4 Jul
2005
4 Jul
'05
2:03 p.m.
On Mon, 04 Jul, 2005 at 11:35AM +0200, Thorsten Wilms spake thus:
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:02:38AM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
I agree totally. I didn't mean that there was a rule about following
the phases, just that that's always how it's presented, and rarely how
it works for me.
I've never been able to work like that. I know that's the way it
should be done, with steps and definable phases, but I just have to do
everything at once.
Who says it should be done with steps and definable phases?
A methodology is a tool, not a dogma. We industrial design students
are taught that a project starts with a briefing, followed by
reserach, conception, design, visualization/modeling/simulation ...
But often you will have to rethink the briefing after the research or
do additional research based on your conception.
There's rarely a clear line between conception and design. And when
the outcome after a step doesn't meet the expectations, you might have
to iterate through the whole process.
With music, composition, arrangement and production can be clear steps
or it can all be one more or less chaotic process. Whatever works.
Sounds you choose while you're playing to find a nice harmony or
melody will influence the outcome.
A drum pattern's feel/groove depends much on the sounds, so creating
/editing it and choosing/tweaking sounds got to be interconnected.
When more of the final piece is in place, you might need to readjust
some details.
To avoid getting lost in details upfront, one can create a draft
version first, without caring for exact levels, optimal patch
selection/tweaked sounds, effects for the most part.
This is where I find it difficult. It's all or nothing for me.
Thorsten Wilms
--
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated
Development
That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you."
(By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)