9 Jul
2005
9 Jul
'05
9:32 a.m.
This is something I started a while ago, and only just got around to
finishing.
http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/justtwo.ogg
As usual, substitute mp3 for ogg if you prefer that flavour.
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
Thanks for listening.
James
--
"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)
9 Jul
9 Jul
11:45 a.m.
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
This is something I started a while ago, and only just
got around to
finishing.
http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/justtwo.ogg
Very enjoyable, added to my collection.
Beautyfull pads. The single note guitar sounds overly clean / plain
for itself, but works very well with the rest the same reason.
Suggestions out of the "it's good as is, but you
might want to just try" category:
- Extra depth can be given to a mix by having some sequence(s)
with taken back heights by running through a lowpass filter
or EQing plus long reverb, so they appear to be distant.
- Especialy if the hi-hat doesn't play a straight pulse,
it can work wonders to add tambourine, shaker, maracas ...
that does.
Thanks for sharing!
---
Thorsten Wilms
12:16 p.m.
On Sat, 09 Jul, 2005 at 03:45PM +0200, Thorsten Wilms spake thus:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Haha, yes. I've done this a few times myself. Especially when I
wanted to create something as beautiful as the introduction to Svefn G
Englar by Sigur Ros. It was nowhere near as nice, so it got aborted,
but that muffled technique did sound nice.
This is something I started a while ago, and only
just got around to
finishing.
http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/justtwo.ogg
Very enjoyable, added to my collection.
Beautyfull pads. The single note guitar sounds overly clean / plain
for itself, but works very well with the rest the same reason.
Suggestions out of the "it's good as is, but you
might want to just try" category:
- Extra depth can be given to a mix by having some sequence(s)
with taken back heights by running through a lowpass filter
or EQing plus long reverb, so they appear to be distant.
- Especialy if the hi-hat doesn't play a straight pulse,
it can work wonders to add tambourine, shaker, maracas ...
that does.
Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for listening, and replying.
James
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)
12:29 p.m.
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
This is something I started a while ago, and only just
got around to
finishing.
http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/justtwo.ogg
Good mix, sounds like it could be a good backing track for vocals or an
improv.
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good
idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
Someone else mentioned that the guitar sounds too clean. I'd say its
problem is its lack of expressive technique, it's a major problem for
any sequenced guitar tracks. The guitar is normally played in such a way
that most notes receive some sort of expression from the player, usually
a finger vibrato or some other slight pitch variation (bends,
glissandi). These articulations aren't impossible to program, but they
do take time and detailed effort to make the part sound realistic. Of
course, if you're not going for realism there's no problem. :)
Rather than taking lessons you might just want to pick up a good book on
orchestration and instrumentation. My personal favorite is H. Blatter's
book but there are plenty to choose from. And of course it also pays to
hang out with players of other instruments to get a better idea of their
basic techniques.
All of which may not matter at all if you don't intend a "realistic"
effect. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Don't you just love making
music with computers ? :)
Thanks for music (again), James !
Best regards,
dp
12:57 p.m.
On Sat, 09 Jul, 2005 at 11:07AM -0400, Dave Phillips spake thus:
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
I have a track called creamcheese
(http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/creamcheese.ogg) in which I
tried this. I like the sound, but it was fiddly. Have a listen, it's
towards the end, when the guitar starts to bend (try 3m30s).
This is something I started a while ago, and only
just got around to
finishing.
http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/justtwo.ogg
Good mix, sounds like it could be a good backing track for vocals or an
improv.
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good
idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
Someone else mentioned that the guitar sounds too clean. I'd say its
problem is its lack of expressive technique, it's a major problem for
any sequenced guitar tracks. The guitar is normally played in such a way
that most notes receive some sort of expression from the player, usually
a finger vibrato or some other slight pitch variation (bends,
glissandi). These articulations aren't impossible to program, but they
do take time and detailed effort to make the part sound realistic. Of
course, if you're not going for realism there's no problem. :) Rather than taking lessons you might just want to pick
up a good book on
orchestration and instrumentation. My personal favorite is H. Blatter's
book but there are plenty to choose from. And of course it also pays to
hang out with players of other instruments to get a better idea of their
basic techniques.
I might have a look at that book anyway, but I still intend to learn
to play. I have a guitar, just no time.
Just checking amazon - do you mean A. Blatter?
All of which may not matter at all if you don't
intend a "realistic"
effect. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. Don't you just love making
music with computers ? :)
Oh, yes!
Thanks for music (again), James !
Thanks for the comments. Appreciated as always.
James
Best regards,
dp
--
"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)
3:07 p.m.
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jul, 2005 at 11:07AM -0400, Dave Phillips
spake thus:
Yes, I've listened to this piece already. Sweetly done, and I say again
that your mixing is very nicely done.
The guitar sounds more natural up to the point of the bends. To my ears
the pitch bends result in a sound more akin to the pedal steel than to
the regular 6-string electric. It's a little too smooth to sound like a
fretted instrument or even a slide guitar. Perhaps the p-bend resolution
should be coarser ? Just a thought...
Like I said, really convincing results are tough to achieve for
instruments like the guitar or an alto sax. Each note gets some kind of
micro-expression, it's the despair of those of us who occasionally aim
towards the realistic effect.
[re: Blatter book]
Someone else mentioned that the guitar sounds too
clean. I'd say its
problem is its lack of expressive technique, it's a major problem for
any sequenced guitar tracks. The guitar is normally played in such a way
that most notes receive some sort of expression from the player, usually
a finger vibrato or some other slight pitch variation (bends,
glissandi). These articulations aren't impossible to program, but they
do take time and detailed effort to make the part sound realistic. Of
course, if you're not going for realism there's no problem. :)
I have a track called creamcheese
(http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/creamcheese.ogg) in which I
tried this. I like the sound, but it was fiddly. Have a listen, it's
towards the end, when the guitar starts to bend (try 3m30s).
Just checking amazon - do you mean A. Blatter?
That's the one. Sorry, I'm not at my place, didn't check the author on
the 'zon.
So, more music, si vous il plait. :-)
Best,
dp
3:29 p.m.
On Sat, 09 Jul, 2005 at 01:45PM -0400, Dave Phillips spake thus:
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Ta.
On Sat, 09 Jul, 2005 at 11:07AM -0400, Dave
Phillips spake thus:
Yes, I've listened to this piece already. Sweetly done, and I say again
that your mixing is very nicely done. Someone else mentioned that the guitar sounds too
clean. I'd say its
problem is its lack of expressive technique, it's a major problem for
any sequenced guitar tracks. The guitar is normally played in such a way
that most notes receive some sort of expression from the player, usually
a finger vibrato or some other slight pitch variation (bends,
glissandi). These articulations aren't impossible to program, but they
do take time and detailed effort to make the part sound realistic. Of
course, if you're not going for realism there's no problem. :)
I have a track called creamcheese
(http://dis-dot-dat.net/content/music/creamcheese.ogg) in which I
tried this. I like the sound, but it was fiddly. Have a listen, it's
towards the end, when the guitar starts to bend (try 3m30s).
The guitar sounds more natural up to the point of the
bends. To my ears
the pitch bends result in a sound more akin to the pedal steel than to
the regular 6-string electric. It's a little too smooth to sound like a
fretted instrument or even a slide guitar. Perhaps the p-bend resolution
should be coarser ? Just a thought...
I don't intend to go back to improve the authenticity of that track,
but it's something worth keeping in mind.
Like I said, really convincing results are tough to
achieve for
instruments like the guitar or an alto sax. Each note gets some kind of
micro-expression, it's the despair of those of us who occasionally aim
towards the realistic effect.
I tend to steer clear of wind instruments - they just nerver sound
right unless they are real.
[re: Blatter book]
Ouch - 37 GBP on amazon. Although, when the site comes back up I
think I've found a copy for a tenner somewhere else.
Just checking amazon - do you mean A. Blatter?
That's the one. Sorry, I'm not at my place, didn't check the author on
the 'zon. So, more music, si vous il plait. :-)
I think I'm all creative'd out at the moment. I tend to work in fits
and starts, with large spaces of barren imagination.
James
Best,
dp
--
"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)
8:31 p.m.
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:42 +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Nice! I like the mood and the expression.
Here comes the exaggerated nitpicking:
I'm not sure what kind of effects you're using (reverb/chorus/...) but
they're a bit tight and dark. The soundstage is also a bit foggy and
crowded. Might be a side-effect of the low bitrate used in the Ogg file.
But it might be worth the effort to space it out a little bit: give a
better definition (individuality) to each sound and let the ear-candy
(effects) breathe a bit.
I also think I hear something that sounds like nasty distortion. Might
be amplitude overload at some stage (maybe at encoding to Ogg?) but
might actually be an effect (limiter?) that sounds like something went
wrong.
Maybe that's the desired result, but even so it might be a good idea to
make it less natural and convincing ;-) (e.g. like the difference
between a painting and a photo)
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good
idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
Yeah, the guitar sounds strange.
It would be nice if there was a button in any sequencer to slightly
randomize a track, not a lot, just VERY gently (more on velocity, less
or not at all on timing). That might take care of the robotic sound.
Anyway, it also depends on the style. Kraftwerk didn't seem to have
issues with robotic sounds. ;-)
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
10 Jul
10 Jul
5:06 a.m.
On Sat, 09 Jul, 2005 at 03:31PM -0700, Florin Andrei spake thus:
Some do, but not mine, unfortunately. When I used to dabble with VST
and other Windows sequencers, I really liked the randomization and
groove quantization features. Unfortunately, this isn't something
easily implemented in a tracker.
On Sat, 2005-07-09 at 12:42 +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Nice! I like the mood and the expression.
Here comes the exaggerated nitpicking:
I'm not sure what kind of effects you're using (reverb/chorus/...) but
they're a bit tight and dark. The soundstage is also a bit foggy and
crowded. Might be a side-effect of the low bitrate used in the Ogg file.
But it might be worth the effort to space it out a little bit: give a
better definition (individuality) to each sound and let the ear-candy
(effects) breathe a bit.
This is something I almost always forget to do. Everything is always
centre stage and stereo in my tracks is usually only from reverb.
Must remember to do this in future. Thanks for that.
I also think I hear something that sounds like nasty
distortion. Might
be amplitude overload at some stage (maybe at encoding to Ogg?) but
might actually be an effect (limiter?) that sounds like something went
wrong.
Maybe that's the desired result, but even so it might be a good idea to
make it less natural and convincing ;-) (e.g. like the difference
between a painting and a photo)
Distortion was most definitely used on purpose, but if you think
there's some that sounds out of place, then it could be something I
didn't put there. Can you be a little more specific? Which sound,
and where, is distorted? It could be that some of the sounds overlap
too much in frequency.
I starting to
think guitar lessons would be a good idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
Yeah, the guitar sounds strange.
It would be nice if there was a button in any sequencer to slightly
randomize a track, not a lot, just VERY gently (more on velocity, less
or not at all on timing). That might take care of the robotic sound. Anyway, it also depends on the style. Kraftwerk
didn't seem to have
issues with robotic sounds. ;-)
True, but doing Kraftwek-style stuff now would perhaps be a bit
cheesy. Kinda like going back to mid-90's rave tracks and just
speeding up some old song or themetune and adding a break-kneck beat.
Although, now I've said it, I'd love to have a go at that. I have a
real soft spot for the old "bangin' choons". Where did I put that
Smart E's record?
Thanks for listening,
James
--
"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)
6:03 a.m.
On Sun, 2005-07-10 at 08:16 +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
This is something I almost always forget to do.
Everything is always
centre stage and stereo in my tracks is usually only from reverb.
Must remember to do this in future. Thanks for that.
Yup. See my comment to your other, earlier song.
Distortion was most definitely used on purpose, but if
you think
there's some that sounds out of place, then it could be something I
didn't put there. Can you be a little more specific? Which sound,
and where, is distorted?
(scratching my head) This afternoon it sounded much worse, now I'm less
inclined to find faults.
E.g. the sound that's at 03:01 ... 03:02
It seems like it was sent through a bad preamp or something. I "feel"
what you were trying to say by using distortion there, but maybe I would
use a different _kind_ of distortion.
I dunno... I listened with a very critical ear at first. Now I'm ready
to go to sleep and I'm more at peace with the world. :-)
It would be interesting to re-listen to it after spacing out the sound
stage with a lot more panning.
It could be that some of the sounds overlap
too much in frequency.
Well, that's a classic issue, isn't it?
True, but doing Kraftwek-style stuff now would perhaps
be a bit
cheesy. Kinda like going back to mid-90's rave tracks and just
speeding up some old song or themetune and adding a break-kneck beat.
Although, now I've said it, I'd love to have a go at that. I have a
real soft spot for the old "bangin' choons". Where did I put that
Smart E's record?
(thumbs-up)
Keep us posted on that. ;-)
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
11 Jul
11 Jul
10:50 a.m.
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
You can also write out the music in lilypond to give to one of us. I am sure you can
find many people who would want to collaborate on a project. There are
many fine musicians here.
Jeremiah
3:15 p.m.
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 07:45AM -0500, Jeremiah Benham spake thus:
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
You mean all those little circles with tails?
Whichever route I take, looks like I'll have to learn *something*!
:)
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
You can also write out the music in lilypond to give to one of us. I am sure you can
find many people who would want to collaborate on a project. There are
many fine musicians here. Jeremiah
--
"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)
12 Jul
12 Jul
2:09 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:25:31PM +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 07:45AM -0500, Jeremiah Benham
spake thus:
I am sure midi is fine also. Or it can be recorded and learned by ear.
That may be a little more effort though.
I was impressed by artifical feedback that you got when simulating the
guitar sound.
Jeremiah
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
You mean all those little circles with tails?
Whichever route I take, looks like I'll have to learn *something*!
:)
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
You can also write out the music in lilypond to give to one of us. I am sure you can
find many people who would want to collaborate on a project. There are
many fine musicians here.
6:52 a.m.
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 11:04PM -0500, Jeremiah Benham spake thus:
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:25:31PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Well, I did what I never do: put distortion after reverb. It sounds
horrible, because the crackling goes everywhere in the spread and
sounds like a bad recording. But, with more reverb afterwards to make
it sound intentional, it sounded quite nice for a distorted lead.
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 07:45AM -0500, Jeremiah
Benham spake thus:
I am sure midi is fine also. Or it can be recorded and learned by ear.
That may be a little more effort though.
I was impressed by artifical feedback that you got when simulating the
guitar sound. On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
You mean all those little circles with tails?
Whichever route I take, looks like I'll have to learn *something*!
:)
I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good idea. I love using
them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
and they always sound a bit too regular.
You can also write out the music in lilypond to give to one of us. I am sure you can
find many people who would want to collaborate on a project. There are
many fine musicians here. Jeremiah
--
"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)
12:05 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: yet more music
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 11:04PM -0500, Jeremiah Benham
spake thus:
On the subject of plugins, I was just listening to a few of your (very
nice) tracked pieces on your website. In a couple of them it sounds
like you have a filter frequency automation (dn505 there is a 303-like
resonance tweak I think, and dumbstuff has a rising filter at the
beginning on the first bassline). I was not aware this sort of thing
was possible with Cheesetracker. Would you mind saying how it was
done? The only ways I could think of was by routing through jack rack
or a modular synth patch, but then I think you would have to record
the filtered track on its own as cheesetracker only has stereo
outputs, or alternatively by tweaking the plugins live?
All the best,
James
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:25:31PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Well, I did what I never do: put distortion after reverb. It sounds
horrible, because the crackling goes everywhere in the spread and
sounds like a bad recording. But, with more reverb afterwards to make
it sound intentional, it sounded quite nice for a distorted lead.
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 07:45AM -0500, Jeremiah
Benham spake thus:
I am sure midi is fine also. Or it can be recorded and learned by ear.
That may be a little more effort though.
I was impressed by artifical feedback that you got when simulating the
guitar sound. On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
>
> I starting to think guitar lessons would be a good idea. I love using
> them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
> and they always sound a bit too regular.
You can also write out the music in lilypond to give to one of us. I am sure you can
find many people who would want to collaborate on a project. There are
many fine musicians here.
You mean all those little circles with tails?
Whichever route I take, looks like I'll have to learn *something*!
:)
12:29 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: yet more music
On Tue, 12 Jul, 2005 at 02:03PM +0000, jmstone(a)dsl.pipex.com spake thus:
--
"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)
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Well spotted!
The biggest drawback with using cheesetracker is not being able to
automate plugin parameters. Personally, I think it more than makes up
for this in other ways.
ImpulseTracker introduced a new command, that CheeseTracker has also
implemented. I'm assuming you know the tracker family tree, or at
least this branch of it?
Anyway, the Z command is a lowpass filter. 0->7F is cutoff, 80-8F is
Q and the rest (upto FF, I think; I've never used it, strangely) is
for reverb send.
It might seem strange to have that one extra command, especially since
it has a very different effect to all the others - it applies
filtering instead of simple note adjustments. My theory, and this is
quite likely to be wrong, is that since it was added some time in the
90's, it was implemented precisely to emulate TB303-like sweeps which
seemed to be on every track at the time.
So there it is - the secret filter command. It's great, but you have
to be careful with it. Since it's the only automation trick you have,
it's tempting to overuse it. As a fan of mindless 90's hardcore
techno rave type stuff, I'm especially prone.
James
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 11:04PM -0500, Jeremiah
Benham spake thus:
On the subject of plugins, I was just listening to a few of your (very
nice) tracked pieces on your website. In a couple of them it sounds
like you have a filter frequency automation (dn505 there is a 303-like
resonance tweak I think, and dumbstuff has a rising filter at the
beginning on the first bassline). I was not aware this sort of thing
was possible with Cheesetracker. Would you mind saying how it was
done? The only ways I could think of was by routing through jack rack
or a modular synth patch, but then I think you would have to record
the filtered track on its own as cheesetracker only has stereo
outputs, or alternatively by tweaking the plugins live? On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 06:25:31PM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Well, I did what I never do: put distortion after reverb. It sounds
horrible, because the crackling goes everywhere in the spread and
sounds like a bad recording. But, with more reverb afterwards to make
it sound intentional, it sounded quite nice for a distorted lead.
On Mon, 11 Jul, 2005 at 07:45AM -0500, Jeremiah
Benham spake thus:
> On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:42:37PM +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
> > > I starting to think guitar lessons
would be a good idea. I love using
> > them, but since I can't actually play, I have to do it the long way
> > and they always sound a bit too regular.
> You can also write out the music in lilypond to give to one of us. I am sure
you can
> find many people who would want to collaborate on a project. There are
> many fine musicians here.
You mean all those little circles with tails?
Whichever route I take, looks like I'll have to learn *something*!
:)
I am sure midi is fine also. Or it can be recorded and learned by ear.
That may be a little more effort though.
I was impressed by artifical feedback that you got when simulating the
guitar sound. All the best,
James
What? No! That's *my* name!
14 Jul
14 Jul
6:16 p.m.
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 10:03 +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
Well, I did what I never do: put distortion after
reverb. It sounds
horrible, because the crackling goes everywhere in the spread and
sounds like a bad recording. But, with more reverb afterwards to make
it sound intentional, it sounded quite nice for a distorted lead.
Gotcha! That's what my ear didn't quite like. Indeed, some portions
sound like a bad recording.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
7075
days inactive
7080
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
16 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Dave Phillips -
Florin Andrei -
james＠dis-dot-dat.net -
jjbenham＠chicagoguitar.com -
jmstone＠dsl.pipex.com -
Thorsten Wilms