Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:01 pm
er ..........eh?TROOPA wrote:o that is shiizacopgh,u need?'
Dubstepforum.com
worldwide dubstep community
https://www.dubstepforum.com/forum/
wot is the best music software and why
Page 2 of 4
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:06 pm
the knowhow mate, just really wanting to make good music simply isnt enoughTROOPA wrote:im pulling my hair out wot is it i need ?
stressing over what you "should or shouldnt have" is just going to waste your time.
big names have been made through every major music making program out there, so just find one you really like and go with it.
its not a descion someone else can make for you
Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:37 pm
skillTROOPA wrote: wot is it i need ?
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:01 am
I, Squarepusher, hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: acoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.
This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.
A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".
I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.
The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new clichés are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.
Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.
"real stand-out electronic artists do more by hand than you might think.
Meanwhile, there's an industry which sustains itself by selling novel technology that promises to make consumers sound like the big names. But it doesn't, because the big names aren't dependent on novel technology as such. Instead, they have an attitude, patience, and love for the process of sculpting glitchy beats, or writing cantatas, or crafting lyrics. We buy things that promise to glitch things up for us, because we're too scared or impatient or distractible to do the work of chopping things up by hand. The artists who succeed are the artists who just love that work. They love difficult exploration.
It's as if the iconic artists open up new musical territory, exploring on foot with very little equipment; then the music tech industry makes maps of the territory, produces vehicles to ferry consumers around it, sells GPS systems for the vehicles...
But the maps are inaccurate, and they guide consumers round the territory in a certain way - which isn't the same route the explorers took back in the day".
these thoughts on tools for making music carry alot of weight for me in regards to making choices about what you use for your sound...which is why i, and many others prefer a customizable programming environment such as Reaktor where the user is able to create simple instruments for making their tunes as opposed to using the next big software package or VST...
hopefully some of the above helps others
This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.
A naive notion of creativity seems compromised if we consider that a given musical piece was at least partially dictated by the tools of its realisation. Although I emphasise that never can a musician escape the use of some sort of musical tool, there is nevertheless a choice which is always made, unwittingly or otherwise. We can choose whether to understand what rules the tool imposes on our work, or we can disregard them and leave the manufacturers as "sleeping partners".
I suggest we can enhance creative potential by a critical awareness of the modes of operation of these tools. Thus, I urge an unmasking of these black boxes of the contemporary musical landscape. Circuit bending can be one way - analysing and modifying electronic circuitry. Another is to understand the ways in which musical data is encoded and modified by currently ubiquitous digital means. In addition, various software platforms now exist which, with varying levels of flexibilty, allow users to generate their own instruments.
The modern musician is subject to a barrage of persuasion from manufacturers of music technology. The general implication is that buying new tools leads to being able to make new and exciting music. While it is true that certain degrees of freedom are added by new equipment, it is not the case that this entails wholesale musical innovation. What seems more likely is that new clichés are generated by users unanalytically being forced into certain actions by the achitecture of the machine. For me it is parallel, if not synonymous with a dogmatic consumer mentality that seems to hold that our lives are always improved by possessions.
Imagine the conception of structural rules to do with electric guitars before and after Jimi Hendrix. An instrument is always open to re-definition. Thus I encourage anybody remotely interested in making music to boldly investigate exactly what the rules are to which you, as a modern musician, are subject. Only thus can you have a hope in bending and ultimately rewriting them.
"real stand-out electronic artists do more by hand than you might think.
Meanwhile, there's an industry which sustains itself by selling novel technology that promises to make consumers sound like the big names. But it doesn't, because the big names aren't dependent on novel technology as such. Instead, they have an attitude, patience, and love for the process of sculpting glitchy beats, or writing cantatas, or crafting lyrics. We buy things that promise to glitch things up for us, because we're too scared or impatient or distractible to do the work of chopping things up by hand. The artists who succeed are the artists who just love that work. They love difficult exploration.
It's as if the iconic artists open up new musical territory, exploring on foot with very little equipment; then the music tech industry makes maps of the territory, produces vehicles to ferry consumers around it, sells GPS systems for the vehicles...
But the maps are inaccurate, and they guide consumers round the territory in a certain way - which isn't the same route the explorers took back in the day".
these thoughts on tools for making music carry alot of weight for me in regards to making choices about what you use for your sound...which is why i, and many others prefer a customizable programming environment such as Reaktor where the user is able to create simple instruments for making their tunes as opposed to using the next big software package or VST...
hopefully some of the above helps others
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:09 am
holy smokesPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 12:20 am
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 1:30 am
You need patience!. Use whatever you feel most comfortable using. Learn your software inside and out. Some people swear by some sequencers and its just down to personal taste. (although i think reason needs to work on its audio engine, sounds flat and lifeless). I'm a follower of logic, if you have a mac then i cant recommend it enough. I feel it gives me everything i need, and want.TROOPA wrote:i am confused if it dosent mater what software your using then y is it that people are so up on the fact that' o that is shiizacopgh,u need?' i jus want to know that i can be on a level that i know the everyone who makes savage tunes is and not feel that my software is not packing the goods? i love fl studio i find it fast and easier to work with but when ever i try and find a amazing beat that some master has constructed on it,it dos'nt sound as good as the rest,,,im pulling my hair out wot is it i need ?
Just dabble in as much software as you can! Also making other sort of music can influence you choice. Ie Protools for recording bands etc... or logic/FL/Cubase/Ableton for sequencing.
Hope I helped fellow bass lover
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:21 am
double post
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:17 am
You need practice. A lot of practice.
TROOPA wrote:then y is it that people are so up on the fact that' o that is shiizacopgh,u need?'
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:28 am
Your not doing yourself any favours here boss. We're not asking for a dissertation on usage of the english language but something beyond the early learning years of a dyslexic infant wouldnt be too hard to achieve would it?TROOPA wrote:i am confused if it dosent mater what software your using then y is it that people are so up on the fact that' o that is shiizacopgh,u need?' i jus want to know that i can be on a level that i know the everyone who makes savage tunes is and not feel that my software is not packing the goods? i love fl studio i find it fast and easier to work with but when ever i try and find a amazing beat that some master has constructed on it,it dos'nt sound as good as the rest,,,im pulling my hair out wot is it i need ?
Yes, get Reason. Its fucking amazing!
Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:37 am
Microsoft Paint
Re:
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:06 pm
spencertron wrote:I, Squarepusher, hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: acoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.
This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.
...
wow great squarepusher writing
Re: wot is the best music software and why
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:20 pm
EDIT: Ugh, too stoned.
Re: Re:
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 2:24 pm
xophelorak wrote:spencertron wrote:I, Squarepusher, hold the view that the influence of the structural aspect of music making is in general underestimated. By structural aspect, I refer to the machinery of music making eg: acoustic and electric instruments, computers, electronic processing devices etc. Use of a musical machine is obviously accompanied by some level of insight into its construction, operation and capabilities. It is common for a musician to have an awareness of harmonic and stylistic rules which may be observed or otherwise. It seems less common to be critically aware of the structural limitations. This structural limitation is inevitable; an analogy might be to try to talk without the use of a mouth.
This point has a particular pertinence in our present era where so many pre- fabricated electronic devices populate the landscape of contemporary music making. These devices generate ouput according to input combined with mathematically defined rules of transformation, implemented electronically. These rules thus have a direct effect on any musical activity mediated by a given machine. Of course, this is why the machine is employed - to modify sound, generate sound etc. Yet this triviality seems somewhat more significant if one considers that the manufacturers of electronic instruments are thus having a considerable influence on modern music. Indirectly, software programmers and hardware designers are taking part.
...
wow great squarepusher writing
definitely, I didn't think I'd find anything like that in here!
Re: wot is the best music software and why
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:04 pm
EDIT: Ahh replied having read the first page. Ignore me
EDIT2: That Squarepusher stuff is immense!
EDIT2: That Squarepusher stuff is immense!
Re: wot is the best music software and why
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:37 pm
Cheers Spencertron (and to a lesser extent OP for creating a reason for him to post it) that was a sick little article, where was it from?
And OP, the thing thats making your productions sound not up to scratch is a combination of your lack of experience and your high expectations (which is good!) and NOT the fault of fruity loops, it might get ragged a bit but fruity is a GOOD program written by some very clever people.
And OP, the thing thats making your productions sound not up to scratch is a combination of your lack of experience and your high expectations (which is good!) and NOT the fault of fruity loops, it might get ragged a bit but fruity is a GOOD program written by some very clever people.
Re: wot is the best music software and why
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 3:51 pm
@OP: It seems you already like FL Studio. I've been using it for a long time and have been convinced that, at the moment, there is absolutely no need to relearn how to do everything I already no how to do (not a ton mind you) in another more expensive software program. I'd say stick with FL Studio while you are learning THE BASICS (a good place to start) and if you feel like you want to move on to something else later you can make that decision.
Switching to another DAW really, really probably isn't going to make your songs sound any better. Fortunately, there are no short cuts to becoming a good artist in any medium, unless you are simply a born genius.
Switching to another DAW really, really probably isn't going to make your songs sound any better. Fortunately, there are no short cuts to becoming a good artist in any medium, unless you are simply a born genius.
Re: wot is the best music software and why
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:06 pm
yo dawg we heard you like to make beatz so we put some beatz in yo beat software so you can make beatz while makin dem beatz!
and yo I use fl studio too lol. While personally I like ableton better, Fl does a decent job with loop based music. Just get a good drum sample pack and pick up a good synth (like sylenth) and you'll be set. No software is gonna make you sound better. period.
and yo I use fl studio too lol. While personally I like ableton better, Fl does a decent job with loop based music. Just get a good drum sample pack and pick up a good synth (like sylenth) and you'll be set. No software is gonna make you sound better. period.
Re: wot is the best music software and why
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 4:42 pm
I got used to working with Reason. After a while I tried a Cubase trial and I noticed it's entirely different, I couldn't even
make a synth play 1 note or get a seq with a piano roll going... Reason is the only one that alway makes perfect sense to me.
Just try a few and go with the one that fits your workflow.
make a synth play 1 note or get a seq with a piano roll going... Reason is the only one that alway makes perfect sense to me.
Just try a few and go with the one that fits your workflow.
Re: wot is the best music software and why
Posted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 5:45 pm
I used Reason, been using Ableton a lot more now tho. I love both, gonna try and get rewire set up, I hear good things 