I Don't Like This Sentence At All ...

Seriously, the guy who wrote this must have been a chip-tracker who only knew of chip-trackers and hung out with guys in big studios, thought Lizardking and Bjørn Lynne was the dopest thing alive and had the future grasp of Bill Gates who once said that “No one will need more than 637 kb of memory for a personal computer.” and “640kb ought to be enough for anybody.”

(just found out that was a non-legit quote, ah well… :rolleyes:)

Why worry about bullshit limitations when you should rather look for the possibilities?

Also, this week I used Renoise in FX-producing/track mixing for a professional project, in the sense that I got paid for what I did, and the customer was satisfied. So there. :P

edit:

Oh, and I had a chat with Dj TeeBee some time ago, he actually used FT2 with hardware up until at least 1999!! Wonder how he’d feel about Renoise… :walkman:

It is very true that talent is stronger than technology, and the pros always recommend that you understand the equipment you already have rather than go out and buy what you think you need, cause everyone else has it. But sometimes different programs and equipment do gel more naturally with different artists and processes. And there is no right or wrong to it.

Some folks need to stream line the operation to promote a creative flow, others will do better with more tools available to them. And no one can really say what is the best approach for someone else.

For me it is important to remain consistent. I find that if i produce most to all of a track in one program, this keeps me from spreading it out to thinly. Sometimes I would bounce a mix around 3 different sequencers, only to find myself rewriting the whole thing each time, so I do better if i complete a track in one sequencer, then bounce it somewhere else for fine tuning. But that is just me. And of course, one’s ideal process can change and evolve over time. Just got to locate your own personal sweet spot approach to it.

:guitar:

Blessings,
Damon

i agree with ya.

i’d also like to add, before i found trackers i had a deep disliking towards cubase and its clone brothers. i just couldnt believe why ppl think they need to have such a horrible interface, because the “pros say its the standard.” that to me always seemed really thick headed, i sure as hell am not going to read an 800 page manual just to do a tune.

what even really makes me wonder where some of these ppl come from is those that say hardware is better than software…

i came from a hardware background because i didnt have the slightest idea how to use trackers or have a clue about the absolute power an control over your samples and sequencing… and one of my favorites “having all the information & samples inside one file” i can not tell you how many times ive struggled trying to find a sample that got misplaced because the programs and samplers and harware sequencers i was using didnt have that feature. and i also can not believe this feature isnt in those -thick headed- “so called Professional -paint your music- things called music application” or what i would like to call BLOATWARE. anyway with all them wasted use of resources you would think they would have used that idea and made a universal file format. that could be transfered between hardware and software keeping all sequencing,fx and sample data!!!
anyway them ppl that say they want to use hardware because it sounds better need to read up on dsp. an know they are going to spend a hell of alot of time switching cables, buying cables, testing cables, hunting down fuzz, and a whole bunch of other unneccessary bullshit. including having to learn a sequencer that was made in the 80’s because you already spent so much cash on the cables! oh yeah an the tangled mess of wires that goes along with hardware
okie im done :)

I started with software, so when i got into hardware it was because it seemed a magic kingdom of new and exciting creative directions. So, what the long time users of hardware consider a pain, feels to me a spirit of musical tradition. If I had a dedicated studio room, I would definitely load up on hardware, knowing that once set up, it is not so much an inconvenience. But as my computer has to share space with other furniture, the “big” hardware is just too big to be practical - for me.

But I enjoy using small pieces that you can plug in anywhere and just program. One man’s burden is another man’s privilege. I have great admiration for guys that like to refurbish and ride classic motorcycles, and I think that the artists who favor hardware over software, have a similar “tinker” gene. I, on the other hand, have been equipped with the “plug and play” gene.

Blessings,
Damon

you could very well be right
i myself am sitting behind 3 computer monitors, 2 pcs, 1 laptop,
an akai sampler, a dj mixer, and 2 midi controllers…along with 2 keyboards and 2 mice. and 2 really crappy turntables to my right.
so technically i could be considered a hardware person.
but i dont like to think of it that way. because when i think of hardware i see unlimited limitations. but on the other hand when i think of software i see unlimited usage/abilities. and when you combine the 2, practically absolute freedom. (depending on your software of course)

i like trackers 'cause, well, everything is straightforward and on one screen.

No pussyfooting, even though the learning curve is kind of steep.

who says you have to do that? it sounds stupid, go release abroad instead. it’s not like you lose your copyrights if you don’t conform to their (obviously outdated) demands.

that trackers handbook is outdated, back in those days there was only ft2 and it2 in the top. and let’s face it: it’s quite hard to make pro-sounding music with those programs :)

this also was before the softsynth revolution so anyone using anything other than hardware would be laughed at, just for the sheer fact that the programs available back then didnt quite cut it.

Who defines if it’s sample loop-based or not? I mean, sometimes you use one or more loops in a song, even if it’s not loop-based and then it’s not possible to provide the scores for it. What if you say it’s loop based, who could stop you from releasing it? It all sounds a bit wierd to me…

It-Alien:
I don’t know how long ago you asked for info at people from SIAE… but actually, as far as I know, they already take into consideration the existance of music that you can’t really “transpose” on a standard notation system. Heavily hardware based music, electronic experimental, etc…
When this happens, as far as I know, they accept to store your tunes simply with a copy of it on a CD, or something like that. I receive their mag every 6 months and they have a site, too… and things have changed a bit, lately.
Other than that, I can tell you, “storing” tunes by writing down the “main notes” is obviously offering protection against plagiarism to all another kind of music…
In your case you should just care about the famous “Piece Of Paper” from SIAE that tells that you’re allowed to publish your music and gain money from it.
Man!.. just throw down a couple of notes on that paper! I have seen complex tracks of mine with layering choirs… being reduced to childish tunes in those “nominal” transcriptions… who cares? People will never see that stuff, what’s the problem? You just need to give SIAE their piece of paper so that they have “something to store”! Nobody will examine or review THAT :lol:

Edit:
In the case of a tune where some sort of “melody” is heard, it’s true you have to write down notes… but NOT ALL the notes. Just a portion.
I forgot to add this :)
I was fooled by this complex office-wise shit too… and delayed my own registration untill I found out how little they could care about my music or me ;)