music creating application ?

[DeftheLynn]

hello, i was very interested in making some soundtracks, do you have a reference what application i should use ?

 

[Raven0]

There's always garageband

But i've never made music myself so I don't know which is prefferable ^-^

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Depends on how much money you're willing to spend really

There's always garageband

You need a Mac for that, also if he has a Mac then he already has that.


When It comes to professional Music making I know the 2 main programs used are:
-Logic (Mac only)
-Pro Tools

I've never used Logic, but from what I've heard it's more based on virtual instruments while Pro Tools is more based on recording (I use Pro Tools, though I don't record as my comp is old and gets bad recording quality from direct input).

Now what I know most non-professional/signed musicians like on youtube and such use is FL Studio.

 

[DeftheLynn]

okay, how about sonar ?, my friends used that

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Never used it myself, worth a try I guess

 

[ZippeR]

And Cubase. But if you can try, agree with this

-Logic (Mac only)
-Pro Tools

 

[chilla_killa]

If you just want something like piano/organ/hapishord music, I recommend Finale Notepad, a note writing program.

 

[dab]

As stated above, Fruity Loops is a very good free alternative to the bought programs. The trial can't save project files, but that doesn't matter as you can save parts of your musical piece and retrieve it again afterwards.

 

[Geazergimli2]

Uhh..... Fruity loops?

EDIT: whoops saw message above sorry? but yes Fruity Loops is pretty good when it comes to making certain kinds of music... but not very much is orchestrated songs

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Get some good VSI's and FL will work for orchestrated music too
Then again you have to find good ones, I'm not sure if there's any high quality free ones (never looked)

 

[Alkonis]

Sorry if I'm late.

In order to write soundtracks, you need good samples (ie, Garritan Personal Orchestral, EWQLSO) and a Digital Audio Workshop (DAW) like Sonar, Cubase, or FL studio.

If you don't have a DAW, you won't be able to get the most out of your samples. If you don't have good samples, your compositions will sound terrible. But even if you have great samples, GPO and EWQLSO don't play themselves; it takes a lot of work to write something and have it sound good.

In other words, don't use these:

-Finale
-Sibelius
-NoteWorthy
-GarageBand
-any program whose primary function is notation.

They just don't have the functionality, even though some versions of Sibelius and Finale ship with GPO.

I use GPO4 and Sonar 7, though if I had to redo things I would probably get Cubase instead of Sonar. You can buy student versions of Sonar for a discount; I bought an older version with student discount and got some nifty bonuses like the Studio Instruments strings sections, which I composed with for about two years or so. Unfortunately, even with discounts like that, Sonar is expensive. FL Studio is cheaper (and Cubase is super-expensive), but I'm not sure how it measures up.

You can get GPO4 for $149 right now. It sounds pretty good, if you're willing to work with it. If you want to sound like professionals, you might have to dish out a bunch of money; Vienna Symphonic Library costs around $3000. GPO is cheap for what you get.

...still seems expensive, but it's much cheaper now than back in the days when you had to have four PCs with GigaStudio, each loading a different orchestral section, then you had to buy a reverb tool, etc., and in the end a production studio cost like $18,000 or something crazy like that.

 

[Brambleclaw]

Sorry have to say Sibelius is just a program used for making your scores neat when your write them . (Overpriced trash). Instead of writing them by hand. Sibelius is not that good. Garage band isnt that good either.
Proffesonal talls for making music are
Cubase
Fruity loops (Already mentioned)
For scoring use MUScore (Muse score nice program and its free)
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

I think all these softwares mentioned have been said
Also logic isnt that good either, its just generally disspointing, probs better for using loops and making techno and stuff but the instrument choice is low the scoring system is bad and the interface is standard

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Seeing as Garageband is free to make users I'd consider that very good as compared to the $300+ you'll be paying for a quality DAW. I doubt someone who's just interested is at the level requiring a full orchestra to perform their scores. Also note the other problems with getting an orchestra to perform including recording it with a presentable quality.

 

[Brambleclaw]

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)
What im trying to say is that to create The digital instruments they recorded alot of sounds yes? Well i think if i just recorded somone shouting a diffrent pitches and put it together in a tune it would sound worse than if that person shouted the tune continously with the intention of the tune. So if you use midi that may work.
Also you dont always have to Fawk out for quality Daw you can just use the trials and keep switiching although it is a hassle, or free software

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

No one needs something really high quality at the start anyway, when you're a professional musician you'll have the time/resources to be that much of a perfectionist.

 

[Brambleclaw]

I wasnt suggesting anything highquallity just a decent keyboard and some basic recording (which you can get free) software >.<

 

[Jassu]

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.

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.

 

[Alkonis]

...guys, I've been composing and synthesizing for four years. Trust me on this. You keep saying "get cheap/free stuff," but if all you have is really cheap sounds and programs, your compositions will sound bad and you won't have any motivation to get 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

Hello? Have you played Warcraft III? Oblivion? Listened to a film score? You'd be surprised at how much of music is digitized. Look up the music of Jeremy Soule. His fake orchestra sounds better than most real orchestras I've heard.

If you honestly don't believe in digitized instruments, you're either stupid or ignorant. I think it's ignorance, because most people honestly don't know how much samplers have developed. But please, don't go around telling people things that you haven't researched.

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 use a MIDI controller (M-Audio Oxygen 49) when I compose to do expression and velocity. The rest of them I hand-draw. It's time-consuming, but it's really not that hard.

You can't expect MIDI samples to play themselves. No MIDI sample, no matter how good, will play a melody the way you want to it to be played unless you modify the dynamics, expression, and velocity of the sample to suit it. That's why notation programs that package GPO probably aren't your best bet.

I wasnt suggesting anything highquallity just a decent keyboard and some basic recording (which you can get free) software >.<

Again, you will have limited functionality. At bare minimum, if you want to sound decent at all, you need a velocity-sensitive keyboard, and that costs money. You also need tools to add reverb or your sounds won't have any depth.

Plus: what do you think a keyboard is? A keyboard is nothing but a sampler, as Jassu said. It takes prerecorded sounds and plays them when you touch the keys. That's exactly what working in a DAW is.



To prove my point, I'm starting a thread with a composition I've been working on for a few days using Sonar HS 7 and samples from Garritan Personal Orchestra 4. Together, both of those cost around $300, and they're not perfect, but they sound good enough for me until I start making oodles of cash to buy VSL or EQLSOG. (If you want examples of extremely high-quality digitized pieces, look at Jeremy Soule's work.)

ETA: thread is here.

 

[Brambleclaw]

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.

 

[Alkonis]

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.

You think all synthesizers do is put notes on the page? You didn't read any of my post, did you?

If you looked at one of my Sonar projects, you'd see that almost every single note has dynamics (expression) to it and a specific velocity (note attack). Synthesizing isn't about writing notes; it's about playing them.

 

[Jassu]

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.

Wow, you're claiming I'm being deliberately stupid? A keyboard is just a synthesizer with different hardware. It's a essentially just a different type of cpmputer with similar software to something like GPO. The ignorance in your posts shows you do not understand this, and I'm not sure if you're receptive enough to do so.

If anything, you have far more control on computer synthesizing software than you do on a keyboard. I'm going to ask you to stop posting, because all you're doing is posting inaccurate information and causing unnecessary issues. It's even worse if the OP decides to listen to anything you've posted, because not only will Alkonis have wasted his time trying to give out advice, but the OP's work will turn out poorly, which is precisely the opposite of what anyone is trying to do here. Ignorance is not auspicious.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

Regardless using sequencing doesn't require skill in the use of a piano to create presentable music anyway

 

[Alkonis]

Regardless using sequencing doesn't require skill in the use of a piano to create presentable music anyway

It depends on the type of music you're creating, and on how much of a perfectionist you are. I have to record most of my keyboard/timpani/harp parts live because otherwise I'm not sure what to do with the velocity of each note, i.e., should I emphasize this note or that one, and by how much? (That's no joke when you have 100 notes and you have to set velocities for each one of them.) It's a lot easier if you just play the line and let your natural musicianship take over.

But for most things, keyboard skill isn't a requirement, but it can help you a lot, especially if you have a good sound card (for complicated reasons). I really wish I'd done more piano in my younger years.

 

[Brambleclaw]

Regardless a live ochestra always will sound better than a digitalised one . Ever heard of Two steps from hell or Immediate choir and Ochestra. 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. Ever wonder why songs have tempos marked X-X. Its because they let the player choose or the conducter if its a band. 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.

 

[Alkonis]

Regardless a live ochestra always will sound better than a digitalised one.

Completely false. The London Philharmonic will sound better than most digital compositions, but all orchestras?

Yes Digitalised music is great but 100% digitalised music is very bland.

Completely false. You're too stubborn to listen to quality digital music, or you would know otherwise.

Even with dynamics it doesnt have the character which muscians put into the music.

More believable, but still false. Again, do your research.

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.

Completely false. It's a LOT more work to synthesize something than it is just to compose it and have an orchestra play it. A lot of composers just compose, and they don't have the time or energy to synthesize everything. Most of the time I spend in my DAW is used adjusting velocities, expression, articulation, dynamics, and reverb, or pondering questions such as which solo violin I want to use here, what brand of piano or harp should go there, or which of my four different horns should I use to play this one line?

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 input keystrokes into a keyboard when you play it. I'm inputting keystrokes into my DAW with my mouse. What's the difference, besides aesthetics?

you could tell a computer to write the music itself using script.

Terrible, impossible idea. The best you could do well is four-part harmony, and those are a dime a dozen in the music world. Every student of music theory has probably written twenty chorales that way, but we don't refer to them as machines.

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.

I am professional musician, attending a highly-selective residential school of the arts for trumpet performance, regularly placing in both all-state bands, and studying with a college professor who will do a clinic with Vizzutti next year. After seven years of intensive study, I believe I understand musicianship fairly well.

The composer hears a melody *one* way. Players will play it a billion different ways, but it's probably not quite what the composer had in mind. Synthesizing lets composers have complete control over the way everything sounds, instead of having to work with things like the stubbornness and limitations of live musicians.

Again, it's hard work. Way harder than just writing a score and handing it off. But it's cheaper and it does give you more control, and if you have good samples, most people will mistake it for the real thing.

Its because they let the player choose or the conducter if its a band. Ever wonder why songs have tempos marked X-X.

Deciding one single tempo for a piece is not always easy. For example, the march in Petite Piece Conertante can be played at relatively any tempo and still sound good. They don't add the ranges because they expect everyone to take it at the tempo of their choice, but because the piece is equally viable across certain range of tempos.

 

[Brambleclaw]

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

 

[Jassu]

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

It's amusing how the more you post, the bigger a tool you make yourself appear.

It's quite clear that you refuse to be receptive to other ideas on this topic. To that I say: enjoy your close-minded lifestyle and compositions, because I don't see you going very far with either.

 

[Alkonis]

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.

Restating your original claim along with an argumentum ad hominem. Not getting you very far.

2 no i have listened to 100% digital music its very bland compared to real music.

You haven't listened to any good digital music then. Listen to First Light or Waterfall or the Guild Wars theme by Jeremy Soule.

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.

Thanks for admitting that you ignored everything I wrote about synthesizing versus composing.

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.

Again, telling me that you've ignored what I've said about a human being adding said "variability." It's always a human making the music, either by synthesis or performance. You don't say that musicians cheat by using instruments, do you?

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.

Then that conductor is terrible and should get off the stage. You *never* interfere with what the composer tells you to do, no matter how you feel, unless there is an obvious misprint.

5 The diffrence besides asthetics is one takes skill the other anyone can do.

If anyone can synthesize, why is Jeremy Soule so famous?

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.

Thanks for ignoring what I said about people having to modify samples with expression and articulation to make them sound good.

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.

You pointed it out, and now you're reposting it and ignoring what I said about it earlier.

And no its not terrible or impossible obviously you have very little insight.

Prove it.

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

If all you do is load a score into a DAW, it will sound terrible. Everything would be one dynamic and one articulation, and it would sound fake.

Composers never get it right the player improves it over time.

Bach is more "right" with his discards than I'll ever be in my entire life as a musician.

No they can add a range because it makes it more freely playable for the player it allows a greater variation.

The goal of music is not to be easy. And you're ignoring what I said earlier about variation. Thanks.

Anyhow who cares no one plays exactly to a tempo.

If I don't, I get people screaming at me. I don't get screamed at often.

I do not care for your credentials they prove nothing.

Since we're discussing musicians and synthesizers, and I am a musician and synthesizer, they're important. Of course they can't prove anything; it's called inductive reasoning.

You could have the cleverest man on earth who topped all Iq charts in a subject and still be stupid.

Completely false. Also, what do you mean "IQ charts in a subject?" There's only one IQ subject, and that's, um, IQ. You can lack common sense (i.e., wisdom), but common sense is not intelligence.

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.

Thanks for ignoring what I said and restating it with three times as many words.

I could probably write a program to write four-part harmony that follows circle-of-fifths progressions (7 3 6 [2/4] 5 [1/6]), but we've heard those kinds of things so much that nobody would gain anything by making them. Plus, you'd still have to manually add dynamics, articulation, and expression, which requires human input.

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.

You haven't listened to any good music, then.

Look at Sample Modeling's trumpet. A skilled synthesizer can play that virtual instrument much better than I can play my own trumpet. Of course the SM trumpet won't replace me; live performances are always more impressive than anything played through speakers. But a track made with SM trumpet could easily sound better than a recording of me.

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.

Why are you arguing about machinized composing?

For lulz and wiggelz one day, I transcribed a seven-chord piano melody from one of Soule's compositions, and the analysis I produced was: i6 V64 iv64 VI6 VII6 v64 i. It repeats once, and the second time through, a few inversions change and the last v64 is made into a v7.

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

Again, it depends on the musician. You're oversimplifying.

Like I stated before, of course a live performance will sound better than any kind of recording or synthesis. But a synthesis can easily sound just as good as a recording.

Your instinct might be to look up samples of GPO or EWQLSOG or VSL playing famous pieces, and you might find some crappy ones made just by plugging in scores, so people could laugh at how bad samplers are at direct playback. But if you look at real digital music, not just synthesized playback, you'll see things that impress you.




I'm probably not going to post much more after this. It's evident that you're not listening to anything I say, or listening to any of the pieces I link, and this is off-topic anyway. The OP wanted help writing video game themes, not someone telling him that doing so is stupid.

(If you're looking for a response to your last post, read the posts I made before this. You'll find your answers there.)

 

[Adiktuz]

Fruity Loops, Magix...

 

[Brambleclaw]

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.

7. Although you can do that its nothing like the real thing.

8. I am no script writer or coder. But the theory behind it is basically this. When your composing a song you click on The Lenght you want the note, Then put it on a score don't you.At the right note which you have chosen. Firstly that is an Input into the software. The output is that the note goes at that point and is queued to play whenever u hit play button from the start.
So effectively you could record these inputs, by making the computer save each input as a file, then collecting these files, you could make the computer write out the piece you just put in. This is the same for synthesising it and adding articulations and dynamics its all do with putting inputs getting an output. Now say instead of recording the inputs you want to Write down the input without actually doing in manually via using your mouse. You can just use script and tell the program to put in these inputs itself. So there you can start from the basics on paper you can compose a piece then relay the information by code to the computer program. Walla you have your piece. You can then create a code to make on Initalisation for it to automatically run and create this/ load this composition.

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).


11. 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.

12. Yes you could rwite something to make a esequence but in the code you could also change it so that it varies so its not just harmonies. tThus making it add little interesting bits. So we dont get bored.
And you would not need to manually add dynamics, there are certain points in theory which tells you why they would be good. .e HItting the midsection in a song or the penultimate point there is usually a big build up then a fall.

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.

15. Well most of the music i listen to is digital. The worser music of Nightcore (Sub techno genre) i like much better than most music because of its upbeat dancing kinda feel. BUt there are over great pieces i like too. Just because i believe ochestras are better than digital ones doesn't mean i dont like digital music.

 

[Jassu]

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.

So you're also saying Nobuo Uematsu got lucky, Motoi Sakuraba got lucky, Bruce Faucloner got lucky—you get the idea.

You make a lot of bold claims. Care to back them all up, or can you not support your own arguments?

 

[Brambleclaw]

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.

 

[Alkonis]

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.

You say that my "credentials" are meaningless, yet you use them as a rhetorical device? Regardless, I've been to several orchestral concerts and I sit principal trumpet in my school orchestra.

Plus, if you actually read my posts, you'll see that my argument was never that something digital could sound better than a live orchestra. Who are you trying to argue with?

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.

This is different than your earlier claim that you don't believe in digital instruments.

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.

I've addressed all this before, but also note that you can find out how to read music with just a few googles, too.

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.

I'm confused at "based of information fed into it," as you're arguing for something that can create music with no input. Regardless, that's not music. Such a device will rarely produce something of the depth that a human composer could write, regardless of whether that music is played by virtual or real instruments.

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.

He has no respect for the composer. Arrangements of existing tunes are completely different than deciding on whim to modify the composer's original work. I don't like arrangers, either; you see baroque music arrangements all the time with dynamics and articulation markings, but most original baroque scores leave it up to the player (whereas classical music is very specific about there only being one correct way to play it). (There's no argument for you in baroque music, BTW; it's just the way music was written back then, and you already said that you favored restrictive classical to free baroque, anyway.)

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.

This kind of attitude only comes from someone who has no experience in the professional music world. Pop singers generally do get famous because they're lucky, but game composers and instrumental performers get famous because they're really good.

Soulja Boy's famous rap was made with FL studio and approximately zero music theory. Soule, Uematsu, Zimmer, Shimomura et al. are completely different, and there are hundreds of other qualified people who they outdo every time they come to the page. They didn't get anywhere with luck; they did it through perseverance. (Heck, Jeremy Soule had the equivalent of a Master's in composition bythe time he finished high school.)

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)

Bach probably would have used a computer if he had one available. He probably used a harpsichord to play his compositions as he was writing them.

I dislike Mozart. I dislike most classical; Baroque is the way to go. Bach and Corelli FTW.

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).

oh god tell that to my tutors

Baroque music gives you the illusion of freedom, but you really can't just play it how you want to.

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.

I think you confused yourself somewhere. You just admitted that your original post was incorrect.

13. No i doubt anyone Snthesizer could make a Brass band which would naturally sound better than a live concert with Black Dyke.

Again, that was never my argument.

14. Yes they can sound as good as recordings, but it still doesnt have the same feel to it.

My argument is sound quality. What is "feel?"

 

[Brambleclaw]

I never claimed i didnt believe in Digital instruments in all my arguments i said 100% digital is bad.

Zimmer Is a great composer ever read search out on his Biography. There was luck to how he became a legend. he started of a small composer. one of the major turning points in his careaa was scoring Rain man he got lucky as the Producers wife listened to one of his Cd's and thought it was good. The Producer listened to it and thought it was good to and he got hired. This led to more jobs. As i said it requires an amount of luck. Skill is also required but only in special cases like Zimmer who are the legendary composers. The Average composer who gets famous has got very lucky and proabably there are others who could do his/her job just as well as he/she could.
Hans zimmer was an exception.


The job of an arranger is only to improve that work of the composer. some worsen it and some do bad. But some dramtically improve it.

No im not confused My original post on the iq thing was correct I believe your proabably missintepreting what i say.

The feel of music. This is the beat. And the sound and basically the song. If its 100% digital it wont sound right no matter how realistic the sounds are, it just doesnt. Its like trying to autotune A persons voice without a voice being there in the first place and making one from nothing. It just doesnt work.
While the feel of real music reaches out into your soul (Basically it has a much bigger impact on you).

You have even proved my point. Bach was a now known as Musical genius. But it was only recognised 100 years after his death. So he was a great composer never heard of. That is where my basis comes from that a Great composer out there now probably does the same job as an uknown great composer and just got lucky.

Tell that to your tutors that 5 -15 bmp slower or faster on a song is bad. Okay then your Tutors are way to strict.

I doubt a recorded cd of black dkye could sound any worse than a synthesised band.

I believe your really not understanding what im trying to say here so am refusing to comment any further. I also believe now i have realised all these posts are irrelvant to this thread. If this dicussion was ever continued it should be else where in a new thread. And maybe a poll should be included to let people voice there oppinion.

 

[Jassu]

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.

My comment wasn't solely in regards to that. Nevertheless, I don't feel the need to pick apart your posts and point out what needs to be supported.

 

[WherewolfTherewolf]

What happened to helping Def make a decision on what Music application is right for him?