and producers? Tom I suppose I am still. But I seldom use a DAW and I have never used MIDI. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#261
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
John Williamson wrote:
On 22/12/2014 01:04, Tom Evans wrote: He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs -- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using. The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it. No, Apple actually paid licensing fees to Xerox for it, which is something that Microsoft never did. And it was uniquely Jobs' idea to provide a computer that was solely an appliance and had only a GUI with no command line interface at all. (In the end this turned out to be a bad thing and Apple gave up on it, but it was a valiant try. Ironically now Apple has a great command line and Microsoft is only now starting to gain any traction with powershell.) Incidentally, Apple's share of the market is now about 30%, so more than twice as many PCs are being sold as Apple computers of all sorts. Although, to be fair, both desktop environments are falling in popularity compared with Android tablets, which are outselling the iPad by a healthy margin. What is so sad is that we have come down to a world where there really are only two contenders for desktop operating systems. Linux makes a distant third, and Linux becomes more and more like Windows and less like Unix every day. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#262
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Frank Stearns wrote:
geoff writes: On 22/12/2014 2:04 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the master evangelist of the digital age". He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs -- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using. God, you've even memorised the speil. Sounds like. Jobs was really more of a P. T. Barnum. When you dig down, perhaps much less technical genius and way more marketing cleverness. Just like Gates, he's given far too much personal credit for many different things. Jobs apparently targeted the right applications domains, those necessary to win the PR "war". Remember, Xerox PARC actually (mostly) invented the What-You-See-Is-All-You-Get interface with their "Star" system in the mid-70s, maybe even a tad bit earlier. The mouse pointing device came out in the early 1960s, but it was a lab curiousity as no commercially-released hw or sw could use it until many years later. The peanut-sized brain in the 100 ton Xerox corporate behemoth didn't really know what to do with what they had. Sure they did. They left it to sit. Oh sure, they tried a little bit, but a $70,000 workstation (in late 1970s dollars) was not going to have much penetration in the consumer marketplace. (Those workstations were pretty cool for the day -- an acquaintance of mine had one. And IIRC, you didn't actually buy the thing, you leased it -- the old IBM model. And here we go again now, with Adobe leading the charge with leased software. But I digress.) So Jobs saw the obvious application (obvious to just about anyone outside of that lummox corporate mentality), stole the idea, and ran with it. And so with both Jobs and Gates, lots of clever underlings (among others) did the real innovative work while those two did the figurative struts on stage with their cardboard megaphones, wide brim straw hats, zoot suites, and bamboo canes. And Job's zoot was far flashier than anything Gates ever wore. Jobs also failed a couple of times. The Lisa and ( I'd say ) Next. You're aware that that the vast majority of applications for Mac were Microsoft products? IOW, there was sort of a false-alternative identity marketing thing in play. The first Apples were really not-very-good toys compared to what else was out there in the S-100 world (Northstar and Polymorphic being two examples of companies that made business-useful and affordable "personal" computers), and Apple probably would have disappeared just like most of those companies had Jobs not made that trip to PARC. Depending on the day, perhaps most of us could either curse or thank Jobs and Gates. I'm much more inclined to consistently thank the real technology heroes such as the research folks at the old Bell Labs and PARC, with the appropriate nods to Cal-Tech and MIT, among others. Heh. We would not know what a computer was but for Bletchley Park. Frank Mobile Audio -- Les Cargill |
#263
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:
Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. He was listed five times by Time Magazine as one of the world's 100 most influential people, and was a finalist for a sixth year. His rank of influence was rated higher than George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_100 Shows how daft your opinions are. Tom |
#264
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. He was listed five times by Time Magazine as one of the world's 100 most influential people, and was a finalist for a sixth year. His rank of influence was rated higher than George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. I might add that a couple of those people were also ******s and bullies. And it has taken a great new Pope for people to realize what bullies some of the previous Popes have been, too. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#265
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
John Williamson wrote:
The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it. That is a common misstatement of fact. Job _licensed_ that technology. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#266
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 24/12/2014 4:07 a.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said: Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders. Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I doubt it. He was listed five times by Time Magazine as one of the world's 100 most influential people, and was a finalist for a sixth year. His rank of influence was rated higher than George Bush, Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela, Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg. I might add that a couple of those people were also ******s and bullies. And it has taken a great new Pope for people to realize what bullies some of the previous Popes have been, too. --scott Surprised he's still alive really. Look what happened to the last 'progressive' pope. geoff |
#267
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 24/12/2014 5:32 a.m., hank alrich wrote:
John Williamson wrote: The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it. That is a common misstatement of fact. Job _licensed_ that technology. No, it came to him in a vision , surely ;-) geoff (OK, I won't call you Shirley !) |
#268
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-23 08:32:40 -0800, hank alrich said:
John Williamson wrote: The concept and basic implementation for which Jobs stole from Xerox PARC, along with a fair few of the staff who invented it. That is a common misstatement of fact. Job _licensed_ that technology. That's right. He paid Xerox $100,000 for the WYSIWYG system. Xerox agreed to the deal because it failed to see the huge potential in it that Jobs saw. That is an example of how Jobs was a visionary. However, it wasn't Job who did it; Job was another visionary -- from biblical times. :-) But you did a fairly good job of setting the record straight. Tom |
#269
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-17 21:04:28 -0800, Peter Larsen said:
"Tom Evans" skrev i en meddelelse news:2014121719320162652-tomevans9890@yahooca... I'm operating under a psuedonym, to protect my professional identity. You're in a newsgroup with a lot of real people around. Irrelevant. Also, you don't need to delve into my work and personal life to answer the question in the header. That is actually a good point. Since you have published your music it could have been a better approach to start with posting "here is my current music, can you suggest tools that are useful for what I do?". [from another post of yours] Bad idea. An actor applying for different types of roles doesn't submit only one sample movie, to avoid being typecast. There are no zithers, organs or steel guitars in my song, but I might want sounds such as those for future songs. 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. Blowing up balloons? No; trying to make toe-tappers. Tom Kind regards Peter Larsen Tom Evans |
#270
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-22 02:12:42 -0800, Luxey said:
On Sunday, 21 December 2014 21:27:12 UTC+1, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-18 23:14:10 -0800, Luxey said: On 2014-12-18 02:24:30 -0800, Phil W said: Tom Evans: ... 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. Soundfont player requires Boot Camp, which I don't want to have to download and learn. That ONE soundfont player, that you found... The truth is, there are more of them out there! Yes, even for your MAC! ... and they even capable of running without bootcamp. YOU have to choose a different one and it will work just fine. Just one example, that I know of: http://www.camelaudio.com/AlchemyPlayer.php a free synth plug-in, which has its own sounds, as well as soundfonts (sfz). On the other hand, it might be too much of an actual instrument for you. Seems like a roundabout course. Yes, definitely. Ignorant jibber from your side instead of some insight. Thanks, Phil. Efficiency is always desirable and logical -- not gibberish. You claim that downloading, learning and using Boot Camp is not a disadvantage. Why use Boot Camp if I can get the Alchemy sounds without it? Time and effort are valuable and therefore shouldn't be wasterd. You not understanding that is gibberish. It seems that to the men in this newsgroup, doing things that require unnecessary, extra work is considered a virtue, whereas doing things efficiently to save time and effort is considered is considered being lazy. That sounds to me like a form of insanity. And by the way, the word you were trying to remember is "gibberish" , not "jibber." Tom Evans ****, I hoped it will not happen, but you just proved, beyond doubt, beingeither a troll or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak. I'm out of thisdisscussion. Trying to save time and be efficient it trolling? Only on a newsgroup. Everyone I meet in the real world who's sane agrees that doing things efficiently to save time and effort is desirable. I guess you would never take any courses or read books on time management, productivity or efficiency, Luxey. You only resorted to calling me names instead of responding directly to my logical question of why I should download, install and learn Boot Camp, which is not just another unncessary program but also another operating system, given the fact that I can get the same sounds without doing that. Why not answer my good question directly and logically instead of calling me names? The answer is that you don't have a good answer. Only an idiot would learn a new operating system in order to get the same sounds he could get with his existing operating system. It is some of you who are trying to force your ways on me and calling names (now including "troll') for not submitting to your ways and claiming that you are always right and not seeing that there are different ways to solve problems, expecailly when it comes to creative problems. I have a right to choose the advice that suits me. Trying to be efficient doesn't make me a troll, and only an idiot would think it does. You're stupid, hypocritical, disrespectful and narrow-minded not to understand these axioms, as is typical of many controlling Internet advisors I've encountered. If you can't be respectful to people who don't submit to your narrow way of thinking, then you should refrain from advising people. Tom Tom, I know I said I was out of discussion, but that was in regard to attempting to help you on the subject. Seams, however, you need different kind of help. So, after all the insults I received from you, for no reason whatsoever, No reason? You called me ignorant, spouting gibberish and a troll. Just read this message fully to remind yourself of what you wrote. except your unwillingness, or inability to follow the conversation, Such as? on the topic, in its continuity within constraints of time (and space), I have to give you a friendly advice, a free one, though: Please, take your medication regularly, as prescribed and try to act as if you were normal, as in not mentally ill. People live with AIDS now days, so mild psychosis should not be to much of a problem. And those are more insults and condescending sarcasm, which again makes you a hyprocrite; you insulted first. This is normal behavior I've noticed in the Wild West of newsgroups; dirsrespectful people people insult me, and then when I insult them back, they accuse me of insulting them and they dismiss me -- forgaetting that they insulted first. Look at your mirror. Tom |
#271
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said:
On 2014-12-22 02:12:42 -0800, Luxey said: On Sunday, 21 December 2014 21:27:12 UTC+1, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-18 23:14:10 -0800, Luxey said: On 2014-12-18 02:24:30 -0800, Phil W said: Tom Evans: ... 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. Soundfont player requires Boot Camp, which I don't want to have to download and learn. That ONE soundfont player, that you found... The truth is, there are more of them out there! Yes, even for your MAC! ... and they even capable of running without bootcamp. YOU have to choose a different one and it will work just fine. Just one example, that I know of: http://www.camelaudio.com/AlchemyPlayer.php a free synth plug-in, which has its own sounds, as well as soundfonts (sfz). On the other hand, it might be too much of an actual instrument for you. Seems like a roundabout course. Yes, definitely. Ignorant jibber from your side instead of some insight. Thanks, Phil. Efficiency is always desirable and logical -- not gibberish. You claim that downloading, learning and using Boot Camp is not a disadvantage. Why use Boot Camp if I can get the Alchemy sounds without it? Time and effort are valuable and therefore shouldn't be wasterd. You not understanding that is gibberish. It seems that to the men in this newsgroup, doing things that require unnecessary, extra work is considered a virtue, whereas doing things efficiently to save time and effort is considered is considered being lazy. That sounds to me like a form of insanity. And by the way, the word you were trying to remember is "gibberish" , not "jibber." Tom Evans ****, I hoped it will not happen, but you just proved, beyond doubt, beingeither a troll or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak. I'm out of thisdisscussion. Trying to save time and be efficient it trolling? Only on a newsgroup. Everyone I meet in the real world who's sane agrees that doing things efficiently to save time and effort is desirable. I guess you would never take any courses or read books on time management, productivity or efficiency, Luxey. You only resorted to calling me names instead of responding directly to my logical question of why I should download, install and learn Boot Camp, which is not just another unncessary program but also another operating system, given the fact that I can get the same sounds without doing that. Why not answer my good question directly and logically instead of calling me names? The answer is that you don't have a good answer. Only an idiot would learn a new operating system in order to get the same sounds he could get with his existing operating system. It is some of you who are trying to force your ways on me and calling names (now including "troll') for not submitting to your ways and claiming that you are always right and not seeing that there are different ways to solve problems, expecailly when it comes to creative problems. I have a right to choose the advice that suits me. Trying to be efficient doesn't make me a troll, and only an idiot would think it does. You're stupid, hypocritical, disrespectful and narrow-minded not to understand these axioms, as is typical of many controlling Internet advisors I've encountered. If you can't be respectful to people who don't submit to your narrow way of thinking, then you should refrain from advising people. Tom Tom, I know I said I was out of discussion, but that was in regard to attempting to help you on the subject. Seams, however, you need different kind of help. So, after all the insults I received from you, for no reason whatsoever, No reason? You called me ignorant, spouting gibberish and a troll. Just read this message fully to remind yourself of what you wrote. except your unwillingness, or inability to follow the conversation, Such as? on the topic, in its continuity within constraints of time (and space), I have to give you a friendly advice, a free one, though: Please, take your medication regularly, as prescribed and try to act as if you were normal, as in not mentally ill. People live with AIDS now days, so mild psychosis should not be to much of a problem. And those are more insults and condescending sarcasm, which again makes you a hyprocrite; you insulted first. This is normal behavior I've noticed in the Wild West of newsgroups; dirsrespectful people people insult me, and then when I insult them back, they accuse me of insulting them and they dismiss me -- forgaetting that they insulted first. Look at your mirror. Tom And you're also stupid -- as well as extremely rude -- for not understanding that you insulted and were disrespectful FIRST. You (as so many others have done) are blaming the victim, but you're too dimwitted to comprehend that simple truth. Friendly advice? Friendly advice -- combined with insults! Mild psychosis? Your brain must be no bigger than a plum! And by the way, you (and everyone else) still didn't answer my logical question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise decision. The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey. As I wrote before, if you can't be respectful, you should refrain from acting as an advisor. Tom |
#272
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
петак, 26. децембар 2014. 06.51.15 UTC+1, Tom Evans је написао/ла:
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said: And you're also stupid -- That is a possibility. Your haircut is bad. as well as extremely rude -- No, not extremely. You are extremely lewd. for not understanding that you insulted and were disrespectful FIRST. Not true. I simply concluded, from your own posts, your own words, you're either a troll, or delusional "I'm always right" kind of freak. You (as so many others have done) are blaming the victim, but you're too dimwitted to comprehend that simple truth. Obviously, we differ in our opinion on this. Friendly advice? Friendly advice -- combined with insults! So, you do have some reading comprehension abilities, afterall. Mild psychosis? Your brain must be no bigger than a plum! That is a possibility. And by the way, you (and everyone else) still didn't answer my logical question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise decision. That question is logical, however ... The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey. The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse is quite a sign. As I wrote before, if you can't be respectful, you should refrain from acting as an advisor. As I wrote before, you are either incapable, or unwilling to follow the discussion in it's continuity and it's entirety. That's why I said I was out of it, as someone offering help in regard to the topic. However, I offered a free advice about what I think would make you better, in regard to the way you presented yourself and the state (of mind) you are in. |
#273
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Luxey wrote:
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said: question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign=20 operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise=20 decision. =20 That question is logical, however ... The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic=20 advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group=20 reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey. The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse is quite a sign. Here's what seems to have happened. Someone gave the very reasonable advice that one should purchase soundfonts from a different source than one purchases their synthesizer software. (This is, I might add, excellent advice, and it's the reason why you see so many soundfonts for sale.) Mr. Evans, not knowing what a soundfont was, did a google search on it and found a piece of software called Soundfont. (This software is to soundfonts what The Sound Of Music is to music.) Immediately something made a connection in his brain that people were trying to make him use non-Mac software and he began waving around like a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll screaming about how this was terrible advice and that he wasn't going to use this software. And, I understand that sometimes misunderstandings like this occur, but I do find it sort of hilarious that Mr. Evans still hasn't figured out what was going on and what people really were seriously suggesting he do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#274
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
субота, 27. децембар 2014. 00.05.50 UTC+1, Scott Dorsey је написао/ла:
Luxey wrote: On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said: question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign=20 operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise=20 decision. =20 That question is logical, however ... The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic=20 advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group=20 reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey. The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse is quite a sign. Here's what seems to have happened. Someone gave the very reasonable advice that one should purchase soundfonts from a different source than one purchases their synthesizer software. (This is, I might add, excellent advice, and it's the reason why you see so many soundfonts for sale.) Mr. Evans, not knowing what a soundfont was, did a google search on it and found a piece of software called Soundfont. (This software is to soundfonts what The Sound Of Music is to music.) Immediately something made a connection in his brain that people were trying to make him use non-Mac software and he began waving around like a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll screaming about how this was terrible advice and that he wasn't going to use this software. And, I understand that sometimes misunderstandings like this occur, but I do find it sort of hilarious that Mr. Evans still hasn't figured out what was going on and what people really were seriously suggesting he do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Mr. Dorsey, you're a nice person so it's natural for you to do such a thing, but I really don't think Mr. Evans deserved it, being so confident about everything and anything. Nevertheless, thank you, hopefully it'll put an end on the play. |
#275
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/26/2014 7:08 PM, Luxey wrote:
субота, 27. децембар 2014. 00.05.50 UTC+1, Scott Dorsey је написао/ла: Luxey wrote: On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said: question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign=20 operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise=20 decision. =20 That question is logical, however ... The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic=20 advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group=20 reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey. The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse is quite a sign. Here's what seems to have happened. Someone gave the very reasonable advice that one should purchase soundfonts from a different source than one purchases their synthesizer software. (This is, I might add, excellent advice, and it's the reason why you see so many soundfonts for sale.) Mr. Evans, not knowing what a soundfont was, did a google search on it and found a piece of software called Soundfont. (This software is to soundfonts what The Sound Of Music is to music.) Immediately something made a connection in his brain that people were trying to make him use non-Mac software and he began waving around like a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll screaming about how this was terrible advice and that he wasn't going to use this software. And, I understand that sometimes misunderstandings like this occur, but I do find it sort of hilarious that Mr. Evans still hasn't figured out what was going on and what people really were seriously suggesting he do. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." Mr. Dorsey, you're a nice person so it's natural for you to do such a thing, but I really don't think Mr. Evans deserved it, being so confident about everything and anything. Nevertheless, thank you, hopefully it'll put an end on the play. Oh please don't put an end to this mess! I'm really enjoying the show. Heck, the whole thread has almost achieved British humor status. :-) [Um, also happy holidays and such to all! ] == Later... Ron Capik -- |
#276
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Ron C wrote:
Oh please don't put an end to this mess! I'm really enjoying the show. Heck, the whole thread has almost achieved British humor status. :-) If Tomb Evans wanted to know something about orchestration he could've asked his cousin Gil. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#277
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-10 23:01:18 -0800, Peter Larsen said:
"Tom Evans" skrev i en meddelelse news:2014121019562186494-tomevans9890@yahooca... On 2014-12-10 10:12:50 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said: That's absolute rubbish, Orlando. Skip expecting politeness as from a seller in a shop, this is usenet, the politeness is when people follow up and disagree. Posters who write follow-ups do however not only write to and for you, they write for all in a similar situation and that will occasionally lead to follow-ups that are broader than what they follow up to. I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work hard. Count me as having gotten that impression from your dislike of a 26 page manual, with new software concepts it helps understanding how the programmer thinks. Trying to zero in on what works for my strengths as a musician is not being lazy; it's being efficient and smart. To reiterate, "different strokes for different folks." Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. 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. It is like learning to ride on a bicycle or driving a car, sure you can. It's not like learning to ride a bicyle or driving a car, because the same procedures are used for riding a bicycle or driving a car, whereas with songs, every sequence of notes and chords that one must remember is different. And I don't know how to read music notes. 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 ablitiy to do so. Performing a piece of music is to dance. 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 is because the choreografer comes up with something physically challenging or silly - or because the images are to change. Find Singing in the Rain on youtube. THAT is a music star, I think cold water from a firehose and continuously rolling camera, one contiguous shot, be it take 3 or take 327, but perhaps I'm wrong. You miss the point. The choreographer and/or videographer can give the illusion that a singer can dance by using short clips to give the illusion that a singer can dance, just as the DAW can give the illusion that the composer can play his song in its entirety even though he may only be able to record it in short clips. I don't know how I could make my point any more clear. 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. You're talking around a stage fright. No, I wasn't referring to stage fright. That's a different issue and problem. Get over it. Try storytelling, it is an interactive art in which you work with your audience but in a slightly different way, except that for a barfly musician or someone playing at a barn dance it is probably the same - the local barn dance musician will know - you need to dare go up on stage and BE. It is when you dare be you the music starts flowing also in the living room sessions. 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 record brief music slips I fail to comprehend what you need a music library for, I think you could need a mechanically good stage piano and a multitrack recorder. If a writer writes his book a few sentences at a time, instead of several pages or chapters at a time, that doesn't necessarily reduce the quality of the book that is published. So, yes, you do fail to comprehend. Fostex MR8HD and MR16HD's are out there new or on the second hand market, both allow 5 simultanous tracks and quasi-endless overdubbing. The design seems to invert absolute polarity, something that is easy to fix in post and possibly irrelevant for musicians use, they probably saved a few opamps in it. At another pricepoint it could be worth complaining about that snag, at their cost you just have to know it. Record on them and move it to your daw and mix there. Or get a HD24. If I were that tasteless and ignorant, I wouldn't be on a quest to seek better sounds than my current software provides. You are certainly asking some very good questions and raising some important issues, it will be interesting to see how that Studio 1 Prof I found in a local shop at a very good price is. Music is storytelling without words, work not only with your strong sides, also with what you might not be so good at and in the end improve your instrument. It is you, you yourself. Tom Kind regards Peter Larsen Tom |
#278
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-09 15:19:55 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:
In article , writes: Now here we have someone wanting into a complex activity of which they appear to know very little and they find twenty-six pages daunting. That strikes me as unreasonable. I could understand a plea for help after a few frustrating months reading manuals and not being very productive. but it doesn't seem as though Tom has even tried. Am I expected to think this person takes musical composition and orchestration seriously? Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.? This is what I meant when I wrote that he looked lazy to me. He wants to eat almost free pie without having to learn how to bake, because he'd have to read a recipe. Worse still, those of us who put in decades of hard work are not always rewarded for it. People come up singing intuitively, writing without training or even playing instruments. If they happen to touch a hot nerve, their work goes viral. The viral video model tends to be reactive rather than meritorious. Videos don't go viral because they exhibit awesome talent; they touch on whatever momentary tendencies are afloat online. We need a better system. Orlando Baloney. Sounds like sour grapes. For example, Ronald Jenkees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8LfoyDFUM Over 7.1 millions hits and his talent is awesome. You don't need hard work alone; you must also have talent. If you were as talented as Ronald Jenkees, I'm sure you would be rewarded for it. All you would need would be one video of one fantastic song, as Ronald Jenkees has amply proved. People come up singing intuitively, writing without training or even playing instruments. You've just admitted my longstanding point: that doing things conventionally is not always the best route to success, yet you -- and others here -- keep on hammering away that I must work conventionally for many years before having a hope of success. So your advice is contradictory. Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.? There are countless successful musicians who didn't undertake the study of orchestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etcetera -- whoever the hell those guys are. Tom |
#279
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-11 10:47:09 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:
In article 2014121019562186494-tomevans9890@yahooca, writes: I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work hard. 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. 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. That's beside the point, which you obvioulsy don't get. A singer doesn't necessarily have to be a dancer to succeed, and a composter doesn't necessarily have to be a live performer to succeed. 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. How many digital music composers have gotten famous without ever playing any instrument well? That's irrelevant because DAWs make live performing unnecessary for those who want to be composers. 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. 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. So what you mean is that composers can't be successful musicians. Ever heard of, let's say, Burt Bacharach? That was another senseless comment. 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. Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.? There are countless successful musicians who didn't undertake the study of orchestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etcetera -- whoever the hell those guys are. You complained in another message in this thread that you're "lounging in obscurity" despite much conventional musical training. You took the conventional, studious approach to music-making, yet you're still "lounging in obscurity" after many years of struggle. I don't want to lounge in obscurity. I want to lounge in the V.I.P. lounge with my groupies. Taking advice from you about how to become a successful musician is like taking advice from a beggar about how to get rich. The beggars all have advice on how to make it and they're all adamant that their theories are correct, despite being failures. Tom |
#280
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 28/12/2014 17:24, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-09 15:19:55 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said: The viral video model tends to be reactive rather than meritorious. Videos don't go viral because they exhibit awesome talent; they touch on whatever momentary tendencies are afloat online. True. We need a better system. Orlando For example, Ronald Jenkees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lg8LfoyDFUM Over 7.1 millions hits and his talent is awesome. You don't need hard work alone; you must also have talent. If you were as talented as Ronald Jenkees, I'm sure you would be rewarded for it. All you would need would be one video of one fantastic song, as Ronald Jenkees has amply proved. Contrary to your theory about how you need to progress as expressed many times in this thread, he has become successful by using not only the cheesy sounds that are the default on his keyboards, he also uses the cheesy built in rhythms. If he doesn't need great sounds to be a success, why do you? It would seem that he can play live reasonably well, if you're not too critical, which is a skill you clam not to need. Incidentally, 7 million hits on Youbend does not indicate great talent or even commercial success. His latest album has been listened to about 100,000 times, but Soundcloud don't say how many people listened to the complete tracks, just the number who clicked play. People come up singing intuitively, writing without training or even playing instruments. You've just admitted my longstanding point: that doing things conventionally is not always the best route to success, yet you -- and others here -- keep on hammering away that I must work conventionally for many years before having a hope of success. So your advice is contradictory. No, the advice you have repeatedly been given for free is that now you think that you have outgrown your chosen, simple tool, you need to make at least a minimal effort to learn new tools in order to proceed. Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.? There are countless successful musicians who didn't undertake the study of orchestration via Walter Piston, Rimsky-Korsakov, etcetera -- whoever the hell those guys are. Name one composer who became very successful *without* studying the theory and practice of music first. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|