[Jonathan[_5_]]

On Monday, December 8, 2014 11:10:00 AM UTC-5, Jeff Henig wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 00:50:52 -0800, John Williamson said:

On 08/12/2014 07:10, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-07 01:37:45 -0800, John Williamson said:
On 07/12/2014 09:19, geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2014 6:07 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
It's not a matter of speakers, amplifier, headphones, soundcard or
room. I think it's more a matter of my preferences.
Luckily, most VSTis and sample libraries have free demo versions ....
And if you're on a tight budget, most VSTis can be used with Audacity.
You lose the pretty graphics, but the functionality is all there.
Thanks, John.
Is Audacity as good as Garageband?
As I've never used Garageband, I couldn't say.

Thanks, John.

If Audacity isn't better than Garageband, I won't bother to learn Audacity.

It already took me a lot of work and time to learn Garageband, so if I
swtich programs, I want to learn a program that's vastly superior to Garageband.

There's no point in investing time and effort into learning a program
that does the same things that my current program can do.

Tom

I generally use two programs, depending on which direction I'm deciding to
take.

Many times I'll start with Band In A Box to sketch the chord progression
and tempo framework, and save a MIDI file from that to import into Reaper
to do the rest of my work.

Sometimes, though, it's all in Reaper.

--
---Jeff

Jeff,

Have you ever been able to use drum tracks generated from BIAB in your final product?

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jeff Henig wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 11:10:00 AM UTC-5, Jeff Henig wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 00:50:52 -0800, John Williamson said:

On 08/12/2014 07:10, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-07 01:37:45 -0800, John Williamson said:
On 07/12/2014 09:19, geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2014 6:07 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
It's not a matter of speakers, amplifier, headphones, soundcard or
room. I think it's more a matter of my preferences.
Luckily, most VSTis and sample libraries have free demo versions ....
And if you're on a tight budget, most VSTis can be used with Audacity.
You lose the pretty graphics, but the functionality is all there.
Thanks, John.
Is Audacity as good as Garageband?
As I've never used Garageband, I couldn't say.

Thanks, John.

If Audacity isn't better than Garageband, I won't bother to learn Audacity.

It already took me a lot of work and time to learn Garageband, so if I
swtich programs, I want to learn a program that's vastly superior to Garageband.

There's no point in investing time and effort into learning a program
that does the same things that my current program can do.

Tom

I generally use two programs, depending on which direction I'm deciding to
take.

Many times I'll start with Band In A Box to sketch the chord progression
and tempo framework, and save a MIDI file from that to import into Reaper
to do the rest of my work.

Sometimes, though, it's all in Reaper.

--
---Jeff

Jeff,

Have you ever been able to use drum tracks generated from BIAB in your final product?

I've used them in demos and, with very minor adaptation, I'll be able to
use *some* in a final product.

The major issue I have with BIAB drum tracks is that they can sound
mechanical. I'm currently experimenting with EZD to see if I can get better
results.


If you have a MIDI keyboard, learn "keydrums". It's The Way. Quantitize
and "slide" to taste. I can have fully quantitized MIDI tracks that do
not sound mechanical at all outside of perhaps being too repetitive.

I keep thinking about buying a "pad" controller but just haven't.

Mostly what I'm doing with BIAB is creating go-by tracks for either a
drummer or a vocal percussionist. Essentially a glorified metronome with
ideas with which to play and expand upon.

I also haven't been messing much with the "humanize" function. That may be
helpful in losing the mechanical feel. Just a thought.


"Humanize" varies substantially from package to package.

--
Les Cargill

[Jonathan[_5_]]

On Sunday, December 28, 2014 3:56:42 PM UTC-5, Jeff Henig wrote:
Jonathan wrote:
On Monday, December 8, 2014 11:10:00 AM UTC-5, Jeff Henig wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 00:50:52 -0800, John Williamson said:

On 08/12/2014 07:10, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-07 01:37:45 -0800, John Williamson said:
On 07/12/2014 09:19, geoff wrote:
On 7/12/2014 6:07 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
It's not a matter of speakers, amplifier, headphones, soundcard or
room. I think it's more a matter of my preferences.
Luckily, most VSTis and sample libraries have free demo versions ....
And if you're on a tight budget, most VSTis can be used with Audacity.
You lose the pretty graphics, but the functionality is all there.
Thanks, John.
Is Audacity as good as Garageband?
As I've never used Garageband, I couldn't say.

Thanks, John.

If Audacity isn't better than Garageband, I won't bother to learn Audacity.

It already took me a lot of work and time to learn Garageband, so if I
swtich programs, I want to learn a program that's vastly superior to Garageband.

There's no point in investing time and effort into learning a program
that does the same things that my current program can do.

Tom

I generally use two programs, depending on which direction I'm deciding to
take.

Many times I'll start with Band In A Box to sketch the chord progression
and tempo framework, and save a MIDI file from that to import into Reaper
to do the rest of my work.

Sometimes, though, it's all in Reaper.

--
---Jeff

Jeff,

Have you ever been able to use drum tracks generated from BIAB in your final product?

I've used them in demos and, with very minor adaptation, I'll be able to
use *some* in a final product.

The major issue I have with BIAB drum tracks is that they can sound
mechanical. I'm currently experimenting with EZD to see if I can get better
results.

Mostly what I'm doing with BIAB is creating go-by tracks for either a
drummer or a vocal percussionist. Essentially a glorified metronome with
ideas with which to play and expand upon.

I also haven't been messing much with the "humanize" function. That may be
helpful in losing the mechanical feel. Just a thought.

--
---Jeff

Thanks for the response.

It's funny that you mentioned EZDrummer.
I have EZDrummer, and the drum sounds are great, but I've been pretty disappointed in the MIDI libraries.
I write mostly 70s-type folk/country/easy listening stuff, and I have yet to find suitable MIDI patterns in any of the EZD expansion packs. The rhythms aren't generic enough, for lack of a better word.
I was wondering if it might be worth it to experiment with BIAB, or something else.

[geoff]

On 29/12/2014 5:39 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

It's not like learning to ride a bicyle or driving a car, because the
same procedures are used for riding a bicycle or driving a car,

Yeah, like balancing and pedalling.

geoff

[geoff]

On 29/12/2014 6:32 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

that will become apparent during live performances.

That's beside the point, which you obvioulsy don't get. A singer
doesn't necessarily have to be a dancer to succeed, and a composter
doesn't necessarily have to be a live performer to succeed.


I'm not a live performer, and I have had complete success with my compost.

geoff

[hank alrich]

Tom Evans wrote:

Unfortunately there are many hordes of bullies who hide behind their
computers while bullying.

Even as there are petunlant and arrogant trolls who hide behind whatever
bull**** they can muster, which in your case is a remarkable heap of
****.

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

[hank alrich]

geoff wrote:

On 29/12/2014 6:32 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

that will become apparent during live performances.

That's beside the point, which you obvioulsy don't get. A singer
doesn't necessarily have to be a dancer to succeed, and a composter
doesn't necessarily have to be a live performer to succeed.


I'm not a live performer, and I have had complete success with my compost.

geoff

While a troll only needs suckers to suckcede.

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

[Phil W[_3_]]

Scott Dorsey:
Luxey wrote:
On 2014-12-25 17:37:16 -0800, Tom Evans said:

question to explain why your neurotic suggestion of learning a foreign
operating system (Windows) to get sounds for my Mac would be a wise
decision.

That question is logical, however ...

It is indeed.
Anyway, I have already adressed this misunderstanding by "Tom Evans" in my
reply from 2014-12-21 / 22:42.
The great genius hiding behind "Tom Evans" refuses to read correctly, what
others here write and prefers to interpret the words in a way that serves
his desire to get stuck instead of a useful suggestion - to look for
software, that fits *his* particular requirements and not some extremely
exotic and rather senseless method.

He even quoted my reply and still does not understand it correctly.

The reason for your silence on that issue it IS idiotic
advice. And you wouldn't find anyone on a Mac discussion group
reommending such malarkey -- because it IS malarkey.

Yes, but who came up *first* and as the only one with this "malarkey"? It
was "Tom Evans" and nobody else.

The real reason you're not getting an answer is: Nobody ever suggested
such thing. Developing logicaly correct construction over false premisse
is quite a sign.

Again, look at my reply from 2014-12-21 / 22:42.

Here's what seems to have happened. Someone gave the very reasonable
advice that one should purchase soundfonts from a different source than
one purchases their synthesizer software. (This is, I might add,
excellent
advice, and it's the reason why you see so many soundfonts for sale.)

Mr. Evans, not knowing what a soundfont was, did a google search on it
and found a piece of software called Soundfont. (This software is to
soundfonts what The Sound Of Music is to music.) Immediately something
made a connection in his brain that people were trying to make him use
non-Mac software and he began waving around like a Tickle-Me-Elmo doll
screaming about how this was terrible advice and that he wasn't going to
use this software.

And, I understand that sometimes misunderstandings like this occur, but
I do find it sort of hilarious that Mr. Evans still hasn't figured out
what was going on and what people really were seriously suggesting he do.

Yes, at some point its pure humiliation on "Tom Evans´" side.


Phil

[None]

"Tom Evans" wrote in message
news:2014122907352494824-tomevans9890@yahooca...
It's clear to me that I have easily won the text duel in this thread
...

That statement is either an intentional troll, or an expression of
pathetic cluelessness.

I nominate you to join in a tag-team cage match, no trolls barred,
between you, Sommerwerck, Eckmeier, and Kozicki. The spectacle of four
such moronic buffoons in a trolling competition would be quite
entertaining.

[geoff]

On 30/12/2014 4:35 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

Unfortunately there are many hordes of bullies who hide behind their
computers while bullying. That's the reality of the Wild West Internet.

I've encountered this many times while trying to learn online.

I wonder why ?

"Learn" ? ..... while steadfastly refusing to accept any advice as is
usually involved a small amount of effort or skill.


There are many cliques of like-minded bullies who congregate in their
forums like attacking hornets when outsiders dare to challenge their
self-rigtheous opinions.

Read "probably correct opinions".

Internet bullying is a major phenomenon and is even receiving much news
coverage lately.

The hatred for mavericks like me can be so strong that my Internet
safety may be at stake.

"Maverick". You flatter yourself.


And I doubt that you have been attacked as fiercely as with as much
anger as I have been.

Ever stopped to think why you appear to attract such attention ? There
really only seem to be two people here that ask for advice and
steadfastly refuse to accept or comprehend it.

xx

geoff

[Neil[_9_]]

On 12/29/2014 10:35 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
The hatred for mavericks like me can be so strong that my Internet
safety may be at stake.

How ironic that you would choose that moniker, though if it is an
accurate one, not only your internet safety is at stake (Google
'Maverick' to see who he was in real life).
--
best regards,

Neil

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-22 00:11:23 +0000, geoff said:

On 22/12/2014 10:43 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

My point was that I don't like the process of stone lithography. The
writer insulted me (after I explained that I've been a professional fine
artist for many years)

Surely real profession fine artists would describe themselves as
'professional artists'.

Wrong; you've shown your ignorance and stupidity again. There are
different kinds of professional artists, and they're not all fine.
Some are graphic artists, some are production artists, some are video
artists, some are film artists, some are recording artists, etcetera.

I'd like to hire musicians who play real instruments, but I can't afford
to. That's why I'm constrained to the digital workflow only.

Sell some more fine art.

geoff

Fine art is one of the most difficult things to sell. Why don't you
try it and then report back to me about how easy it is to mkae money at
it. You're an arrogant, ignorant know-it-all.

Somebody wrote here that few -- if any -- of the advisors here make
their living from selling their songs. Fine art is alos hard to make
money from. If you weren't so damned stupid, you would have figured
that out without me having to tell you.

Tom Evans

[geoff]

On 27/03/2016 12:46 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-22 00:11:23 +0000, geoff said:

On 22/12/2014 10:43 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

My point was that I don't like the process of stone lithography. The
writer insulted me (after I explained that I've been a professional fine
artist for many years)

Surely real profession fine artists would describe themselves as
'professional artists'.

Wrong; you've shown your ignorance and stupidity again. There are
different kinds of professional artists, and they're not all fine. Some
are graphic artists, some are production artists, some are video
artists, some are film artists, some are recording artists, etcetera.

I'd like to hire musicians who play real instruments, but I can't afford
to. That's why I'm constrained to the digital workflow only.

Sell some more fine art.

geoff

Fine art is one of the most difficult things to sell. Why don't you try
it and then report back to me about how easy it is to mkae money at it.
You're an arrogant, ignorant know-it-all.

Clearly, as I apparently took slight issue with an assertion you made
some years ago ....


Somebody wrote here that few -- if any -- of the advisors here make
their living from selling their songs. Fine art is alos hard to make
money from. If you weren't so damned stupid, you would have figured
that out without me having to tell you.

Tom Evans

Jeepers, just a little up-tight maybe ?

geoff

[JackA]

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 7:46:44 PM UTC-4, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-22 00:11:23 +0000, geoff said:

On 22/12/2014 10:43 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:

My point was that I don't like the process of stone lithography. The
writer insulted me (after I explained that I've been a professional fine
artist for many years)

Surely real profession fine artists would describe themselves as
'professional artists'.

Wrong; you've shown your ignorance and stupidity again. There are
different kinds of professional artists, and they're not all fine.
Some are graphic artists, some are production artists, some are video
artists, some are film artists, some are recording artists, etcetera.

I'd like to hire musicians who play real instruments, but I can't afford
to. That's why I'm constrained to the digital workflow only.

Sell some more fine art.

geoff

Fine art is one of the most difficult things to sell. Why don't you
try it and then report back to me about how easy it is to mkae money at
it. You're an arrogant, ignorant know-it-all.

+2

Jack


Somebody wrote here that few -- if any -- of the advisors here make
their living from selling their songs. Fine art is alos hard to make
money from. If you weren't so damned stupid, you would have figured
that out without me having to tell you.

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-10 21:53:08 +0000, hank alrich said:

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.

That's false; look four messages up this thread. There, Mike Rivers
wrote, "Around here, when we need what you're looking for, we find live
musicians."

Tom Evans.

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

Tom Evans:

I'm operating under a psuedonym, to protect my professional identity.
I don't want my fans to read the sordid arguments going on here -- such
as me being accused of having a 'turd-filled brain'.

Well, if you show nothing but prove that there is nothing else in the
vacuum between your ears.

It would be embarrasing as a professional to have my fans read such
crap being written about me.

STOP the cheap jibber and hand out some FACTS!

You don't need any more facts than what I've presented.

Anyway, you´re absolutely professional at being arrogant.

I have different opinions. Not kowtowing to others' ways doesn't make
me arrogant -- just different.

Also, I'm worried about the potential of more harassment, which I've
already gotten here in spades in my first ever thread in this newsgroup.

Sorry to disappoint you. I'd love to show you my art, but the level of
nastiness has gotten way out of hand, so I feel It's too riskly for me.

You´re coming here with a maximum arrogant behaviour and reject every
well-meant advice.

Wrong. I'm neither arrogant nor rejecting all advice. I wrote that I
accepted specific advice, but you ignored that. Learn to read instead
of lashing out recklessly.

And I'm not arrogant; it's not arrogant to claim that I'm a
professional artist; I am indeed a professional artist with a
reputation to protect. You are arrogant, cynical and a bully to accuse
me of making a false claim and you have no evidence to back up your
false claim.

Also, I don't want my Web site stats to become artificially inflated.

Also, you seeing my art is irrelevant to my question in the header,
which is about how best to approach my digital music. I didn't write
in the header, "I want somebody to critique my fine art."

We don´t want to "critique" your so-called "art". We´re just used to
real professional standards which include showing some work references,
when asked to do so.
I´ve dealt with "professionals" like you before. They were all so
bloated about their incredibly great work, that they would not hand out
any reference - I guess, probably because they had nothing to show.

You're contradictory. You call me arrogant, but I already explained
that I don't want to reveal my song because I'm modest about it. It's
not possible to be arrogant and modest simultaneously. I didn't write
that I have "incredibly good" music. Part of your problem is that you
don't know how to read, and then you throw insults based on your lazy
and stupid assumptions.

And you're wrong. I WAS asked to show my art, and was accused rudely
of being insincere for not having done so.

Also, you don't need to delve into my work and personal life to answer
the question in the header.

You still don´t have the slightest clue, what this is actually about.
Each and every single post of yours to this newsgroup proves that.

Don't make asinine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Either clean-up your **** or stop wasting other people´s valuable time.

Don't make ssnine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-22 12:18:15 +0000, Frank Stearns said:

geoff writes:

On 22/12/2014 2:04 p.m., Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-19 19:57:35 -0800, geoff said:

Conventional thinking never made any breakthroughs. Think of Steve Jobs
and Galleo Galilei and thousands of other great leaders.

Steve Jobs had a few clever ideas but was basically a ****** and a
bully. A Great Leader that will be remembered after half a century - I
doubt it.

Steve Jobs was known as "the father of the digital revolution" and "the
master evangelist of the digital age".

He co-pioneered and popularized more than anyone else the WYSIGWYG pcs
-- which happena to be the type of computer you (Geoff Bonehead) are using.


God, you've even memorised the speil.

Sounds like.

Jobs was really more of a P. T. Barnum. When you dig down, perhaps much less
technical genius and way more marketing cleverness. Just like Gates,
he's given far
too much personal credit for many different things.

Remember, Xerox PARC actually (mostly) invented the What-You-See-Is-All-You-Get
interface with their "Star" system in the mid-70s, maybe even a tad bit
earlier. The
mouse pointing device came out in the early 1960s, but it was a lab
curiousity as no
commercially-released hw or sw could use it until many years later.

The peanut-sized brain in the 100 ton Xerox corporate behemoth didn't
really know
what to do with what they had. Oh sure, they tried a little bit, but a $70,000
workstation (in late 1970s dollars) was not going to have much
penetration in the
consumer marketplace. (Those workstations were pretty cool for the day -- an
acquaintance of mine had one. And IIRC, you didn't actually buy the thing, you
leased it -- the old IBM model. And here we go again now, with Adobe
leading the
charge with leased software. But I digress.)

So Jobs saw the obvious application (obvious to just about anyone
outside of that
lummox corporate mentality), stole the idea, and ran with it.

No, he did not "steal the idea". He was a visionary who saw the
potential in the WYSIWYG display he saw on a computer monitor at Zerox.
Subsequently, he paid Zerox $100,000 to buy the rights to WYSIWYG.
Jobs was the first and ONLY one who saw that potential at that time.

And so with both Jobs
and Gates, lots of clever underlings (among others) did the real
innovative work
while those two did the figurative struts on stage with their cardboard
megaphones,
wide brim straw hats, zoot suites, and bamboo canes. And Job's zoot was
far flashier
than anything Gates ever wore.

The first Apples were really not-very-good toys compared to what else
was out there
in the S-100 world (Northstar and Polymorphic being two examples of
companies that
made business-useful and affordable "personal" computers), and Apple
probably would
have disappeared just like most of those companies had Jobs not made
that trip to
PARC.

Depending on the day, perhaps most of us could either curse or thank
Jobs and Gates.
I'm much more inclined to consistently thank the real technology heroes
such as the
research folks at the old Bell Labs and PARC, with the appropriate nods
to Cal-Tech
and MIT, among others.

Frank
Mobile Audio

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-08 20:37:02 +0000, John Williamson said:

On 08/12/2014 17:17, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 01:02:08 -0800, John Williamson said:

See above. It's quite possible to make very good music using cheesy
stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio keyboard, if you're
talented enough. I've heard a pair of musicians make good sounds with
a keyboard, a guitar, two voices and a "Band in a box" machine. It was
just a shame they started their set with "Smoke On The Water"...

Are there any wealthy, successful music stars who became successful and
rich using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio
keyboard? If so, they're a tiny fraction of today's music stars. (Even
more absurd is the example given here of a musician who makes music with
a bicycle.)

Maybe they're not using such things live now, but almost all of the
famous and wealthy ones I can think of started by using a thirty dollar
guitar and maybe a cheap amp from the market or a cheap sampling
keyboard, or a dodgy PA system and a cheap microphone.

Or a cheap computer running a basic sequencer.

The only limits as to how far you can go are in yourself. I can even
think of at least one hit record that was recorded almost entirely
using a Casio VL-Tone calculator.

http://www.vintagesynth.com/casio/vl1.php

The song? :-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM-v3cvX8M4

Oh, yes, they also used a guitar and a decent singer.

I instinctively know what's right for my music-making needs. I want to
make digital music. I've had that strong urge for at least 15 years.

And I'm a composer type of musician -- not a player type. Therefore
digital means are appropriate for me.

Fine, just don't expect technology to work instead of talent.

I didn't imply that it would. I am an international art star, so I
know much about talent and technology and I don't need advice in that
area.

Nobody here is trying to stop you making music in any way you wish,
we're just trying to help you get the most bang for your buck while
getting rid of a few of your misconceptions about making music.

That's blatantly false. I've been called all sorts of insulting
bullying names (troll, having **** between my ears, being told that I
belong in an asylum, etcetera) for not knwtowing to the ways that the
musicians here want me to make my music.

And Ironically, I am the one who has repeatedly writeen that I want to
use a simple set-up, but have benn insultingly told repeatedly by
various mealy-mouthed, haughty and presumptous and hypocritical men
here of being lazy, arrogant, that I don't know have a clue of what I'm
talking about, and that I must learn to read music, use this and that
DAW and hire professional musicians and do very complex and
time-consuming things such as reading long, technical music manuals.

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-09 11:50:43 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

On 12/8/2014 12:17 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
Are there any wealthy, successful music stars who became successful and
rich using cheesy stuff like a Roland drum machine and a Casio
keyboard? If so, they're a tiny fraction of today's music stars.

And today's stars are a fraction of yesterday's stars, when you compare
the number of players available to become stars if they're made into
stars. While not necessarily becoming sustained stars for a lifetime
career, there have been profitable hits recorded with cheap equipment.
It's more about marketing than anything else.

Do you have a market for your music?

No; my music isn't good enough yet.

Do you think that better samples will get you a market?

They make it more likely that I would get a market.

The biggest paying two markets for programmed music today are music for
TV and programming for recording stars. But the music that you hear on
TV is composed for a specific purpose, not just something that a
wannabe composer dreamed up.

I only want to make fine art music, just as I only want to make fine,
visual art.

And they don't use cheap drum machines and keyboards, because they know
that their customers are only using them because they can't afford to
hire a real orchestra, but expect the sound of one.

Tom Evans

[Scott Dorsey]

Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-10 21:53:08 +0000, hank alrich said:

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.

That's false; look four messages up this thread. There, Mike Rivers
wrote, "Around here, when we need what you're looking for, we find live
musicians."

Live music isn't digital. It isn't analogue. It's live.
I highly recommend it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

You still don´t have the slightest clue, what this is actually about.
Each and every single post of yours to this newsgroup proves that.

Don't make asinine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Either clean-up your **** or stop wasting other people´s valuable time.

Don't make ssnine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Tom Evans



You're replying to a two-year-old message in order to restart a fight
that was long ago dissipated? Should I ask why?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 9:48:38 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

You still don€œt have the slightest clue, what this is actually about.
Each and every single post of yours to this newsgroup proves that.

Don't make asinine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Either clean-up your **** or stop wasting other people€œs valuable time.

Don't make ssnine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Tom Evans



You're replying to a two-year-old message in order to restart a fight
that was long ago dissipated? Should I ask why?

Because this group would otherwise be dead?

Jack
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-08 14:52:41 +0000, hank alrich said:

Tom Evans wrote:

I don't need Logic Pro to make pro-quality soongs

Making "pro quality songs" requires nothing more than writing worthy
material. Fail that and all the tech in the world makes no difference.
Beautifully orchestrated ****ty songs are still ****ty songs. Succeed at
composition and all you need is a voice and an instrument.

Your message is another strking contradiction.

This thread is filled with excoriation fired at me from a variety of
disrespectul, dismissive, and even hateful musicians -- including you I
think -- that I must go to great lengths doing detailed, boring things
such as: raading long, complex music software manuals; hiring
musicians to play "real" insturments for my songs; studying the history
of music, learning how to read music, learning to use various digital,
audio workstations; that being a good composer is insuficient and that
I must learn to become a live performer to be able to make great music.

Here you are writing that making great music is a simple process, but
elsewhere in this thread, I was accused by various men of being lazy
and arrogant and accused of dismissing their advice for wanting to
maintain a simple workflow that avoids those extraneous, time-wasting
"bells and whistles".

This contradiction perfectly exemplifies that a large proportion of the
advice foisted on me in this thread is contradictory, illogical
malarkey.

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2014-12-08 12:36:52 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

On 12/8/2014 1:56 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Wow, that's quite a list! I haven't even heard of most of those
collections of sounds. Sounds like some obscure collections of sounds!

Maybe you should start reading magazines like Electronic MUSICIAN or
Keyboard instead of Mac computer magazines.

Thanks for the advice, Mike.

I don't even read Mac computer magazines. I'm not interested
sufficiently in Mac computers to take the time to do that.

Contrary to some of the hateful, presumptous diatribes hurled at me
here, I''m not an Apple zealot.

Tom Evans

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 10:35:47 AM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 12:36:52 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

On 12/8/2014 1:56 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Wow, that's quite a list! I haven't even heard of most of those
collections of sounds. Sounds like some obscure collections of sounds!

Maybe you should start reading magazines like Electronic MUSICIAN or
Keyboard instead of Mac computer magazines.

Thanks for the advice, Mike.

I don't even read Mac computer magazines. I'm not interested
sufficiently in Mac computers to take the time to do that.

Contrary to some of the hateful, presumptous diatribes hurled at me
here, I''m not an Apple zealot.

Tom Evans

Why are you just now replying to a two-year-old message?

[Phil W]

Scott Dorsey:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

You still don´t have the slightest clue, what this is actually about.
Each and every single post of yours to this newsgroup proves that.

Don't make asinine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Either clean-up your **** or stop wasting other people´s valuable time.

Don't make ssnine assumptions. And mind your manners.

As if YOU ever had even a slight clue what manners are. Great joke, man!

Tom Evans

You're replying to a two-year-old message in order to restart a fight
that was long ago dissipated? Should I ask why?

Probably, because he wants to prove, that he still has neither understood
anything since then.

More likely: he just wants to troll here again...

[Tom Evans]

On 2016-06-04 13:48:35 +0000, Scott Dorsey said:

Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

You still don´t have the slightest clue, what this is actually about.
Each and every single post of yours to this newsgroup proves that.

Don't make asinine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Either clean-up your **** or stop wasting other people´s valuable time.

Don't make ssnine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Tom Evans



You're replying to a two-year-old message in order to restart a fight
that was long ago dissipated? Should I ask why?
--scott

No, you should not ask "why".

Instead, you should get the facts straight and not make unreasonable
assumptions.

It's been six months -- not two years, so you're wrong by a factor of four.

And I needed six months to calm down from the various bullying insults
to look here again. So you're also making a wrong and foolish
assumption about me "wanting to start a fight".

I'm looking for ways to make music in ways that suits my personality.
I don't like being pressured into making music the way some of the
presumptuous and domineering men here think I should make music.

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2016-06-05 17:31:57 +0000, Phil W said:

Scott Dorsey:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

You still don´t have the slightest clue, what this is actually about.
Each and every single post of yours to this newsgroup proves that.

Don't make asinine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Either clean-up your **** or stop wasting other people´s valuable time.

Don't make ssnine assumptions. And mind your manners.

As if YOU ever had even a slight clue what manners are. Great joke, man!

Tom Evans

You're replying to a two-year-old message in order to restart a fight
that was long ago dissipated? Should I ask why?

Probably, because he wants to prove, that he still has neither
understood anything since then.

More likely: he just wants to troll here again...

That was a typical, presumptuous and hypocritical criticism here. You
are one of the ones who is a troublemaker, while I am a serious
musician.

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2016-06-04 23:11:21 +0000, said:

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 10:35:47 AM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 12:36:52 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

On 12/8/2014 1:56 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Wow, that's quite a list! I haven't even heard of most of those
collections of sounds. Sounds like some obscure collections of sounds!

Maybe you should start reading magazines like Electronic MUSICIAN or
Keyboard instead of Mac computer magazines.

Thanks for the advice, Mike.

I don't even read Mac computer magazines. I'm not interested
sufficiently in Mac computers to take the time to do that.

Contrary to some of the hateful, presumptous diatribes hurled at me
here, I''m not an Apple zealot.

Tom Evans

Why are you just now replying to a two-year-old message?

Becasuse it took me six months for my upset about your group bullying
to subside enough to read here again.

Tom Evans

[Tom Evans]

On 2016-06-04 23:11:21 +0000, said:

On Saturday, June 4, 2016 at 10:35:47 AM UTC-5, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-08 12:36:52 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

On 12/8/2014 1:56 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Wow, that's quite a list! I haven't even heard of most of those
collections of sounds. Sounds like some obscure collections of sounds!

Maybe you should start reading magazines like Electronic MUSICIAN or
Keyboard instead of Mac computer magazines.

Thanks for the advice, Mike.

I don't even read Mac computer magazines. I'm not interested
sufficiently in Mac computers to take the time to do that.

Contrary to some of the hateful, presumptous diatribes hurled at me
here, I''m not an Apple zealot.

Tom Evans

Why are you just now replying to a two-year-old message?

Who gave you the right to impose a deadline on when I may participate
in this discussion? Are you running a dictatorship here?

Did I previously write that I had achieved my goal of finding the best
digital music-making program? No.

This is another example of negative, pseumptous and controlling
behviour of some of the males here.

And this also adds to the hypocrisy displayed here; I'm again being
undely criticized, and I was attacked for allegedly being a
troublmaker. The fact that you have made this undue criticism shows
that YOU are one of the troublemakers, whereas I am an innocent
musicican seeking answers being pilloried for that innocent goal.

Tom Evans

[John Williamson]

On 28/06/2016 15:34, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2016-06-04 23:11:21 +0000, said:


Why are you just now replying to a two-year-old message?

Who gave you the right to impose a deadline on when I may participate in
this discussion? Are you running a dictatorship here?

He's sitting behind the Google groups anonymiser using a pseudonym, so
he thinks he can't be traced.

I find it best to just ignore most Google groups posters, until the
annoy me enough to go into the killfile.

Anyway, just out of interest, did you find an acceptable program in the end?


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/28/2016 10:34 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Who gave you the right to impose a deadline on when I may participate in
this discussion? Are you running a dictatorship here?

No rights, just common sense. If the post is two years old, there's no
longer a discussion. You're free to start a fresh one any time you wish,
though.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/28/2016 10:45 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I find it best to just ignore most Google groups posters, until the
annoy me enough to go into the killfile.

Hey, sometimes when Eternal September isn't working, I become a Google
group poster. It's always there, and it always works.

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[John Williamson]

On 28/06/2016 16:20, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 6/28/2016 10:45 AM, John Williamson wrote:
I find it best to just ignore most Google groups posters, until the
annoy me enough to go into the killfile.

Hey, sometimes when Eternal September isn't working, I become a Google
group poster. It's always there, and it always works.

Yebbut, you're on the whitelist. ;-)

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[Tom Evans]

On 2016-06-28 15:19:12 +0000, Mike Rivers said:

On 6/28/2016 10:34 AM, Tom Evans wrote:
Who gave you the right to impose a deadline on when I may participate in
this discussion? Are you running a dictatorship here?

No rights, just common sense. If the post is two years old, there's no
longer a discussion. You're free to start a fresh one any time you
wish, though.

As I just wrote, the main part of the discussion was six months ago
(December) -- not two years.

Tom Evans

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/28/2016 6:57 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
As I just wrote, the main part of the discussion was six months ago
(December) -- not two years.

If there hadn't been any discussion for six months, it's probably dead,
or certainly drifted off topic. I couldn't tell. Unless there's a
compelling reason, I don't look up old messages.

And, what you posted here really was a reply to a message from 2014
which wasn't relevant to the subject:

Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

--

For a good time, call http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[JackA]

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:50:05 AM UTC-4, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2016-06-05 17:31:57 +0000, Phil W said:

Scott Dorsey:
Tom Evans wrote:
On 2014-12-18 10:36:56 +0000, Phil W said:

You still donæ„’ have the slightest clue, what this is actually about.
Each and every single post of yours to this newsgroup proves that.

Don't make asinine assumptions. And mind your manners.

Either clean-up your **** or stop wasting other peopleæ„€ valuable time.

Don't make ssnine assumptions. And mind your manners.

As if YOU ever had even a slight clue what manners are. Great joke, man!

Tom Evans

You're replying to a two-year-old message in order to restart a fight
that was long ago dissipated? Should I ask why?

Probably, because he wants to prove, that he still has neither
understood anything since then.

More likely: he just wants to troll here again...

That was a typical, presumptuous and hypocritical criticism here. You
are one of the ones who is a troublemaker, while I am a serious
musician.

Tom Evans

Since my involvement with usenet (decade+), there's always those who feel they are king of the hill. Nothing unusual here.

Jack

[Tom Evans]

On 2016-06-28 14:45:42 +0000, John Williamson said:

On 28/06/2016 15:34, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2016-06-04 23:11:21 +0000, said:

Anyway, just out of interest, did you find an acceptable program in the end?

I tried many of the suggested links. Thanks, John.

I found that there's a lot of effort requrired to reserach, donwload
and install piecemeal the individual sound effects and instrument
modulators available from the different companies and few of them were
what I'm looking for and some of them don't work.

So far I like the setup of U-He Podolski the best, because there's a
decent library of instrument sounds that I can acces with one download
and it has one interface, and I feel that it has a good range of the
kinds of instrument sounds. Are there more programs like Podolski,
that contain a large number of good instrument sounds in one package
and one interface, that allows me to maximize reverb, and that are
free, or don't cost more than about $200 or $300 each?

One that I tried is Archtypeist Lokomotiv, but I don't like it as much
as Podolski, because in Lokomotiv I can see the name of only one
instrument at a time, whereas in Podolski I can see all of the names of
the instrument sounds at once. So being able to see all of the names
of the instrument sounds in the library at once (or at least being able
to see the names of a bank of instrument sounds at once as in the
Garageband interface -- such as all the lead guitars at once or all of
the synths at once -- is one of the insterface factors I'm looking for.

Tom Evans

[geoff]

On 29/06/2016 11:42 a.m., Tom Evans wrote:




So far I like the setup of U-He Podolski the best, because there's a
decent library of instrument sounds that I can acces with one download
and it has one interface, and I feel that it has a good range of the
kinds of instrument sounds. Are there more programs like Podolski,
that contain a large number of good instrument sounds in one package
and one interface, that allows me to maximize reverb, and that are
free, or don't cost more than about $200 or $300 each?



Um - you were asking (or at least the thread was about ...) about a
digital music recording program. Podolski appears to be a soft-synth.

Pleased for you if that's what you were in fact after, but you may
understand the confusion that has developed around this thread, and what
has contributed to it.

geoff

[John Williamson]

On 29/06/2016 00:42, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2016-06-28 14:45:42 +0000, John Williamson said:

On 28/06/2016 15:34, Tom Evans wrote:
On 2016-06-04 23:11:21 +0000, said:

Anyway, just out of interest, did you find an acceptable program in
the end?

I tried many of the suggested links. Thanks, John.

I found that there's a lot of effort requrired to reserach, donwload and
install piecemeal the individual sound effects and instrument modulators
available from the different companies and few of them were what I'm
looking for and some of them don't work.

Yes, that's the way it goes, and what works for you won't necessarily
work for others, and vice versa.

I can't really help with the rest of your post, as my music recording
mainly involves putting a small forest of microphone stands up in front
of a bunch of live(ish) musicians and asking them to get on with it.

Still, it's good to know you're making progress, even if it is slower
than you'd like.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.