hardware is so passé

so I've packed up most of my gear and banished it to the cupboard. new setup involves my mac, roland a-300 midi keyboard controller and my edirol fa-101 audio interface. I feel fresh and new. I'm excited. I've got a shit load of AU synths to play with. hardware: it's over (for now).

Give them to me, I'll give em back. Promise.

Now your tracks will sound all digital and lifeless, that ain't right

your music will lack soul and drag everything you do in life down into a miserable gloom of depression and defeat.

It's true, after I went all software everything went to shits. Haven't made music in ages.

edit: I also got a kid, a girlfriend, a house and a full time job, but I'm sure that's got nothing to do with it.

use both!

Romanticism is an anachronism, kill it with the machines

you made the right choice

You chose the right path. Welcome to the new world.

Maybe it's just because I grew up making tracks with just a computer, but after a couple of years experimenting with hardware I've decided I generally prefer the sound of software & feel of working with a DAW. Analog hardware definitely has its advantages, but I find it tends to really draw attention to itself, sort of a "LOOKIT ME I'M WIBBLY WOB BIP BOOP MUSIC". Makes good basslines, though.

I have extensively used both hardware and software in the past, but for the last few years have been strictly hardware. but I started out on octaMED 5 on the amiga and have a great love for computer music making really...time to revisit it!

  On 5/5/2011 at 8:18 PM, BCM said:

so I've packed up most of my gear and banished it to the cupboard.

They'll be back.

Why you would choose such a rigid dogma in either direction is beyond me.

  On 5/5/2011 at 10:31 PM, acidphakist said:

Why you would choose such a rigid dogma in either direction is beyond me.

This one be my mantra if I could afford hardware.

ya I use both and it's great to get off the computer sometimes. It's great to get all super twiddly sometimes. Don't banish, or Osama wins.

you'll be back in the attic after a month

  On 5/5/2011 at 10:42 PM, chassis said:

  On 5/5/2011 at 10:31 PM, acidphakist said:

Why you would choose such a rigid dogma in either direction is beyond me.

 

This one be my mantra if I could afford hardware.

yeah.. the retarded thing for me, is that if I add together all the cheap software I bought - that I didn't really need, I could have gotten myself a nice synth.

I think for me I'm just enjoying the ease of use and simplicity of having everything in one box...I hate clutter and did sometimes get frustrated with all the buggering around with leads and stuff. dunno, I love my gear really and I'm sure it will be in use again at some point, just liking the change I guess.

I certainly appreciate the simplicity of software, and I debate moving more in that direction all of the time, for that very reason... but nothing really inspires me like my hardware either... so for now it's hardware.

  On 5/5/2011 at 10:31 PM, acidphakist said:

Why you would choose such a rigid dogma in either direction is beyond me.

  Quote

If you have no rules, you will go in every direction at once, and get nowhere. If you have too many rules, you will tie yourself down, and also get nowhere. Create rules that direct your energies toward something you want, then doggedly stick to them. When you reach your goal, and/or a rule starts to feel confining, get rid of it. Make a new rule based on how well previous ones have worked, and where you want to go next. Don’t change the rules too often, lest you wind up going in circles.

http://www.electronicmusing.com/blog/2009/08/why-rules-shouldnt-have-such-a-bad-reputation/

i suppose that also means BCM should probably sit down and figure out which software he intends to use and how before diving in.

the Roland A-300 that i bought has plenty of assignable knobs and faders so I'm all good for tweaking etc. I'd miss not having some kind of hands on control...thinking of getting a novation launchpad or akai APC40 too, for use with numerology.

  On 5/6/2011 at 12:34 AM, hahathhat said:

i suppose that also means BCM should probably sit down and figure out which software he intends to use and how before diving in.

not really, I'm pretty much happy with, and can use any DAW you care to mention...but I'm sticking with numerology and logic which is what I was using anyway. basically everything is exactly the same apart from I'm now using AU synths and a midi controller. lol.

That quote about rules and breaking them when you need to, reminds me of a story about schoenberg. it actually really stuck with me, (never mind the fact that I think he just said this to cover his ass about a mistake he overlooked... )

it goes something like: a student of schoenbergs was looking at one of his scores, and noticed that there was a Bb consistently where there should have been a B natural (according to the rules of 12 tone music), and so the student approached schoenberg and pointed out the mistake. schoenberg said it was no mistake... that he writes twelve tone MUSIC, not TWELVE TONE music. (implying that where musically appropriate, you break your rules for the sake of the musical expression.

now again, I think he was kind of covering his ass... because that whole school of thought really did prop up the rules to an insane degree...

but I like what he said, and its something I keep in mind as I write. I like to write using my own rules that I create... and I follow them... UNTIL I come to a point that it just doesn't work for me, and I break my rules.

that is why a lot of academic music falls flat for me... oh, you created a model of the solar system, and each rotation of a planet is a melodic phrase? who cares, the music sounds like shit. i rather someone be inspired by an idea, then to have a rigid implementation of an idea..

...but this is a little off topic...

  On 5/5/2011 at 8:29 PM, mik said:

Now your tracks will sound all digital and lifeless, that ain't right

but don't we all like digital lifeless music?

  On 5/6/2011 at 12:43 AM, Kcinsu said:

That quote about rules and breaking them when you need to, reminds me of a story about schoenberg. it actually really stuck with me, (never mind the fact that I think he just said this to cover his ass about a mistake he overlooked... )

 

it goes something like: a student of schoenbergs was looking at one of his scores, and noticed that there was a Bb consistently where there should have been a B natural (according to the rules of 12 tone music), and so the student approached schoenberg and pointed out the mistake. schoenberg said it was no mistake... that he writes twelve tone MUSIC, not TWELVE TONE music. (implying that where musically appropriate, you break your rules for the sake of the musical expression.

 

now again, I think he was kind of covering his ass... because that whole school of thought really did prop up the rules to an insane degree...

 

but I like what he said, and its something I keep in mind as I write. I like to write using my own rules that I create... and I follow them... UNTIL I come to a point that it just doesn't work for me, and I break my rules.

 

that is why a lot of academic music falls flat for me... oh, you created a model of the solar system, and each rotation of a planet is a melodic phrase? who cares, the music sounds like shit. i rather someone be inspired by an idea, then to have a rigid implementation of an idea..

 

...but this is a little off topic...

There just has to come a point where you think, "does this sound like shit?" and if it does it's best to just not do it.