Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#161
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#162
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
|
#163
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#164
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
|
#165
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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/ |
#166
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. |
#167
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#168
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#169
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#170
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#171
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#172
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#173
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#174
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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." |
#175
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. |
#176
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#177
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#178
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#179
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Ñубота, 06. децембар 2014. 22.35.09 UTC+1, flatfish+++ је напиÑао/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 |
#180
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. |
#181
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. |
#182
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#183
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#184
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#185
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#186
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#187
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#188
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#189
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#190
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#191
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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? |
#192
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. |
#193
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#194
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. |
#195
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#196
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
|
#197
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
In the words of the audience member at "The Royal Nonesuch": "Gentlemen, we have been sold."
Peace, Paul |
#198
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#199
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#200
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|