- Joined
- Jan 3, 2010
- Messages
- 359
hello, i was very interested in making some soundtracks, do you have a reference what application i should use ?
There's always garageband
-Logic (Mac only)
-Pro Tools
If you get a quality keyboard you can do it. (I believe keyboards are alot better than fully computrised sounds as it has a muscian to play it(Im one of the stupid believers that you cant have computer instruments)So it would sound better.
Tbh all music software suks they only should be used to check how its basic sound is. What you need to do is compose some scores make sure it all sounds good , then if your lucky hopefully an ochestra or Band might decide to try playing it. As you there are band / ochestra librarys you can put the score on
Yeh that is an issue and i doubt there is many bands knocking around, but you can just buy a keyboard and your set to be honest. If you get a quality keyboard you can do it. (I believe keyboards are alot better than fully computrised sounds as it has a muscian to play it(Im one of the stupid believers that you cant have computer instruments)So it would sound better. 300+ still doesnt get much quality i think the problem with composing on software is that you can never play it back properly as it always sounds wrong if you know what i mean.
Basically if you use software the intention it that the recorded sounds are then played in a order, while a continous (A song played fully and intentionally instead of unintentionall sounds being used which you compose with)
I wasnt suggesting anything highquallity just a decent keyboard and some basic recording (which you can get free) software >.<
I'm inclined to believe you're trolling with that claim. If you think a Keyboard doesn't use computer-generated sounds for instruments, then you probably shouldn't be posting in this thread.
And i believe your being deliberatly stupid and not reading the full post. what i meant was that if a person plays a keyboard there are more than just 1 variable and on top of all this its pLayed by A Human There emotion goes into the song. If i sat there on a desktop, and started writing out music it would be Input Output No variation, when playing something you play it in your style Not in regulation Input output> So obviously there is a diffrence, and im saying nothing beats a Musician playing An instrument yes Keyboards create sounds which are generated by a computer, But playing it is better than Typing it in. Or recording the keyboard (best option) Or if avaiable A band/ochestra (Highly unlikely) as it adds to the effect as there is mutiple Variables not a single variable.
And i believe your being deliberatly stupid and not reading the full post. what i meant was that if a person plays a keyboard there are more than just 1 variable and on top of all this its pLayed by A Human There emotion goes into the song. If i sat there on a desktop, and started writing out music it would be Input Output No variation, when playing something you play it in your style Not in regulation Input output> So obviously there is a diffrence, and im saying nothing beats a Musician playing An instrument yes Keyboards create sounds which are generated by a computer, But playing it is better than Typing it in. Or recording the keyboard (best option) Or if avaiable A band/ochestra (Highly unlikely) as it adds to the effect as there is mutiple Variables not a single variable.
Regardless using sequencing doesn't require skill in the use of a piano to create presentable music anyway
Regardless a live ochestra always will sound better than a digitalised one.
Yes Digitalised music is great but 100% digitalised music is very bland.
Even with dynamics it doesnt have the character which muscians put into the music.
Otherwise if it was so much better there would be no such thing as an ochestra anymore. Everyone would revert to only technology because its cheaper and more efficiant in the long run.
Secondly a keyboard was only an exmaple, the diffrence between a keyboard and a Daw is that it has A PLAYER not a INPUTTER,
you could tell a computer to write the music itself using script.
You cant tell a player to play in an exact way, without it diffrening slightly. There is always the Variables. A computer you tell to do this that they do it. musician add a bit extra to it they add there character to it. . . . Conducters conduct each in there own way which makes it more entertaining. This is also how it improves music as every time you hear it it is played differantly. WIth digitalised its played the same over n over again. There is no variation.
Its because they let the player choose or the conducter if its a band. Ever wonder why songs have tempos marked X-X.
One no decent ochestra sound better than decent digital fact is well known live is better than recorded or digital. Obviously you dont get out much.
2 no i have listened to 100% digital music its very bland compared to real music.
To symphasise something takes as much time as to compose something. But anyone can Symphasise as long as they know the software. Not every can compose a masterpiece So it makes no odds to the composer. You speed as you progress with that software.
3 Do my research i have done my research and im sorry but if you tell the computer to play something it play something so it has a single Line it doesnt have the variabillity of a human being or a collection. If say a conductor was in a hppy mood he might speed up the tempo of the music and ambiance and character into the piece. I dont see that that is possible with digitalised music. Computers dont have free thought For with there slaves.
5 The diffrence besides asthetics is one takes skill the other anyone can do. One you add the character the other is bland inputting it doesnt have the same variabillity. 1 You can play it diffrerantly every time you input it with diffrent speeds. As i said this was 2nd best. Keyboard require a player computers do not. i already pointed out you can just script a computer to input it for you. You can not script a computer to play a keyboard.
And no its not terrible or impossible obviously you have very little insight.
Its something called composing the Piece then telling the computer to put it onto paper. Its as simple as Abc everything you do in A dAW is adding inputs into the software. You can just make a script send info to the daw iwth these inputs. Research more
Composers never get it right the player improves it over time.
No they can add a range because it makes it more freely playable for the player it allows a greater variation. Anyhow who cares no one plays exactly to a tempo.
I do not care for your credentials they prove nothing. You could have the cleverest man on earth who topped all Iq charts in a subject and still be stupid. There is no need to point them out. It does not prove your case anymore than dispprove it.
Also it is already in music theory that there are certain chords which go with certain chords. And Keys which pair with other keys. Usually the Dominant. Sorry to say but effecitvaly they can now write a song by itself probably as usual including the most commonly used chords ever. Which is frankly irritating. Music is like writing The little bits make the song special the rest is a repeat. All stories are depicted the way you tell them no plot.
So effecitavly a computer could create a piece of music through using Musical Theory and having a randomly selected path which follows all the correct rules.
ALthough even you defend the corner that its impossible. So even you cant admit a computer can replace your job. If that is true then computers cant replace mucicians jobs. And real live music is better at every turn even with it hiccups the finish product of the old composing methods is 10x that of modern music. Just listen to todays music The themes are just repeat repeat repeat.
So it is simple for a computer to make a decent song (Most used chords 1, 4, 5)
But humans are better composers than computers because they make the choices better which path to go down and they have more inventiveness.
Just like mucisians are better than Computers are playing an instrument. There is no denying it. So therefore a live sound = better than a recorded or digital sound. Live ochestra is better than digital ochestra. Digital ochestra comes from live ochestra is a refined echo. Nothing like the real thing
One no decent ochestra sound better than decent digital fact is well known live is better than recorded or digital. Obviously you dont get out much.
2 no i have listened to 100% digital music its very bland compared to real music.
To symphasise something takes as much time as to compose something. But anyone can Symphasise as long as they know the software. Not every can compose a masterpiece So it makes no odds to the composer. You speed as you progress with that software.
i have done my research and im sorry but if you tell the computer to play something it play something so it has a single Line it doesnt have the variabillity of a human being or a collection.
If say a conductor was in a hppy mood he might speed up the tempo of the music and ambiance and character into the piece. I dont see that that is possible with digitalised music. Computers dont have free thought For with there slaves.
5 The diffrence besides asthetics is one takes skill the other anyone can do.
One you add the character the other is bland inputting it doesnt have the same variabillity. 1 You can play it diffrerantly every time you input it with diffrent speeds. As i said this was 2nd best. Keyboard require a player computers do not.
i already pointed out you can just script a computer to input it for you. You can not script a computer to play a keyboard.
And no its not terrible or impossible obviously you have very little insight.
Its something called composing the Piece then telling the computer to put it onto paper. Its as simple as Abc everything you do in A dAW is adding inputs into the software. You can just make a script send info to the daw iwth these inputs. Research more
Composers never get it right the player improves it over time.
No they can add a range because it makes it more freely playable for the player it allows a greater variation.
Anyhow who cares no one plays exactly to a tempo.
I do not care for your credentials they prove nothing.
You could have the cleverest man on earth who topped all Iq charts in a subject and still be stupid.
Also it is already in music theory that there are certain chords which go with certain chords. And Keys which pair with other keys. Usually the Dominant. Sorry to say but effecitvaly they can now write a song by itself probably as usual including the most commonly used chords ever. Which is frankly irritating. Music is like writing The little bits make the song special the rest is a repeat. All stories are depicted the way you tell them no plot.
So effecitavly a computer could create a piece of music through using Musical Theory and having a randomly selected path which follows all the correct rules.
ALthough even you defend the corner that its impossible. So even you cant admit a computer can replace your job. If that is true then computers cant replace mucicians jobs. And real live music is better at every turn even with it hiccups the finish product of the old composing methods is 10x that of modern music. Just listen to todays music The themes are just repeat repeat repeat.
So it is simple for a computer to make a decent song (Most used chords 1, 4, 5)
But humans are better composers than computers because they make the choices better which path to go down and they have more inventiveness.
Just like mucisians are better than Computers are playing an instrument. There is no denying it. So therefore a live sound = better than a recorded or digital sound. Live ochestra is better than digital ochestra. Digital ochestra comes from live ochestra is a refined echo. Nothing like the real thing
6 He got lucky, Same reason why is any muscician famous. Why is justin beiber famous or Miley cyrus of frankly disgracefull singers like that. Its because they get lucky. There are millions of Mucisians and composers in the world. Thousands of them can play there instrument well. Only a few hundred are lucky enougth to be famous.
Alkonis have you ever been to a live ochestra. It sounds amazing, hearing a live ochestra with all its acoustics from say maybe a great hall or building really boosts the mesmorising feeling it gives off. Im restating it because you dont listen. Music which are produced by speakers and not by instruments are just echos of the real music.
2. I have listened to great works of digital music, i especially like The score to Cloudy with a chance of meatballs by Michael mackinburg. But overall i still prefer ochestras like Two steps from hell and Immediate choir and ochestra. They are a hynrid mostly its an ochestra but they also include some digital sounds. Hybrid is the best way to go.
I have already admitted that digital music has its up turns but fullly 100% digital music is not as good as partially.
3. I did read what you said and discounted it. Synthesizing is just another way of making it sound how you want it to be. And not how its meant to be. Also no its true as long as you learn a software you can create huge scores without knowing much theory. There are people out their who make music without knowing the first thing about music. They just fill in bars and make it sound good as they learn the softwre. Take logic for example like most softwares it has a choice. For real composer who learn the theory there are SCORES which you can create. FOr the people who have no idea how to read music it compensates with a Keyaboard onlook and a Bar system for lengths. So as long as you can read a keyboard (Via a few searches on internet) you know what notes you ar eputting in and as you input them you can here it. So they can fine tune there music without having no anything about mUsic but only know the software.
4 Again no there is already a computerised keyboard or a Pianola which creates its own music based of information fed into it. Therefor it is CREATING music which is ORIGINAL through alot of script. Basically its an Ai or adaptive software which allows to create original works using the basis of music theory. Its been proven.
5. Actually hes quite a good conductor. Hes just adding flare to the piece. Some pieces you can play slightly slower some you can play faster depending on the mood of the crowd. That is how music evolves once released and you get new version of it, people can improve on other peoples compositions you know. I.e The old Christmas tunes like Jingle bells. HOw many versions do you know. I myself know about 4. Take a look around it evolved.
6 He got lucky, Same reason why is any muscician famous. Why is justin beiber famous or Miley cyrus of frankly disgracefull singers like that. Its because they get lucky. There are millions of Mucisians and composers in the world. Thousands of them can play there instrument well. Only a few hundred are lucky enougth to be famous.
9. Bach didnt use a computer though did he so he did composing the long way round. Firstly he would write a piece out then he would make a band/ochestra play it. He would see how its sounds then change it to suit so it got better. You can never tell somoen a piece is perfect like you can never tell somone they have nothing to learn. Things can always be improved. Anyway Frankly bach was just a shadow under Mozart much stronger compositions. (But thats a debate for another day)
10. No you shouldnt get screemed at not unless your going completly of the mark and playing something a 300 Bpm song at like 1 bpm (slight exageration there)
How you play the piece is entirely up to the mucisian. (Or the conductor if its a band or ochestra if so you follow the Conductors choice of tempo).
Hmm yeh wait you said false then proved me right. IQ Charts thus i am trying to refer to the Intelligence quota system and marking scheme. A chart is to refer the relation of peoples iq. I am also reffering to something like Mensa who record your i.q after you take a test. BY saying this as charts i am reffering to it being in more than 1 test and this could also include general knowledge and geography to religion etc subjects. Common sense is not intelligence. You can know Algebra that is intelligence but have no common sense and walk into a door. They are two very diffrent things.
13. No i doubt anyone Snthesizer could make a Brass band which would naturally sound better than a live concert with Black Dyke.
14. Yes they can sound as good as recordings, but it still doesnt have the same feel to it.
No im saying that there are the lucky ones who are rubbish and the lucky ones Who ARe GOod. You can have a great composer with no recognition. its not a bold claim. Its all dependant. You can also have a bad composer with lots of recognition. Its the same with everything else requiring talent. Its all to do with media. Trust me its not a bold claim it is easily backed up which i have with examples. I can support my arguments which i have. Its a fact of life. Its show bus nothing else about it.