Author |
Message |
bachus
Joined: Feb 29, 2004 Posts: 2922 Location: Up in that tree over there.
Audio files: 5
|
Posted: Fri Oct 05, 2007 12:50 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
kkissinger wrote: | IMy preferred method to compose is with the piano roll editor |
Dang I wish I could do that! I can see things in the developing score I do not conciously hear and the piano roll just doesn't reveal those kinds of things to me. It must be nice not to need it. _________________ The question is not whether they can talk or reason, but whether they can suffer. -- Jeremy Bentham |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
tdruggy
Joined: Dec 05, 2007 Posts: 3 Location: san diego, ca
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:13 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
First off, HI! I'm new here...but about the subject...
I find DAW as a compositional tool to be a sort of set-back for myself. I originally thought the total opposite, I believed it helped out a ton during the composition/thought process. However, as I've grown as a musician and learned more about recording I've realized that while it has its undeniable upsides for producing, tracking, and mixing it brings my creative process down because I find myself settling for things that sound good when I should be THINKING of those things and then trying to achieve them with the software. A good way to explain this is to compare composing on paper to whipping out something off the top of your head.
This being said, I find I am much more able to make complex pieces if I utilize the DAW with a grain of salt and keep the creative process on paper and in my head. For my type of music, I believe both the DAW and the creative process should be separate but connected. So I don't know if it is a personal thing or if it is common but that's my 2 cents |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
XpanderXT
Joined: Oct 22, 2007 Posts: 137 Location: the flat universe
|
Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:36 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
The DAW is just another tool.
There are limitations and drawbacks to it just as there is with working on tape. Back when I did tape based stuff there were issues with having to commit tracks, a bad punch in would require major redos, you had to do global edits with a razor blade instead of track by track edits, etc.
The DAW works best for me as a recording device and editing device. I am kind of rediscovering using the MPC as a sequencing/composing device beyond just beat making. Mainly because of the hands of aspect of it and getting away from the mouse.
I don't see the DAW as bad in any way or better than a hardware sequencer or recorder. It's just different and I usually approach it as a different tool.
Latency has become a big issue for me and as my software gets better it requires me to spend a lot of money upgrading a computer that will be useless in 4 years. My Oberheim Xpander I bought new in the 80's still is great. My Apple IIe is long gone, dead and outdated and has been replaced 7 times by new computers ( I am in need of an update again to have the latest versions of my software work). It's a lot of money for a short time return where as my hardware I have is still in service. Not to mention how much I have spent in software updates of Protools, Logic, Live, etc. I spent money once for my Mircowave XT and it doesn't need an update to do what it does.
My biggest issue with going computer/software right now is that issue of how the software companies are not writing cleaner, faster more compact code. They are just hoping that the "next" computer will give you enough performance to work well.
This has been the catylist for me going back to hardware I bought 20 years ago, which still works, still sounds great and has a real user interface. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Antimon
Joined: Jan 18, 2005 Posts: 4145 Location: Sweden
Audio files: 371
G2 patch files: 100
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:42 am Post subject:
|
|
|
XpanderXT wrote: | My biggest issue with going computer/software right now is that issue of how the software companies are not writing cleaner, faster more compact code. |
This is a big issue for all software development. I wish there was some way to make (especially commercial) software developers concentrate on optimisation rather than bringing out additional functionality that they can charge more money for.
/Stefan _________________ Antimon's Window
@soundcloud @Flattr home - you can't explain music |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
blue hell
Site Admin
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 24079 Location: The Netherlands, Enschede
Audio files: 278
G2 patch files: 320
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Antimon wrote: | I wish there was some way to make (especially commercial) software developers concentrate on optimisation rather than bringing out additional functionality that they can charge more money for. |
I'm hoping this will happen as soon as hardware is not getting really much faster anymore, which might be ... right now _________________ Jan
also .. could someone please turn down the thermostat a bit.
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
XpanderXT
Joined: Oct 22, 2007 Posts: 137 Location: the flat universe
|
Posted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:38 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I think we wil be seeing the physical limitations of speed hitting pretty soon. It will be more multiprocessing, onboard RAM for faster access, etc that will give us some real speed boosts.
I'd like to see software companies race to getting the CPU load down the lowest instead of more features. Logic and Live are full of features I never use already. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
MyPasswordIs123456
Joined: Nov 05, 2007 Posts: 25 Location: account is locked
|
Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:37 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
I've been reading this thread and I totally agree daw are useless for composing, mainly because it relies so heavily on the mouse.
I've started composing music with trackers, and their mouse AND computer keyboard based editing is a breeze, it is easy to add, erase copy paste notes.
I have wished a daw with a tracker based interface for so long because trackers lack good wav recording features and because of that they don't work well with hardware synthesizers.
Another thing I hate about daw is that they can't display many tracks at once on the piano roll, while tracker can display 16+ tracks at once.
The lack of notation is a bugger to me too, I am used to see directly each note value (C5, F6 etc..) and volume. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
kcinsu
Joined: Aug 29, 2007 Posts: 115 Location: San Francisco
Audio files: 1
G2 patch files: 6
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:30 am Post subject:
|
|
|
This thread has been rather disheartening, to see people so dogmatically stating that the DAW is bad or useless for composing.
A good musician/composer is a good musician/composer. End of story.
It may not work for YOU, but that is not to say that it doesn't work perfectly for others.
The mouse is no different than a pencil on staff paper.
I personally do most of my composing with a mouse, entering every individual note by hand. I've done it for so long like this, I can not only do it quickly, but I can nudge and bump notes easily, to make expressive and musical performances.
If you don't like it... fine, but don't go stating things as fact. You just narrow your view and options this way. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004 Posts: 7678 Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 9:28 am Post subject:
|
|
|
kcinsu wrote: | This thread has been rather disheartening, to see people so dogmatically stating that the DAW is bad or useless for composing. |
I hope you didn't get that impression from me? That's not what I meant. I meant to express that I feel the DAW uses analogies that can be limiting in ways I don't see as productive for electronic music. I also meant it can subconsciously steer people and finally I think it's not very conductive as a realtime instrument. The scope of my original arguments was slightly different from what this topic's title implies. No more no less.
Quote: | It may not work for YOU, but that is not to say that it doesn't work perfectly for others.
|
Quite so, but DAW's have become so omnipresent that there are few alternatives, at least ready made ones, for people who don't like them. I feel this mono-culture in mainstream programs for electronic music is affecting the music that gets made.
Quote: | The mouse is no different than a pencil on staff paper.
|
I'm sorry but I beg to differ. The mouse works quite differently with respect to muscle memory and requires constant visual feedback which takes a very large amount of cognitive bandwith.
Quote: | I personally do most of my composing with a mouse, entering every individual note by hand. I've done it for so long like this, I can not only do it quickly, but I can nudge and bump notes easily, to make expressive and musical performances.
|
I'm happy to hear this. _________________ Kassen |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dewdrop_world
Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 858 Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:34 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Kassen wrote: | I feel this mono-culture in mainstream programs for electronic music is affecting the music that gets made. |
That isn't your imagination. Overreliance on loops or repetition is but one symptom.
A DAW is a tool. It does some things very well. It does other things execrably poorly. The problem with the DAW is that many people think it's the best or only tool, and they never even conceive of the "other things."
James _________________ ddw online: http://www.dewdrop-world.net
sc3 online: http://supercollider.sourceforge.net |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Stanley Pain
Joined: Sep 02, 2004 Posts: 782 Location: Reading, UK
Audio files: 10
G2 patch files: 35
|
Posted: Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:07 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
dewdrop_world wrote: | Kassen wrote: | I feel this mono-culture in mainstream programs for electronic music is affecting the music that gets made. |
That isn't your imagination. Overreliance on loops or repetition is but one symptom.
A DAW is a tool. It does some things very well. It does other things execrably poorly. The problem with the DAW is that many people think it's the best or only tool, and they never even conceive of the "other things."
James |
that sounds like "advice for clever children"...
i think that the was the question is not phrased as well as it could be (no offence!) or at least as well as it was intended.
i think you may as well say "a discussion of the pen as a compositional tool". without paper it isn't much use and i bet there are few composers from aphex twin to mozart who have found the piano useful as a compositional tune, but it's hardly the tool that you would primarily associate either of those compoers with.
if i only had an mpc to compose with, i'm sure i'd become frustrated. if i only had fruityloops on a laptop i'd become frustrated.
i think perhaps the topic title should have a subtitle along the lines of "where does the DAW fit into YOUR compositional process". it would be interesting to see who doesn't use one at all, but i'm willing to bet that most of us find them useful for something... as a sketchpad, a multi-tracker, an fx unit. who knows!
DAW's have their faults, but so does analogue. which is why we all went digital, right? _________________ there's no I in TEAM, so let's all act as individuals instead |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
dewdrop_world
Joined: Aug 28, 2006 Posts: 858 Location: Guangzhou, China
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2008 3:07 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Stanley Pain wrote: | i think perhaps the topic title should have a subtitle along the lines of "where does the DAW fit into YOUR compositional process". |
For me, DAWs play so little a role as to be practically nonexistent in my working methods. When I went to OSX (5 years ago), I didn't upgrade Digital Performer and since then have had no need to revisit that decision.
James _________________ ddw online: http://www.dewdrop-world.net
sc3 online: http://supercollider.sourceforge.net |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
David Westling
Joined: Jan 16, 2007 Posts: 41 Location: Chicago USA
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject:
DAW Subject description: The Jerry Mander perspective among other things |
|
|
For me there's a problem with the 60Hz AC flash. This is one of Jerry Mander's Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television, which he would say is a big part of why TV invites one to detach--it's not just the abominable material, it's in the nature of the technology. I did a two-day workshop a year ago to learn ProTools, and it was pretty impressive in its way I suppose, but I don't like looking at TV screens for the kind of time it takes to work on a piece. I do work pretty idiosyncratically. Tascam DA-38 exclusively these days, with hardware synthesizers (and some other stuff around my studio) providing all signal. No computers involved. I still think it's...1999. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Frank Luchs
Joined: Mar 16, 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Munich
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:04 am Post subject:
Realtime Instrument |
|
|
Kassen wrote: | [...I also meant it can subconsciously steer people and finally I think it's not very conductive as a realtime instrument.
Quite so, but DAW's have become so omnipresent that there are few alternatives, at least ready made ones, for people who don't like them. I feel this mono-culture in mainstream programs for electronic music is affecting the music that gets made.
|
Kassen, that so much is true!
Todays music more than ever is shaped by the tools the musicians/composers use. I believe that new forms of music soft/hardware can change this process and bring us new music which is less loop and snippets centered.
Currently I'm in the process of building my own realtime composing tool in hardware. Thus I'm very much interested in how all you composers work and what features you would need in a new form of hardware sequencer.
This gear should allow real time composing/arranging and utilize smart algorithms for the typical operations on musical material.
Frank _________________ step-sequencer
music |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004 Posts: 7678 Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:43 am Post subject:
|
|
|
My recommendations; these are based on my own experience writing my own real-time composition system but they are just my own ideas on this; obviously there are many other possible angles.
*By far, in your list, the real-time property is the big one. This doesn't just affect what operations will be open to you but also how the interface will or should work.
-take advantage of muscle memory (very big one, this)
-use a logical layout, only using shift functions where they make sense.
-be careful with graphical feedback and menus. Processing such information can be slow for users.
*keep it focussed.
-you can't be everything to everybody so make a good list what does and doesn't belong to your concept.
-this can mean making assumptions, that's ok, all such systems do but be aware of them and make them with care (this affects "smart" toolsets bigtime).
-keep a eye on what the instrument is and what the music is.
Finally; if you are writing a system for composition it will express what you hold to be a/the composition in this context. That's fine too, the same holds true for Logic/Sonar/etc but this means you should be consciously aware of this and preferably this should be tied to how you will "play" it and thus how the interface works.
I hope that helps at least a little, please keep me up to date about your progress! _________________ Kassen |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
kijjaz
Joined: Sep 20, 2004 Posts: 765 Location: bangkok, thailand
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 2:59 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I'm happy to see such an active discussing expressing different ideas and preferences and technics here.
One thing I want to add more after jamming in this thread is that:
Using a daw or any other tools to help with composition (and also arranging) reflects the "working style" of the composer.
(Surely, one composer might have many working styles thus using different tools and methods for each music.)
So, for a composer, one tool might not be efficient or effective enough for the particular music he/she's working on just because it doesn't support the particular working style.
So I don't see there's a necessity saying which way/tool is good, not good, or better..
but it should be "how" we use it. |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Frank Luchs
Joined: Mar 16, 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Munich
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:42 am Post subject:
Musical Sequencers |
|
|
kijjaz wrote: | ..
Using a daw or any other tools to help with composition (and also arranging) reflects the "working style" of the composer.
(Surely, one composer might have many working styles thus using different tools and methods for each music.)
So, for a composer, one tool might not be efficient or effective enough for the particular music he/she's working on just because it doesn't support the particular working style.
So I don't see there's a necessity saying which way/tool is good, not good, or better..
but it should be "how" we use it. |
Yes, that was my experience too, when talking with different composers.
In most cases the 'sequencer' (whatever product may be used) is the heart of the music-making process.
There are trackers, steppers and various big name sequencers like Cubase, Logic and Live. All have special options and people choose them just because they offer different approaches to the process of performing or recording music.
But I'm missing a machine, which is exclusively based on typical musical operations. For all those composers and arrangers which want to develop themes, harmonic progressions and song structures.
Where is the machine which can work on commands like these:
-I want to double this theme, but in the second repeat divide some notes and connect the melodic contour to the start note of the following chorus. And while you are at it, put a bit more velocity in.
- And how does that sound with dominant G instead of the C I recorded?
- Nice, but show me this section in melodic minor instead of major.
- Not bad, now double each melodic note which falls on a beat on another track. Nearly! Please only in the bar before that chorus.
Thank You Machine! _________________ step-sequencer
music |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004 Posts: 7678 Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:17 am Post subject:
Re: Musical Sequencers |
|
|
Frank Luchs wrote: |
Where is the machine which can work on commands like these:
(snip) |
http://toplap.org
I'm serious, commands like that would be very hard to do in hardware. Well, the exact ones you mention would be easy as would be any number of similar ones but amount of freedom your examples imply would be nearly impossible to reach with a finite set of options, a LISP interpreter or something similar on the other hand would be quite suitable for this kind of dialogue. Maybe something like Sonar's CAL would do? _________________ Kassen |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
kijjaz
Joined: Sep 20, 2004 Posts: 765 Location: bangkok, thailand
Audio files: 4
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:32 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Ahhh! I wanna start practicing LISP (wor Scheme) as a music compositional tool heheh..
What language is recommended? (especially with music synthesis or sound synthesis or midi support already)..
Nyquist is okay? |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Kassen
Janitor
Joined: Jul 06, 2004 Posts: 7678 Location: The Hague, NL
G2 patch files: 3
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Frank Luchs
Joined: Mar 16, 2007 Posts: 18 Location: Munich
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:34 am Post subject:
Das Model |
|
|
Kassen wrote: | Frank Luchs wrote: |
Where is the machine which can work on commands like these:
(snip) |
http://toplap.org
I'm serious, commands like that would be very hard to do in hardware. Well, the exact ones you mention would be easy as would be any number of similar ones but amount of freedom your examples imply would be nearly impossible to reach with a finite set of options.. |
Thanks for the great link to learn about how to splice different live animals together. (Live coding)
Actually a few of those metamusic functions would help a lot in the composing and arranging process. No need for Artificial Intelligence yet.
In my Z8 machine I try to reach this result by separating the basic aspects/parameters of musical notes. I'm not operating on midi messages but have pitch, gate, level, etc separated.
Let me give an example:
I have a simple motiv in D-minor in 8th notes:
Motiv A Bar 1 and 2
f-e-d-e-f-e-f-g | f-e-d-e-f ...
This is just a simple pendulum motiv based on the scale steps.
The Z8 does not work with absolute semitones but with indices on arbitrary pitch sets, simply called scales. Thus the sequence is just:
2-1-0-1-2-1-2-3 | 2-1-0-1-2 ...
Now we change the pitch-sets. We force the first bar to a pitch-set containing the chord notes of Bbmaj7/inversion1=d based(bb,d,f,a) and the second bar to A-minor/inversion1=c based.
Motiv B Bar 3 and 4
a-f-d-f-a-f-a-bb | a-e-c-e-a ...
Voila! We have the well known theme 'Das Model' from Kraftwerk (Kling Klang 1978) by just setting 2 numbers. The combinations here are endless.
Here is an MP3 file with Motiv A and B chained
http://www.synthware.com/tutorials/Z8/ModelMotiv.mp3 _________________ step-sequencer
music |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Ka5par
Joined: Apr 08, 2008 Posts: 14 Location: Estonia
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Coriolis
Joined: Apr 11, 2005 Posts: 616 Location: Stilling, Denmark
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:37 am Post subject:
|
|
|
I guess if one can read music and is used to pen and paper, then the DAW can certainly be your paper, and the mouse your pen.
But I can't read/write music. My way of composing is to pick up a guitar and do something with it - then record it to audio. I need that physical component - to feel the instrument and the way I move with it.
Which means, that programming a beat for me is like trying to play the drum kit through a keyhole.
When I got interested in electronic music, I started out with plugin synths, and basically got nothing done. Now I'm building a hardware modular synth, and even though it's currently very rudimentary, it's already tons of fun to play. I never had that with virtual synths that were ten times as advanced...
C _________________ Some Rubber Stamp Sound Effects - and other sound effects |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Antimon
Joined: Jan 18, 2005 Posts: 4145 Location: Sweden
Audio files: 371
G2 patch files: 100
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:23 am Post subject:
|
|
|
Coriolis wrote: | But I can't read/write music. My way of composing is to pick up a guitar and do something with it - then record it to audio. I need that physical component - to feel the instrument and the way I move with it.
Which means, that programming a beat for me is like trying to play the drum kit through a keyhole.
|
I'm a bit like that too, but I feel that with practice maybe I could be able to work more fluently with compositions in a DAW or in some notation, without needing to hear everything all the time. Are compositional techniques in DAWs taught in courses available for the general public? Are there online courses?
/Stefan _________________ Antimon's Window
@soundcloud @Flattr home - you can't explain music |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
Jyoti
Joined: Mar 07, 2008 Posts: 618 Location: Derby, UK
Audio files: 3
|
Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject:
|
|
|
Coriolis wrote: | My way of composing is to pick up a guitar and do something with it - then record it to audio. I need that physical component - to feel the instrument and the way I move with it. |
Yep. Same here. I always compose on guitar, piano, synth, singing a melody or other instruments and then use the DAW as an arranger and fancy tape machine.
Occasionally, I've been mucking about with sequences in a DAW and discovered a nice riff by accident but that's very rare. The main electronic aid I use in composition is this:
A little Sony memory stick voice recorder. Instant record, never gets in the way of inspiration, terrible, terrible sound quality. For the music I make, which is very simple pop, I don't want to be weighed down in the morass of options firing up any modern DAW presents. By the time they let you record anything, you can't be arsed and you've forgotten what you wanted to say. _________________ My music: here! |
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|