Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
In article , wrote: Around here, when we need what you're looking for, we find live musicians. I have decades of studio and performing experience in a panoply of genres as a pianist/keyboardist and Latin percussionist. Yet, I languish in obscurity, unable to figure out how to put myself wherever fellow musicians need to see me in order to call me for such work. Join the union, sign up for calls. Get a listing in the Nashville directory. Put up a web site and make yourself available for remote overdubs. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#122
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
In article , rednoise9 wrote: They're not equivalent tools. Garageband (as I understand it from my minimal exposure to it) is a simple all-in-one environment that lets multi-track-record live sound alongside samples. Audacity is a stereo audio editor, good for surgical editing down to the sample level, if needed. It's not intended or well-suited for multi-track recording, although it can do a bit of it within its limitations. Both kinds of tools are good to have. I do all my editing and mastering in Sound Forge Pro 10. Might Audacity be better suited to my needs in terms of editing control and plugins? Try it, it's free. In some ways it's more primitive than Sound Forge, but in other ways the processing is very advanced. It's also been verified to be bit-for-bit clean. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#123
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/8/2014 11:12 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Neil wrote: On 12/8/2014 3:04 PM, John Williamson wrote: Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. OK... please explain this comment! Are you suggesting that an arpeggio has to contain more than two notes, or that one can't pick more than two strings at a time? AFAIK, neither is the case! ;-) I think what John is getting at is that intelligent use of a library representing a virtual orchestra's worth of sources requires that one understand the range and capabilities of every one of those sources. In the case of guitar, if using a plectrum, one cannot excite all the strings simultaneously. Therefore, to some degree, any guitar chord played with plectrum is a type of rapid arpeggio. Overlook that and one's virtual guitar doesn't sound like a guitar; it sounds like a fake guitar being imitated by a keyboard player who does not understand why a guitar sounds as it does. If played with fingers instead of plectrum, and if there is a finger for each note of the chord, we now have a different type of result from playing a chord on guitar. This is obvious to experienced guitarists with any degree of intellectual curiosity for their instrument, but it may be less obvious to someone whose idea of a "musical instrument" is a MIDI controller. Given that every instrument in the orchestra has something unique attending the way it works, absent the expereince of each and the knowledge of how to fit one's concepts into the parameters offered by each instrument, one is likely to produce the equivalent of digital musical gibberish. That's a great way to **** up a great song, that could have been better represented by a vocal and one instrument in the hands of a decent player. Hank, I am aware of these factors, as well as the limitations of sample libraries. So... to your reply, I'd offer a couple things. Most guitarists would have no problem plucking as many as 5 strings simultaneously, ergo, no arpeggio within reasonable time constraints (unreasonable time constraints would make anything *other* than an arpeggio impossible on any instrument, even MIDI devices). A MIDI controller and soft synth *is* a musical instrument, but to emulate other types of musical instruments requires one to have extensive knowledge of electronic music techniques including such things as musique concrete and waveform synthesis and a thorough understanding of the instruments to be emulated. When done well, the end result can be almost indistinguishable from some *recorded* instruments due to the requisite compromises made during the recording process that results in the recording being less than the "real" sound. So, I think the OP may be satisfied with the results of a mediocre setup, since they aren't critical to the composition or arrangement process. But if he thinks he'll produce a convincing substitute for live instruments, he's got quite a bit of learning ahead of him. -- best regards, Neil |
#124
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/9/2014 2:13 AM, John Williamson wrote:
On 08/12/2014 22:03, Neil wrote: On 12/8/2014 3:04 PM, John Williamson wrote: Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. OK... please explain this comment! Are you suggesting that an arpeggio has to contain more than two notes, or that one can't pick more than two strings at a time? AFAIK, neither is the case! ;-) Most pop and rock guitarists that I've watched play, strum across the strings, even when a chord is indicated in by the dots, and this is, in fact, the only way it is possible to play a chord using a plectrum. I've seen and heard some classical guitarists come darn close to a real, simultaneous chord, though. Perfect alignment of notes is a trivial thing to do when using a DAW, but it doesn't quite sound right.. It is no big deal to pluck multiple guitar strings simultaneously. Strumming can also be done in such a way that the time difference between notes in a chord is insignificant, and at any rate not different than for just two strings. For an example in rock, listen to the techniques used in early Who tunes. Calling time differences of that duration an "arpeggio" would make it impractical to call anything *other* than a DAW-generated alignment of notes a "chord". -- best regards, Neil |
#125
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-08 06:52:42 -0800, hank alrich said:
Tom Evans wrote: 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. You seem to think driving a freight train should be as easy as pushing a tinkertoy around the sandbox. If you want it both cheap and lazy you may have come to the wrong hangout here. Doing this work well requires learning about the tools, saving the money for good ones, and investing the time/work it takes to become proficient. You misunderstand. I was trying to ferret out by asking you knowledgeable veterans what's the best route for meeting specific needs. 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. 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 strat testing the sounds by playing them on my controller via Garageband. 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 likly work for me, I'm able to reduce the weeks, months or years frustrating experimenting that leads to dead ends. 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. You seem to think driving a freight train should be as easy as pushing a tinkertoy around the sandbox. Not at all, and I didn't even imply that. 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. Thanks, guys, for all your help. Even when all that is in place, the results still fall or stand on the quality of your compositions, which has exactly nothing to do wth anyone's sample library. 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. Compostions are useless without nice-sounding instruments to express the ideas in the compostitions. It could take me weeks to go through all those collections! If you are looking for sympathy you won't find that here. I didn't ask for sympathy and that thought didn't even occur to me -- just guidance to help with my specific goals to make the searching process shorter and more efficient by focusing on my specific focus. I started working to learn guitar in 1959. I still work to learn guitar nearly every damn day. And I still get better, nearly every damn day. Unless I stick my finger into a table saw, and then I must begin anew in certain ergonomic aspects. The path of the dilettante is level and smooth, in general, but the way of the warrior offers considerably more challenge, not to mention the cost of the boots. 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. Tom |
#126
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Neil wrote:
On 12/8/2014 11:12 PM, hank alrich wrote: Neil wrote: On 12/8/2014 3:04 PM, John Williamson wrote: Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. OK... please explain this comment! Are you suggesting that an arpeggio has to contain more than two notes, or that one can't pick more than two strings at a time? AFAIK, neither is the case! ;-) I think what John is getting at is that intelligent use of a library representing a virtual orchestra's worth of sources requires that one understand the range and capabilities of every one of those sources. In the case of guitar, if using a plectrum, one cannot excite all the strings simultaneously. Therefore, to some degree, any guitar chord played with plectrum is a type of rapid arpeggio. Overlook that and one's virtual guitar doesn't sound like a guitar; it sounds like a fake guitar being imitated by a keyboard player who does not understand why a guitar sounds as it does. If played with fingers instead of plectrum, and if there is a finger for each note of the chord, we now have a different type of result from playing a chord on guitar. This is obvious to experienced guitarists with any degree of intellectual curiosity for their instrument, but it may be less obvious to someone whose idea of a "musical instrument" is a MIDI controller. Given that every instrument in the orchestra has something unique attending the way it works, absent the expereince of each and the knowledge of how to fit one's concepts into the parameters offered by each instrument, one is likely to produce the equivalent of digital musical gibberish. That's a great way to **** up a great song, that could have been better represented by a vocal and one instrument in the hands of a decent player. Hank, I am aware of these factors, as well as the limitations of sample libraries. So... to your reply, I'd offer a couple things. Most guitarists would have no problem plucking as many as 5 strings simultaneously, ergo, no arpeggio within reasonable time constraints (unreasonable time constraints would make anything *other* than an arpeggio impossible on any instrument, even MIDI devices). If we are considering string excitation with right hand fingers, I agree. If using a plectrum, no way. It will be one string after another, perhaps in very rapid succession, but with just enough of that factor to contribute to what we hear from that type of string excitation. A MIDI controller and soft synth *is* a musical instrument, but to emulate other types of musical instruments requires one to have extensive knowledge of electronic music techniques including such things as musique concrete and waveform synthesis and a thorough understanding of the instruments to be emulated. When done well, the end result can be almost indistinguishable from some *recorded* instruments due to the requisite compromises made during the recording process that results in the recording being less than the "real" sound. So, I think the OP may be satisfied with the results of a mediocre setup, since they aren't critical to the composition or arrangement process. But if he thinks he'll produce a convincing substitute for live instruments, he's got quite a bit of learning ahead of him. Very well said. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#127
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/9/2014 11:45 AM, Neil wrote:
It is no big deal to pluck multiple guitar strings simultaneously. Strumming can also be done in such a way that the time difference between notes in a chord is insignificant, and at any rate not different than for just two strings. It's one of those things that seem insignificant when you look at the numbers, but you miss it if it's not present. I remember that there used to be a hardware box called Strummer that sequenced the notes of a guitar chord occurring at the same MIDI time to simulate a strum. It didn't stay around very long so maybe it didn't do a very good job, or wasn't flexible enough to sound human. I can't remember who made it - but Google does. Oberheim: http://www.vintagesynth.com/oberheim/strummer.php -- "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 |
#128
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
|
#129
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 13:21:15 -0600, hank alrich wrote:
Neil wrote: So, I think the OP may be satisfied with the results of a mediocre setup, since they aren't critical to the composition or arrangement process. But if he thinks he'll produce a convincing substitute for live instruments, he's got quite a bit of learning ahead of him. Very well said. That's the main point. You can make all kinds of music using all kinds of "sounds". And some of it might be quite creative and interesting and some of it might actually generate a "hit". See house, club,trance,etc music for examples. In fact it's trendy to create using sounds that DON'T sound like real instruments. I get it. I really do. However, if you want realistic sounding instruments you have two options. Record real musicians playing real instruments or purchase top quality libraries. Things like: Superior/EzDrummer Ivory piano, I like the Italian Grand 2 and American D. Chris Hein Horns. Miroslav Philharmonic strings or EWQL. Vienna stuff for orchestral including strings. etc... This stuff is just a very small sample and they ain't cheap however they are representative of what is out there that is high quality and the price range you will be expected to pay for that level of instrument. Using a good controller, well written orchestrations (keep instruments within their range and don't play anything a real musician couldn't play. The octopus drummer is one example of a common mistake noobs make) and using little tricks like recording one real instrument, say a real horn or percussion and mixing it in with the fake instruments and if you are talented enough you can create very convincing music. This cost money and takes a lot of time. Only you can decide how far you need to go and how much you can invest. There is no easy path unless you are a looper and then you can probably drag and drop "beatz" to your heart's content and churn out a song in 10 minutes. The net is full of stuff like that. Best of luck to the OP! -- 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 |
#130
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/9/2014 4:15 PM, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 12/9/2014 11:45 AM, Neil wrote: It is no big deal to pluck multiple guitar strings simultaneously. Strumming can also be done in such a way that the time difference between notes in a chord is insignificant, and at any rate not different than for just two strings. It's one of those things that seem insignificant when you look at the numbers, but you miss it if it's not present. I wouldn't say it's insignificant... but the technique I was speaking of doesn't sound like strumming, and it is also not hard to accomplish if one is an experienced guitarist. Can one create a convincing equivalent with a MIDI instrument and a sample? Not easily, but IMO that has more to do with the many nuances imbedded in the guitar's sound, not the nanoseconds between the pick hitting each string separately. Such nuances can be heard between two players using the same guitar (or any other instrument for that matter), even when they share styles. I remember that there used to be a hardware box called Strummer that sequenced the notes of a guitar chord occurring at the same MIDI time to simulate a strum. It didn't stay around very long so maybe it didn't do a very good job, or wasn't flexible enough to sound human. I can't remember who made it - but Google does. Oberheim: http://www.vintagesynth.com/oberheim/strummer.php I remember those. It did what it claimed to do, but it's those damn nuances that kept people from being fooled into thinking it was a real guitar. ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
#131
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Tue, 9 Dec 2014 16:33:08 -0500, Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
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. snip----- 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. Nice post Orlando. I snipped the beginning to trim for usenet but agree with that as well. BTW as someone who has been part of beta testing for several rather famous Piano VSTi manufacturers, I will say that they do try their best to represent the demos they publish as honest and no extra processing outside the program goes on. At least not that I am aware of and my music has been part of several demos and it sounds pretty much just like I recorded it. That being said, they do put their best foot forward which is why Preset 1 on just about any keyboard is the "best" overall sound. So like you say, you do have to understand not to trust the demo for what YOU as an artist may be interested in doing. -- 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 |
#132
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:55:05 -0500, Neil wrote:
On 12/9/2014 4:15 PM, Mike Rivers wrote: On 12/9/2014 11:45 AM, Neil wrote: It is no big deal to pluck multiple guitar strings simultaneously. Strumming can also be done in such a way that the time difference between notes in a chord is insignificant, and at any rate not different than for just two strings. It's one of those things that seem insignificant when you look at the numbers, but you miss it if it's not present. I wouldn't say it's insignificant... but the technique I was speaking of doesn't sound like strumming, and it is also not hard to accomplish if one is an experienced guitarist. Can one create a convincing equivalent with a MIDI instrument and a sample? Not easily, but IMO that has more to do with the many nuances imbedded in the guitar's sound, not the nanoseconds between the pick hitting each string separately. Such nuances can be heard between two players using the same guitar (or any other instrument for that matter), even when they share styles. The trick is to think like a guitarist. That takes practice. The biggest problem is playing things that a real musician can't play. I call it the "octopus drummer". Someone with 4 feet and four hands playing 8 pieces at once. -- 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 |
#133
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
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. Which leads me to wonder where Richard Webb is and if he's okay. I interacted with him here for many years before I discovered he is blind. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#134
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
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 perspective, when my wife decided to get a computer in 1994, a Mac, I knew I would have to learn a lot. I would have to be her tech support. I knew absolutely nothing about it. We live next to the middle of nowhere, few people owned Macs, and none of them appeared to know anything about them. I read three different books completely, each over a thousand pages. The only "online" help was via a slow modem in non-realtime to the BMUG "bulletin board". Since then, only hardware failures have needed outside help. 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. 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. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#136
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
|
#137
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/9/2014 4:59 PM, flatfish+++ wrote:
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:55:05 -0500, Neil wrote: On 12/9/2014 4:15 PM, Mike Rivers wrote: On 12/9/2014 11:45 AM, Neil wrote: It is no big deal to pluck multiple guitar strings simultaneously. Strumming can also be done in such a way that the time difference between notes in a chord is insignificant, and at any rate not different than for just two strings. It's one of those things that seem insignificant when you look at the numbers, but you miss it if it's not present. I wouldn't say it's insignificant... but the technique I was speaking of doesn't sound like strumming, and it is also not hard to accomplish if one is an experienced guitarist. Can one create a convincing equivalent with a MIDI instrument and a sample? Not easily, but IMO that has more to do with the many nuances imbedded in the guitar's sound, not the nanoseconds between the pick hitting each string separately. Such nuances can be heard between two players using the same guitar (or any other instrument for that matter), even when they share styles. The trick is to think like a guitarist. That takes practice. It also is a big help to know the instrument. For example, there are significant differences between the note structure of a keyboard and a guitar. The biggest problem is playing things that a real musician can't play. It can be just as challenging to play things that a real musician *can* play. One can easily play two notes of the same pitch on a guitar, but it will take some reprogramming to do that with a keyboard. Get that down, then figure out how to hold one of those notes and bend the other one! ;-) -- best regards, Neil |
#138
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 21:28:15 -0500, Neil wrote:
On 12/9/2014 4:59 PM, flatfish+++ wrote: On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 16:55:05 -0500, Neil wrote: On 12/9/2014 4:15 PM, Mike Rivers wrote: On 12/9/2014 11:45 AM, Neil wrote: It is no big deal to pluck multiple guitar strings simultaneously. Strumming can also be done in such a way that the time difference between notes in a chord is insignificant, and at any rate not different than for just two strings. It's one of those things that seem insignificant when you look at the numbers, but you miss it if it's not present. I wouldn't say it's insignificant... but the technique I was speaking of doesn't sound like strumming, and it is also not hard to accomplish if one is an experienced guitarist. Can one create a convincing equivalent with a MIDI instrument and a sample? Not easily, but IMO that has more to do with the many nuances imbedded in the guitar's sound, not the nanoseconds between the pick hitting each string separately. Such nuances can be heard between two players using the same guitar (or any other instrument for that matter), even when they share styles. The trick is to think like a guitarist. That takes practice. It also is a big help to know the instrument. For example, there are significant differences between the note structure of a keyboard and a guitar. Yep. Range, typical keys guitarists play in, chord structure etc. It's important in making the fake sound somewhat realistic. Assuming the VSTi has a decent sounding instrument to begin with. The biggest problem is playing things that a real musician can't play. It can be just as challenging to play things that a real musician *can* play. One can easily play two notes of the same pitch on a guitar, but it will take some reprogramming to do that with a keyboard. Get that down, then figure out how to hold one of those notes and bend the other one! ;-) +1 That's a great 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 |
#139
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-08 12:04:56 -0800, John Williamson said:
On 08/12/2014 15:33, Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-08 00:36:35 -0800, geoff said: On 8/12/2014 9:17 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: Never heard of Electroponic Musician. I haven't read any magazine music articles for several years. If I read magazine articles, I prefer them to be Mac mazagines cuz I'm a Mac man. Make that "Electronic Musician". Um Mac magasines ?!!! You want to learn about music try music magasines. Restricting your scope to Mac magasines will give you a very blinkered and narrow view of things, especially cult ones. I think it's more logical to read magazines that are tailored to music-making using the Apple operating system because Apple is one operating system out of several. There's no point in reading articles that don't fit that Apple category, because I can't apply information about hardware and software that's designeed for -- or is preferential to -- other operating systems. If you want to learn how to make good music, using any platform you wish from a 4 track tape recorder to a DAW/ mix console combination costing hundreds of thousands of whatever currency unit you wish, try reading Sound On Sound, which is available on line. They do monthly features on how particular modern tracks have been mixed, often showing graphically the tracks used, and detailing the effects used on any one track or group of tracks. Sometimes there are even stems available so you can have a go yourself. They also have a very useful "Mix rescue" feature each month, where someone who's not very happy with a song can ask for help. The article tells exactly what was done to the mix to make it sound better, and there are usually sound files available to let you try the recommendations, and even come up with your own version if you so desire. There is also a monthly feature on how to improve your listening room's acoustics, and doing this can make your stuff sound better than any number of DAW programs or plugins, purely because you can hear what's on the system properly. None of this is OS specific, and if you can't get a particular plugin for your platform, then you just need to do a little basic research to find something similar that you *can* use. Thanks, John. I bookmarked that site. I know I need to learn many basics by reading magazines that takes so much time. So does learning music or an instrument. I'm not interested in learning to play real instruments because playing is not one of my strengths, but composing is. Hmmm... I was under the impression that to compose well for a particular instrument, you had to be able to play it, or at least get it to make a sound. What I mean is that I don't have natural ability to become a good player because I can't remember the notes of my songs for more than a minute or so unless I keep on playing the same, short sequence of notes or chords. That's why I prefer virtual, multi-track recording; I can record a snippet on one track, and then duplicate the track using the same virtual instrument and add more notes to contiune with the melody on that second track. Then I can add other instruments on other tracks. Certainly you need to know, for instance that it's nearly impossible to get a 3 or 4 note chord out of a single bowed instrument and that any guitar chord with more than two notes is, at best, a very fast apreggio (Or a *very* capable player). Maybe I'm out of touch. I don't need to know that technical stuff to be a terrific composer. I need to be able to make beautiful sounds and arrange them harmoniously to make beautiful songs. That's my preference. Every artist is different. One man's drink is another man's poison. Also, I want to have at least a few -- usually several -- instruments in each song, so it would be too much work to buy and master all those real instruments. My DAW can emulate those sounds with varying degrees of success with much less effort on my part. If you just do a rough track using whatever instruments you have to hand, using a note based DAW, you can then just swap better instruments in as time and budget allow. If it sounds good with the general MIDI instrument set, it'll sound a lot better with a decent synth or sample library and playout program for it. If it doesn't sound at least acceptable using the general MIDI soundset, then maybe the idea needs revisiting. That doesn't work for me. I must have each instrument sounding great from the start. That's my preference. Every artist is different. One man's drink is another man's poison. Tom |
#141
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-08 04:18:53 -0800, Mike Rivers said:
On 12/8/2014 2:45 AM, Tom Evans wrote: I'm looking a splendid sound library for a variety of realistic and unique sounds for a variety of genres Ð orchestral, classical guitars, brass, choir, electronic, soft rock, hard rock, new wave, folk, ambient, funk, hip-hop, jazz, house, rap, reggae, country, experimental, disco, blues, etcetera. All in a single purchase? For $50 or less? No, I didn't wrote any of that. Adjust your dreams or your budget. And give yourself a few years to see how these things work together and how they don't. Unless you have some really amazing talent, you don't get to be a orchestator, engineer, producer, and mixer from a newsgroup posting. I ddin't write that either, or hint at that. In fact, the idea hadn't even occurred to me. You might start asking around in the rec.music.makers.synth newsgroup. Around here, when we need what you're looking for, we find live musicians. Thanks. That's helpful! That's one of the ones I was trying to remember from years ago that I used to subscribe to. The group would be more appropriate for my wants. For example, it's members wouldn't be trying to convince me that non-digital music is preferable to digital music, as they're all into digital music. Tom |
#142
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/10/2014 12:21 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
I don't need to know that technical stuff to be a terrific composer. I need to be able to make beautiful sounds and arrange them harmoniously to make beautiful songs. Let's hear one that you've done with Garage Band. Or are you just figuring that if you have beautiful sounds, that beautiful songs will just start pouring out, better than those that you've composed already? -- "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 |
#143
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
The group would be more appropriate for my wants. For example, it's members wouldn't be trying to convince me that non-digital music is preferable to digital music, as they're all into digital music. Nobody here said that, ever. Everybody here works with digitally recorded music, many of us every single day. Many of us go back far enough also to know a little something or a whole lot about the world of analog recording. There are folks here who have built studios from scratch, built consoles from scratch, recorded Grammy winning product through the gear they built. Some of us are composers and performers in addition to being experienced live and recorded sound producers and engineers. When twenty-six pages is said to be too much, I figure you are not serious. How about a link to that song on CD Baby? Show us some work. Maybe you are serious. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#144
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#145
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/10/2014 12:21 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
I don't need to know that technical stuff to be a terrific composer. I need to be able to make beautiful sounds and arrange them harmoniously to make beautiful songs. The problem is that you need to be able to make beautiful sounds that real performers can actually play. If what you want is a composition tool and not really a DAW or a synth, consider Sibelius. It's what people use for that, it is sort of the Pro Tools of the composition world. Is it any good? I don't know, I'm not a composer, I just read the charts they hand me and hide in the little glass booth in back. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
#146
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-08 12:59:47 -0800, geoff said:
On 9/12/2014 4:33 a.m., Tom Evans wrote: On 2014-12-08 00:36:35 -0800, geoff said: On 8/12/2014 9:17 p.m., Tom Evans wrote: Never heard of Electroponic Musician. I haven't read any magazine music articles for several years. If I read magazine articles, I prefer them to be Mac mazagines cuz I'm a Mac man. Make that "Electronic Musician". Um Mac magasines ?!!! You want to learn about music try music magasines. Restricting your scope to Mac magasines will give you a very blinkered and narrow view of things, especially cult ones. I think it's more logical to read magazines that are tailored to music-making using the Apple operating system because Apple is one operating system out of several. No, no logical. Music isn't an operating system. A Mac mag will not even cover all software relating to Mac, or cross-platform, and will likely not cover actual musical aspects at all. A computer-orientated MUSIC mag may widen your outlook - try one. Thanks, Geoff. I understand the importance of getting a broad perspective and that's logical. However, reading music magazine instead of Macintosh magazines, I'd waste some time (as I wrote before) learning about things that don't apply to me and it's not a matter of being lazy; it's a matter of saving time and being efficient. A good analogy is the music newsgroups. My time would be better spent in a Mac music newsgroup instead of this one because I'd be learning from musicians who are in the same music category or niche that I'm in and who therefore have the same focus and using tools that are more focused. That's opposed to this newsgroup, in which some men Ð instead of focusing on my question of what's the best music recording program for my desires (see the subject heading of the thread) are arguing with me and by trying to persuade me to go into a different direction, such as making non-digital music, or making music with my bicycle, or making music with the intention of having musicians play my songs with real instruments, none of which are related to the question that I came here to ask. Another example: Let's say I wanted to learn to bake cakes. Would it be better to read magazine on cooking and baking in general? No, obviously -- with time being in short supply -- it would be common sense to look for magazines that focus on how to bake cakes to achieve the goal faster and more efficiently. Also, you're wrong about Mac music magazines not covering cross-platform issues. They're increasingly cross-platform the platforms become more developed and similar. They already had many cross-platform topics 20 years ago, which is probably the last tiime I spent much time reading some of those magazines. I wonder is YOU have actually read any Mac music magazines lately, because it sounds like YOUR view is blinkered on this. And the Mac magazines cover a wide range of wide range of musical aspects, and they have as long as they're been published, just as watercolor artist or oil painting or acrylic painting magazines also have articles about broader subjects, such as the business aspects of being a fine artist or how to develop creativity or issues of copyright for fine artists. Another way to garner experience and tips is by networking. Maybe there are some other kids at you school with similar interests. Put the word out and see who pops out of the woodwork ! geoff I'm closer to being a senior citizen than a school kid. So that's another misinterpretation you've made and another false and illogical assumption -- and a consdescening one -- to write that I'm a school kid. I'm already networking -- right now -- on this newsgroup. "See who pops out of the woodwork!" You make it sound like my potential networking colleagues would be similar bugs or beetles. Tom |
#147
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
However, reading music magazine instead of Macintosh magazines, I'd waste some time (as I wrote before) learning about things that don't apply to me and it's not a matter of being lazy; it's a matter of saving time and being efficient. You are burdened with assumptions. You have no real idea what you are doing yet, but you talk about wasting time, when the rest of us would call it "learning", and you talk that things don't apply to you when you know little or nothing of those things. As for wasting time, you could have read all twenty-six pages twenty-six times over in the same amount of time it has taken you to post here, and stood a good chance of already being able to use that particular sample library. Unless a brick is housed in your cranium. Have you no respect for the people here who have tried and are still trying to help you, and the free time they have given you? I urge Scott Dorsey to send you an invoice for his patiently given time so that you might get clue ****ing one. That invoice should be followed by one from Mike Rivers. Literally hundreds of dollars of free professional consulting time has been handed you on a platter. Are you going to show us your work, or keep up with this pretentious crap? Got balls, or not? These are not rhetorcal questions, Tom. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#148
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-10 10:12:50 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said:
In article 2014121009213215650-tomevans9890@yahooca, writes: What I mean is that I don't have natural ability to become a good player because I can't remember the notes of my songs for more than a minute or so unless I keep on playing the same, short sequence of notes or chords. That's why I prefer virtual, multi-track recording; I can record a snippet on one track, and then duplicate the track using the same virtual instrument and add more notes to continue with the melody on that second track. Then I can add other instruments on other tracks. I wonder what this approach actually yields. Imagine if a person fancying themselves a poet maintained that they can't remember enough English words to write poetry and has to use a dictionary. Talent manifests itself in many areas, most of which are misattributed anyway. Note memorization doesn't take anymore talent than memorization of numbers or grocery lists. You sound like someone who wants all the prestige of being a composer without the hard work. Any time anyone here suggests that you actually work hard, you furnish an excuse. Now, it's that you can't memorize sequences of musical pitches, which you already do if any tunes are stuck in your head. That's absolute rubbish, Orlando. I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work hard. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The fact that some of you guys can't understand and resspect the differences between musicians' innate skills and diverse goals Ð such as the differences between live players and digital composers Ð makes me wonder if you actually know as much about making pro music as you let on. This stuff is so axiomatic; digital composers doesn't need the same skills as a live player. Get it through your heads and stop trying to mold me into something that I don't want to be and which is unnecessary for me to be a great musician. I don't need to know that technical stuff to be a terrific composer. Of course, you need to know instrument ranges and technical capabilities in order to write for real instruments, which seems to be your ambition. If you have any hope of your music being performed by actual musicians, you can't write what they can't play. 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. I need to be able to make beautiful sounds and arrange them harmoniously to make beautiful songs. That's my preference. Every artist is different. One man's drink is another man's poison. Nice try. You're basically asking us for help in becoming a published writer while unwilling to learn grammar. You're defending your lack of music education as a fighting stance, which I find sad. See the above analogy re. singers doing videos to accompany and promote their songs. That doesn't work for me. I must have each instrument sounding great from the start. That's my preference. Every artist is different. One man's drink is another man's poison. I don't think you even know how a well recorded instrument is supposed to sound, much less what is idiomatically appropriate for it to play. If I were that tasteless and ignorant, I wouldn't be on a quest to seek better sounds than my current software provides. Tom |
#149
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans said...news:2014121019562186494-
tomevans9890@yahooca: On 2014-12-10 10:12:50 -0800, Orlando Enrique Fiol said: In article 2014121009213215650-tomevans9890@yahooca, tomevans9890 @yahoo.ca writes: What I mean is that I don't have natural ability to become a good player because I can't remember the notes of my songs for more than a minute or so unless I keep on playing the same, short sequence of notes or chords. That's why I prefer virtual, multi-track recording; I can record a snippet on one track, and then duplicate the track using the same virtual instrument and add more notes to continue with the melody on that second track. Then I can add other instruments on other tracks. I wonder what this approach actually yields. Imagine if a person fancying themselves a poet maintained that they can't remember enough English words to write poetry and has to use a dictionary. Talent manifests itself in many areas, most of which are misattributed anyway. Note memorization doesn't take anymore talent than memorization of numbers or grocery lists. You sound like someone who wants all the prestige of being a composer without the hard work. Any time anyone here suggests that you actually work hard, you furnish an excuse. Now, it's that you can't memorize sequences of musical pitches, which you already do if any tunes are stuck in your head. That's absolute rubbish, Orlando. I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work hard. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The fact that some of you guys can't understand and resspect the differences between musicians' innate skills and diverse goals Ð such as the differences between live players and digital composers Ð makes me wonder if you actually know as much about making pro music as you let on. This stuff is so axiomatic; digital composers doesn't need the same skills as a live player. Get it through your heads and stop trying to mold me into something that I don't want to be and which is unnecessary for me to be a great musician. I don't need to know that technical stuff to be a terrific composer. Of course, you need to know instrument ranges and technical capabilities in order to write for real instruments, which seems to be your ambition. If you have any hope of your music being performed by actual musicians, you can't write what they can't play. 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. I need to be able to make beautiful sounds and arrange them harmoniously to make beautiful songs. That's my preference. Every artist is different. One man's drink is another man's poison. Nice try. You're basically asking us for help in becoming a published writer while unwilling to learn grammar. You're defending your lack of music education as a fighting stance, which I find sad. See the above analogy re. singers doing videos to accompany and promote their songs. That doesn't work for me. I must have each instrument sounding great from the start. That's my preference. Every artist is different. One man's drink is another man's poison. I don't think you even know how a well recorded instrument is supposed to sound, much less what is idiomatically appropriate for it to play. If I were that tasteless and ignorant, I wouldn't be on a quest to seek better sounds than my current software provides. Tom Maybe you should move to Band In A Box 2014 for Mac. It could give you a different perspective on everything WRT Garage Band. It wouldn't have the usual complexity of most DAWs, either. Sure, it has its own limitations as with anything, but they may not be problematic for you ( 'different strokes'). http://www.pgmusic.com/bbmac.htm david |
#150
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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). Both are far from ideal, but she's used most versions of Finale since it came out and through all the swearing has managed to publish a lot of music. I'd say that neither comes close in stability to the DAW programs being discussed here, but they don't do the same thing. The MIDI instrument samples that ship with Finale aren't bad - from Garritan. |
#151
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
Tom Evans wrote:
That's absolute rubbish, Orlando. Outright bull**** there, Tommy boy. I never gave the slightest indication that I'm not willing to work hard. Twenty-six pages€¦ You are lazy, with a super entitled attitude. Where's the song you say you have on CD Baby? You ain't only Tom Evans over there. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
#152
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
"Scott Dorsey" skrev i en meddelelse
... On 12/10/2014 12:21 PM, Tom Evans wrote: I don't need to know that technical stuff to be a terrific composer. I need to be able to make beautiful sounds and arrange them harmoniously to make beautiful songs. The problem is that you need to be able to make beautiful sounds that real performers can actually play. If what you want is a composition tool and not really a DAW or a synth, consider Sibelius. It's what people use for that, it is sort of the Pro Tools of the composition world. Or take a look at Noteworthy Composer. Is it any good? I don't know, I'm not a composer, I just read the charts they hand me and hide in the little glass booth in back. --scott Kind regards Peter Larsen |
#153
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
"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. 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. 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. 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. 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 |
#154
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/10/2014 8:32 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
However, reading music magazine instead of Macintosh magazines, I'd waste some time (as I wrote before) learning about things that don't apply to me and it's not a matter of being lazy; it's a matter of saving time and being efficient. You could read a couple of articles in the time you've wasted in this discussion. Saving time and being efficient? I think not. Life involves a lot of learning experiences that don't apply to them. I learned a lot about dead people in school and it hasn't yet done anything to improve my guitar playing. -- "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 |
#155
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 12/10/2014 8:32 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
(much snipped) Another example: Let's say I wanted to learn to bake cakes. Would it be better to read magazine on cooking and baking in general? No, obviously -- with time being in short supply -- it would be common sense to look for magazines that focus on how to bake cakes to achieve the goal faster and more efficiently. This is a great analogy to the problem at hand. There are countless books about how to bake a cake. They'll tell you every ingredient needed, and step-by-step how to combine those ingredients and what temperature to set the oven in order to bake a cake. However, most of them ignore some of the fundamental issues that one faces when they actually try to bake that cake, such as their altitude, humidity levels and the specific results that they wish to achieve ("cake" is too generic to be useful, as is "digital music recording program"). There are a few excellent cook books, such as "The Joy of Cooking" that provide this information, giving the reader insights into the parameters that affect the outcome. Reading this saves lots of time and failed attempts to bake the ideal cake in their location. This is the kind of approach that some folks here have suggested to you. To those of us who are electronic musicians, it appears that you wish to achieve something quickly that we have spent many years, if not decades to do. I can tell you with confidence that you *will not* find a program that produces beautiful, realistic instrument sounds that will work well in any composition. So, if saving time and being efficient is your goal, you can quit looking for such a thing and get on with making music with the tools you already have. -- best regards, Neil |
#156
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 |
#157
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On 2014-12-08 10:00:17 -0800, PStamler said:
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. And in the message above Geoff's, John wrote this: People have been making music for Centuries without computers, and recording stuff for decades using various recording technologies. The only thing they all have in common is a need to make music for others to hear. If you have that need, then you will find a way to do the job with whatever you've got. 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. 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. Why do sample libraries cost so damn much? Because the companies producing them have to pay professional musicians and audio engineers to produce them, that's why. As for the magazines, if you don't want your head polluted or time wasted by Windows-oriented thinking, you should know that Electronic Musician's articles are mostly Mac oriented, and Recording's articles on this topic are too. because Mac is the most common platform that musicians who play this kind of music use. and they write the reviews. Computer magazines are worth reading too for the useful info they provide on the mechanics of keeping your box running (data management, backup strategies, stuff like that), but if you want to learn about audio or music making on a computer, they won't get you very far, because that's not what they're mostly about. For that, you need to read the mags that focus on the topic of electronic music making. Peace, Paul Thanks, Paul. Tom |
#158
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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. The fact that many computer based musical recording, composition and construction programs have some virtual instruments thrown in so you'll have something to work with is just incidental. You shouldn't be choosing a program to work with based solely, or even strongly, on the sounds that are bundled with it. Set up your basic workshop first, then start adding tools to it. What you'll find with most DAW programs today is that the sounds that are bundled with the program tend to be those that fit with contemporary popular music. Don't expect a great piano or a great orchestral string section - maybe a functional one to give you an idea of how your composition is working, but not necessarily what you'll want for the product that you're going to submit to a TV show's music director and start collecting the big bucks. If you have some idea what kind of sounds you're looking for, you'll find better suggestions on some other forums than this one. But you'll need to be specific. Nobody knows what you're looking for unless you state that, and what you've already tried, and what you found lacking. If you can't express that in words, you're not ready to start asking questions yet. -- "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 |
#159
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
On Saturday, December 6, 2014 6:38:40 PM UTC-5, Don Pearce wrote:
I use it to create a midi track. The piece I have in mind starts at 95 BPM, then after about 20 bars, changes down to 78 BPM. I can't find how to make that change. I've had to do it by splitting the tune into two separate parts. d http://www.noteworthysoftware.com/nw...CONTROLLER.htm |
#160
Posted to rec.audio.pro
|
|||
|
|||
Best digital music recording program
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 For those who understand what can be done with it, and therefore approach the application with informed expectations. You don't know enough about this stuff to be telling Geoff things like that. Your mental processing in relation to this work is very shallow. You don't even know that you don't know enough to know that. This is a factor that distinguishes you from most of the seasoned posters here. Most of us have an idea what we don't know and seek specific guidance around those points from those whom we recognize know what we do not know. In my case there is much I do not know, and there is much I have learned here by thinking about the advice given me, instead of replying ignorantly. -- shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com HankandShaidriMusic.Com YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|