[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[Tom Evans]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

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

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

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

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

In article , writes:
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.

In many areas, I'm surprisingly computer savvy and independent. but when it
comes to new application interfaces, I often need help finding unspoken
elements on the screen or figure out which keystrokes accomplish desired
results. At the moment, I have no reliable sighted assistance for anything. My
fiancée does all she can, but she works and has her own obligations on her days
off.

Now here we have someone wanting into a complex activity of which they
appear to know very little and they find twenty-six pages daunting.

That strikes me as unreasonable. I could understand a plea for help after a few
frustrating months reading manuals and not being very productive. but it
doesn't seem as though Tom has even tried.

Am I expected to think this person takes musical composition and
orchestration seriously?
Will he undertake the study of ordhestration via Walter Piston,
Rimsky-Korsakov, etc.?
This is what I meant when I wrote that he looked lazy to me. He wants to
eat almost free pie without having to learn how to bake, because he'd
have to read a recipe.

Worse still, those of us who put in decades of hard work are not always
rewarded for it. People come up singing intuitively, writing without training
or even playing instruments. If they happen to touch a hot nerve, their work
goes viral. The viral video model tends to be reactive rather than meritorious.
Videos don't go viral because they exhibit awesome talent; they touch on
whatever momentary tendencies are afloat online. We need a better system.
Orlando

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

In article , writes:
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.

I too have interacted with him and hope he's well. I don't always want
blindness being the first thing people find out about me. But it's such an
integral part of my life that knowing me without that detail makes little
sense. As I grow older, I realize that blindness means much more than a lack of
sight; it affects every perception about the world in which we live and our
relationship to it. It also affects nearly every facet of how people relate to
us. For me, the most frustrating aspect is hypocrisy. How can so many people
call me a musical genius to my face and let me languish in obscurity rather
than help me for gigs? These are friends, colleagues and former students, all
of whom I've directly asked to recommend me for any available performing and
recording opportunities.

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[flatfish+++[_3_]]

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

[Tom Evans]

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

[Orlando Enrique Fiol]

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.

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 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.

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.

[Tom Evans]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[Scott Dorsey]

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."

[Tom Evans]

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

[hank alrich]

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

[Tom Evans]

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

[david gourley[_2_]]

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

[jason]

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.

[hank alrich]

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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"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

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

"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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[Neil[_9_]]

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

[Tom Evans]

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

And you get what yo0u pay for. Of course Auda****ty may well do all
you need just as well as any other app can.....

geoff

Your two statements are contradictory, Geoff.

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

[Tom Evans]

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

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

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

[TimR]

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

[hank alrich]

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