2 Jul
2005
2 Jul
'05
4:38 a.m.
I try to learn the amazing wealth of Linux tools for musicians and
digital-audio recording a little at a time. The last couple days I've
dug into the Hydrogen drum sequencer and, finally, the imposing and
daunting Ardour.
Anyway, here is a rough draft of one of my pieces (I'm a musician, not
an accomplished mixer/masterer):
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte.ogg
The drums are pure Hydrogen, using its default drum kit. All
digital-recording was done in Ardour and the session was exported to
.wav file, then encoded to OGG using oggenc.
Hydrogen
--------
I was nervous about trying to create a believable drum part using a
sequencer. I'm not a drummer and I felt it would sound very mechanical
and awkward. However, Hydrogen's "human feel" time smear and velocity
variation in the FX section of the mixer helps a lot.
Ardour
------
I had put off learning anything about Ardour for a long time. I was
scared of its seeming complexity. However, by concentrating at first on
just the features that I needed to understand in order to record
something, it wasn't as hard as I thought. It will take time to learn
the program well though.
Anyway, it sure is fun playing with these and other programs. I'm very
impressed with all the great audio-oriented stuff available to Linux
users and very grateful to the developers who create the tools.
Steve D
New Mexico US
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
A computer without a Microsoft Operating System is like a dog
without bricks tied to its head.
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 Jul
2 Jul
5:14 a.m.
On Saturday 02 July 2005 16:38, Steve D wrote:
Anyway, here is a rough draft of one of my pieces
(I'm a musician, not
an accomplished mixer/masterer):
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte.ogg
Absolutely excellent Steve. I could handle bass and kick/snare
being a bit stronger in the mix, the cymbals are right where
they are though. Perhaps a staggered intro and more distinct
middle 8. FWIW-like comments only.
Added to http://opensrc.org/index.php?page=RadIO
--markc
8:37 a.m.
Last Saturday 02 July 2005 08:14, Mark Constable was like:
On Saturday 02 July 2005 16:38, Steve D wrote:
Very Nice. I'd like to hear a more muscular backing to this track too, that
said, I can't fault the musicianship involved or the writing. A Fine piece,
that goes on the playlist with the others.
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
Anyway, here is a rough draft of one of my pieces
(I'm a musician, not
an accomplished mixer/masterer):
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte.ogg
Absolutely excellent Steve. I could handle bass and kick/snare
being a bit stronger in the mix, the cymbals are right where
they are though. Perhaps a staggered intro and more distinct
middle 8. FWIW-like comments only. 
6:26 a.m.
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 12:38:36AM -0600, Steve D wrote:
I love it, brought a smile on my face.
Except for this saw lead sound, it's a bit cheesy, imho,
and takes away from the feeling. Not sure ... maybe try
some organ or flute-like sound.
Snare and bassdrum could be a little more prominent,
but not much.
Thanks for sharing.
---
Thorsten Wilms
12:37 p.m.
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 10:25:41AM +0200, Thorsten Wilms wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 12:38:36AM -0600, Steve D
wrote:
I love it, brought a smile on my face.
Except for this saw lead sound, it's a bit cheesy, imho,
and takes away from the feeling. Not sure ... maybe try
some organ or flute-like sound.
Snare and bassdrum could be a little more prominent,
but not much.
Thorsten Wilms
--- --- ---
Cheesy Sounds
-------------
Thank you Thorsten-- Believe it or not, I chose the old fat saw-wave
synthesizer sound *because* it sounded cheesy. ;-) It's a way of poking
fun at my own music and at production in general. Having the same
thought as you, I tried several jazz organ and a variety of great flute
sounds before choosing the cheesy current lead voice. The other lead
voice is cheesy too, a stratocaster guitar sound with *way* overdone
delay, phaser, chorus and equalization (so 80s).
I even tried a version with only drums and simple piano accompaniment,
with a Parisian street accordion sound for the melody (what there is of
a melody) and improvised lead, and although it sounded way
underproduced, I liked that version too.
Part of my choices stems from a rebellion against overproduced audio and
music (been there, done that back in my pro and studio musician days).
As Dave Phillips recently wrote (note to Dave: I've jammed a lot to your
lazy-moon.ogg--I love it), although this is not an exact quote, good
production can make any music, including bad music, sound better. But it
can't make bad music into good music.
That said, I believe "music" is in the ear of the creator and listener,
to convert the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" quote to a
different purpose. I personally feel that music is *any* sound that its
creator likes or enjoys, from clicking sticks together while walking
through the woods in cadence to them, to the most elaborately
structured, harmonically or melodically or rhythmically complex sounds
he or she can come up with. And good music should be able to stand on
its own, *apart* from any production that may give it a superficial
polish and gleam. The beauty and impressive nature of Rachmaninov's
harmonies and melodies would remain even if they were played on toy
pianos, steel drums, etc. (although they sound better with piano and
orchestra ;-)
I guess what I mean is that the music itself, to me, matters more than
the production of that music. If I can be pleased with my music
*despite* cheesy sounds, bad production and inexpert mixing, then that
means (to me) that the music itself is OK. ;-)
All that said, I'll probably try to make this little piece sound
a little better anyway, because it's fun tinkering with it.
Sorry for the "philosophical digression." ;-)
-sd
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of
civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
-Thomas Jefferson
----------------------------------------------------------------
1:42 p.m.
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 08:37:00AM -0600, Steve D wrote:
Thank you Thorsten-- Believe it or not, I chose the old fat saw-wave
synthesizer sound *because* it sounded cheesy. ;-) It's a way of poking
fun at my own music and at production in general. Having the same
thought as you, I tried several jazz organ and a variety of great flute
sounds before choosing the cheesy current lead voice.
Interesting.
The other lead
voice is cheesy too, a stratocaster guitar sound with *way* overdone
delay, phaser, chorus and equalization (so 80s).
I don't think that one is cheesy. To me it's a nice, full, warm sound,
working very well in its context. Well, ok a bit less phasing/chorus
might have done it, too :)
That said, I believe "music" is in the ear
of the creator and listener,
to convert the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" quote to a
different purpose. I personally feel that music is *any* sound that its
creator likes or enjoys, from clicking sticks together while walking
through the woods in cadence to them, to the most elaborately
structured, harmonically or melodically or rhythmically complex sounds
he or she can come up with. And good music should be able to stand on
its own, *apart* from any production that may give it a superficial
polish and gleam. The beauty and impressive nature of Rachmaninov's
harmonies and melodies would remain even if they were played on toy
pianos, steel drums, etc. (although they sound better with piano and
orchestra ;-)
I guess what I mean is that the music itself, to me, matters more than
the production of that music. If I can be pleased with my music
*despite* cheesy sounds, bad production and inexpert mixing, then that
means (to me) that the music itself is OK. ;-)
Yes, especialy great harmonies and melodies can work with varying
instrumentation and work their magic even with realy bad ones.
But in some cases the sound _is_ the music. Some sequences only
work with matching sounds and are meaningless without (not that
it would be the case here).
Personaly, I don't see the choice of patches/sounds as part of
the production ... or rather it's inbetween composition/generation
and production.
Sorry for the "philosophical digression."
;-)
NP ;-)
---
Thorsten Wilms
3 Jul
3 Jul
7:49 a.m.
Last Saturday 02 July 2005 16:41, Thorsten Wilms was like:
Personaly, I don't see the choice of
patches/sounds as part of
the production ... or rather it's inbetween composition/generation
and production.
I believe it's called 'arrangement'.
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
4 Jul
4 Jul
5:53 a.m.
On Sun, 03 Jul, 2005 at 10:49AM +0100, tim hall spake thus:
Last Saturday 02 July 2005 16:41, Thorsten Wilms was
like:
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.
I can't just drop something in and then work on it later - everything
about the drums, say, has to be done as I'm doing it. So, that
includes selecting drums, getting them into the rhythm I want,
compressing them, getting any effects I want on them all or individual
drums and eq'ing it all. Often I do this at the same time I do the
bass, with all of the twiddling needed there, too.
It might just be because I have a bad memory - I'd forget what the
hell I wanted to do with things if I left it for later. That, and I
can't separate making music and producing music. To me, "over
produced" is like saying "over musical". Which is nonsense.
Anyway. I loved the track, but the sounds grate a little.
Just a thought though - how old are you (Steve)?
It could be a generational thing - I'm 26 and I've listened to
overproduced music all my life. Most of the kind of music I listen to
seems to have over production built in from the outset. Although I
wouldn't call it over production - I'd just say it's making what would
traditionally be called production into just another musical device.
I was going to say that this is just my 2p, but looking back, I'd say
it's more of a 14p email.
James
http://dis-dot-dat.net/
Personaly, I don't see the choice of
patches/sounds as part of
the production ... or rather it's inbetween composition/generation
and production.
I believe it's called 'arrangement'. cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
--
"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)
7:36 a.m.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:02:38AM +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
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.
---
Thorsten Wilms
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)
8:10 a.m.
Last Monday 04 July 2005 09:02, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net was like:
On Sun, 03 Jul, 2005 at 10:49AM +0100, tim hall spake
thus:
Defining phases of writing, arrangement, production, recording, mixing,
mastering doesn't tie us to a way of working as mostly solo artists working
on our own, it's easy to blur these distinctions. I think it is useful to
ground the meanings of these terms for the purposes of analysing our results
and suggesting improvements.
Last Saturday 02 July 2005 16:41, Thorsten Wilms
was like:
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. Personaly, I don't see the choice of
patches/sounds as part of
the production ... or rather it's inbetween composition/generation
and production.
I believe it's called 'arrangement'. I can't just drop something in and then work on it
later - everything
about the drums, say, has to be done as I'm doing it. So, that
includes selecting drums, getting them into the rhythm I want,
compressing them, getting any effects I want on them all or individual
drums and eq'ing it all. Often I do this at the same time I do the
bass, with all of the twiddling needed there, too.
It might just be because I have a bad memory - I'd forget what the
hell I wanted to do with things if I left it for later. That, and I
can't separate making music and producing music. To me, "over
produced" is like saying "over musical". Which is nonsense.
I have to disagree with that last statement. To me over-produced is
over-processed. It doesn't sound like you suffer from this problem. I am all
too familiar with watching a song die in the studio due to it having been
rehearsed to death before we began, then the writer decides to change an
important part of the arrangement five minutes before the red light goes on.
Then the engineer decides to compress the life out of the bass, drums and
vocals. By the time the keyboard player has done the 43rd Hammond take, the
band has lost interest. All the vocals go down flat because the producer is
obsessive about matching vowel sounds and timing, using extreme editing and
pitch correction, where none was needed. This style of arranging/production
frequently fails to come up with a final mix as there is always something to
fix or add, basically because you didn't get it right the first time.
Oops, does my stuff look big in this?
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
9:08 a.m.
tim hall wrote:
**********************************
All the vocals go down flat because the producer is
obsessive about matching vowel sounds and timing, using extreme editing and
pitch correction, where none was needed. This style of arranging/production
frequently fails to come up with a final mix as there is always something to
fix or add, basically because you didn't get it right the first time.
******************************************
HI Tim
This must be the hardest learning curve for the home/demo production.
Having all that technology there to play with, and suffering with 'I wonder'
syndrome ('I wonder' if the vocals will sound better/deeper/fatter/etc! with this
'insert effect')
I'm writing a song in protest of the war in Iraq called
Hey Dude where's My Oil
A simple enough Blues/rock number.
I keep adding stuff to the vocals and guitar and then the next day I go back in Ardour to
one of the earliest sets and it always sounds better!!!
Daft as it may sound maybe we should set a time limit for some songs and
force ourselves to work to this.
I have done some stuff for film and the deadlines helps you produce more music
faster.
I'll be sending a link to this song soon, now there's a deadline!!!!
cheers
Bob
9:33 a.m.
Last Monday 04 July 2005 12:08, Frank smith was like:
Daft as it may sound maybe we should set a time limit
for some songs and
force ourselves to work to this.
I do a take limit. Three takes and you're out. That's only a rough guide.
Every player has a curve of warming up to a take, some need longer than
others. When the 'right' take happens you'd better have the record button on,
because everything after that is usually a waste of time and you'd be better
off coming back to it another day.
Unless you're going for that 'Phil Spector' sound that is.
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
1:02 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:10:17AM +0100, tim hall wrote:
I have to disagree with that last statement. To me over-produced is
over-processed. [...] I am all
too familiar with watching a song die in the studio due to it having been
rehearsed to death before we began, then the writer decides to change an
important part of the arrangement five minutes before the red light goes on.
Then the engineer decides to compress the life out of the bass, drums and
vocals. By the time the keyboard player has done the 43rd Hammond take, the
band has lost interest. All the vocals go down flat because the producer is
obsessive about matching vowel sounds and timing, using extreme editing and
pitch correction, where none was needed. This style of arranging/production
frequently fails to come up with a final mix as there is always something to
fix or add, basically because you didn't get it right the first time.
[...]
tim hall
--- --- ---
Yeah, I agree. And the trouble with obsessive/compulsive perfectionism
is that the harder you try, the more imperfection you see. After enough
of this, the entire creative project can seem irredeemably flawed and
can lose its value in the eyes of its creator.
The trick, from my point of view, is to adjust one's focus away from the
creative product itself--whether it be a visual or aural or some other
form of art piece--and keep one's attention on the ideal that is the reason
for trying to create the product in the first place, and strive toward
as faithful a representation of that ideal as can be achieved.
Another trick, again from my point of view, is to look at a project
*subjectively* rather than objectively, to look at it "from the inside
out," so to speak, rather than from the outside in: to place one's
consciousness within the creative project rather than viewing it as
though it were something external to oneself.
--sorry for getting "philosophical" ;-)
-sd
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Happiness is the absence of the striving for happiness.
-Chuang-Tzu
----------------------------------------------------------------
2:06 p.m.
On Mon, 04 Jul, 2005 at 11:10AM +0100, tim hall spake thus:
Last Monday 04 July 2005 09:02, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net
was like:
I suppose this is where professionals like yourself and amateurs like
me differ. Sine I do everything myself, I do it all at once. In
fact, it would drive me bonkers trying to work any other way. I think
production has a different meaning when you have no producer ;)
On Sun, 03 Jul, 2005 at 10:49AM +0100, tim hall
spake thus:
Defining phases of writing, arrangement, production, recording, mixing,
mastering doesn't tie us to a way of working as mostly solo artists working
on our own, it's easy to blur these distinctions. I think it is useful to
ground the meanings of these terms for the purposes of analysing our results
and suggesting improvements.
Last Saturday 02 July 2005 16:41, Thorsten Wilms
was like:
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. Personaly, I don't see the choice of
patches/sounds as part of
the production ... or rather it's inbetween composition/generation
and production.
I believe it's called 'arrangement'. I can't just drop something in and then work
on it later - everything
about the drums, say, has to be done as I'm doing it. So, that
includes selecting drums, getting them into the rhythm I want,
compressing them, getting any effects I want on them all or individual
drums and eq'ing it all. Often I do this at the same time I do the
bass, with all of the twiddling needed there, too.
It might just be because I have a bad memory - I'd forget what the
hell I wanted to do with things if I left it for later. That, and I
can't separate making music and producing music. To me, "over
produced" is like saying "over musical". Which is nonsense.
I have to disagree with that last statement. To me over-produced is
over-processed. It doesn't sound like you suffer from this problem. I am all
too familiar with watching a song die in the studio due to it having been
rehearsed to death before we began, then the writer decides to change an
important part of the arrangement five minutes before the red light goes on.
Then the engineer decides to compress the life out of the bass, drums and
vocals. By the time the keyboard player has done the 43rd Hammond take, the
band has lost interest. All the vocals go down flat because the producer is
obsessive about matching vowel sounds and timing, using extreme editing and
pitch correction, where none was needed. This style of arranging/production
frequently fails to come up with a final mix as there is always something to
fix or add, basically because you didn't get it right the first time. Oops, does my stuff look big in this?
Huge. Try vertical stripes.
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
--
"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)
4:28 p.m.
Last Monday 04 July 2005 17:16, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net was like:
Who are you accusing of being professional?-)
I have to
disagree with that last statement. To me over-produced is
over-processed. It doesn't sound like you suffer from this problem. I am
all too familiar with watching a song die in the studio due to it having
been rehearsed to death before we began, then the writer decides to
change an important part of the arrangement five minutes before the red
light goes on. Then the engineer decides to compress the life out of the
bass, drums and vocals. By the time the keyboard player has done the 43rd
Hammond take, the band has lost interest. All the vocals go down flat
because the producer is obsessive about matching vowel sounds and timing,
using extreme editing and pitch correction, where none was needed. This
style of arranging/production frequently fails to come up with a final
mix as there is always something to fix or add, basically because you
didn't get it right the first time.
I suppose this is where professionals like yourself and amateurs like
me differ. Sine I do everything myself, I do it all at once. In
fact, it would drive me bonkers trying to work any other way. I think
production has a different meaning when you have no producer ;)
The word 'producer' has many meanings in different contexts. Most of us on
this list perform all the roles, granted. It's still useful in terms of
discussion to define which part of the creative process we are referring to.
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
12:36 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:02:38AM +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
[...] That, and I
can't separate making music and producing music. To me, "over
produced" is like saying "over musical". Which is nonsense.
To me, any creative act or exercise is like the attempted realization of
an ideal of some sort. The conceptual ideal must exist first. In the
attempt to realize or materialize that ideal, there often can be reached
a point at which further effort can make the product less rather than
more an embodiment of the ideal.
Any good artist needs to know when to stop fiddling and fussing with his
or her work (at least for a time), or risk marring it with overwork. ;-)
That's what I personally meant by "overproduction."
Anyway. I loved the track, but the sounds grate a
little.
Just a thought though - how old are you (Steve)?
I'm old James: 53 this year. Regarding the sounds in that Lonesome
Butte piece being "grating," maybe I'm losing some of my hearing in some
frequency ranges. Do the sounds have too much a sharp high-frequency
edge?
It could be a generational thing - I'm 26 and
I've listened to
overproduced music all my life. Most of the kind of music I listen to
seems to have over production built in from the outset. Although I
wouldn't call it over production - I'd just say it's making what would
traditionally be called production into just another musical device.
That seems like a valid viewpoint. Production as a creative activity.
;-)
-sd
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual
ignorance. -Thomas Carlyle
----------------------------------------------------------------
2:10 p.m.
On Mon, 04 Jul, 2005 at 08:36AM -0600, Steve D 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)
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:02:38AM +0100,
james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
No, nothing like that. Don't take this the wrong way but it sounds
like the supermarket midi rendition of a great track.
It's still great, but the sounds are just too cheesy. Then again, you
did say you were after that kind of sounds, so I suppose it's a
success.
[...] That, and I
can't separate making music and producing music. To me, "over
produced" is like saying "over musical". Which is nonsense.
To me, any creative act or exercise is like the attempted realization of
an ideal of some sort. The conceptual ideal must exist first. In the
attempt to realize or materialize that ideal, there often can be reached
a point at which further effort can make the product less rather than
more an embodiment of the ideal.
Any good artist needs to know when to stop fiddling and fussing with his
or her work (at least for a time), or risk marring it with overwork. ;-)
That's what I personally meant by "overproduction."
Anyway. I loved the track, but the sounds grate
a little.
Just a thought though - how old are you (Steve)?
I'm old James: 53 this year. Regarding the sounds in that Lonesome
Butte piece being "grating," maybe I'm losing some of my hearing in some
frequency ranges. Do the sounds have too much a sharp high-frequency
edge? It could be a generational thing - I'm 26 and
I've listened to
overproduced music all my life. Most of the kind of music I listen to
seems to have over production built in from the outset. Although I
wouldn't call it over production - I'd just say it's making what would
traditionally be called production into just another musical device.
That seems like a valid viewpoint. Production as a creative activity.
;-)
-sd
3:56 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 05:19:33PM +0100, james(a)dis-dot-dat.net wrote:
[...]
No, nothing like that. Don't take this the wrong way but it sounds
like the supermarket midi rendition of a great track.
Ahh, I see--the "Easy Listening" or dentist's office version of the
music. ;-) No offense taken. I appreciate the comment and point of view.
When I was young and full of angst and overly serious (I'm not
characterizing young people in general--just me), I strove for the
majestic, the profound, the deeply meaningful. I resented the Muzak versions
of great pop and rock tunes of the Beatles and others, when I heard them
on the radio or in commercial offices.
Now, so much water has passed under (and over) this bridge (my life)
that I'm kind of worn down, and even trivial pleasures work for me. ;-)
It's still great, but the sounds are just too
cheesy. Then again, you
did say you were after that kind of sounds, so I suppose it's a
success.
Well, I wouldn't have been disappointed if it *did* sound great. ;-)
My stuff may sound better over time, as my abilities develop. The
process is often the reward from my point of view. The creative product
often is just a reminder of the personally meaningful creative process
that produced it.
Best wishes,
Steve
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
When the government fears the people, that is liberty; when
the people fear the government, that is tyranny.
----------------------------------------------------------------
2 Jul
2 Jul
8:02 a.m.
Your experiences sound a lot like mine, Steve.
Last Saturday 02 July 2005 07:38, Steve D was like:
I had put off learning anything about Ardour for a
long time. I was
scared of its seeming complexity. However, by concentrating at first on
just the features that I needed to understand in order to record
something, it wasn't as hard as I thought. It will take time to learn
the program well though.
Yes, I took my time getting round to looking at Ardour. I have found it very
intuitive to use and as you say, you only need to know a limited set of
functions to record and master a basic multitrack piece. I'm beginning to
think of it as the audio equivalent to GIMP, rather than the Linux equivalent
to ProTools.
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
3 Jul
3 Jul
11:48 a.m.
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 11:02:38AM +0100, tim hall wrote:
Yes, I took my time getting round to looking at Ardour. I have found it very
intuitive to use and as you say, you only need to know a limited set of
functions to record and master a basic multitrack piece. I'm beginning to
think of it as the audio equivalent to GIMP, rather than the Linux equivalent
to ProTools.
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
--- --- ---
Good way of looking at it. After only two full days with Ardour, I have
become surprisingly familiar and relatively comfortable with it and am
starting to like Ardour a *lot*. I clicked the "Support Ardour" PayPal
link at the ardour.org website and donated some money to the project.
I used to use Apple Macintosh computers before switching to Linux about
1998, and spent a fortune on graphics and MIDI/audio programs such as
Adobe PhotoShop, Opcode's Studio Vision Pro, etc., and their regular
upgrades. Now I get to use all this equivalent-functionality stuff in
Linux for *free*, so I have begun to donate to various projects whose
products I use, in a kind of random and sporadic, impulsive but regular
way. I'm very grateful for them.
I'm also grateful for your suggestions, as well as Mark C's and Thorsten
W's, regarding the arrangement and mix of the little piece I recently
recorded. I re-recorded the piece from scratch taking into consideration
every suggestion. Not that anyone would care, but the new version is
here:
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte.ogg
--the old version (for comparison) is here:
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte_old.ogg
-steve d
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Earth laughs in flowers. -Ralph Waldo Emerson
----------------------------------------------------------------
2:15 p.m.
Hi Steve. Really liked the finished product. It's got a nice jazzy feel to it.
I could see it being used in a romantic comedy type film where all sorts of
stuff goes wrong, but sort of gets sorted in the end. Perhaps at the end of
the film. The last few shots running into the credits. It's probably not long
enough for the whole of the credits, but most films seem to use a couple of
music tracks to end with. Nice work. Nigel.
On Sunday 03 Jul 2005 2:48 pm, Steve D wrote:
On Sat, Jul 02, 2005 at 11:02:38AM +0100, tim hall
wrote:
Yes, I took my time getting round to looking at
Ardour. I have found it
very intuitive to use and as you say, you only need to know a limited set
of functions to record and master a basic multitrack piece. I'm beginning
to think of it as the audio equivalent to GIMP, rather than the Linux
equivalent to ProTools.
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
--- --- ---
Good way of looking at it. After only two full days with Ardour, I have
become surprisingly familiar and relatively comfortable with it and am
starting to like Ardour a *lot*. I clicked the "Support Ardour" PayPal
link at the ardour.org website and donated some money to the project.
I used to use Apple Macintosh computers before switching to Linux about
1998, and spent a fortune on graphics and MIDI/audio programs such as
Adobe PhotoShop, Opcode's Studio Vision Pro, etc., and their regular
upgrades. Now I get to use all this equivalent-functionality stuff in
Linux for *free*, so I have begun to donate to various projects whose
products I use, in a kind of random and sporadic, impulsive but regular
way. I'm very grateful for them.
I'm also grateful for your suggestions, as well as Mark C's and Thorsten
W's, regarding the arrangement and mix of the little piece I recently
recorded. I re-recorded the piece from scratch taking into consideration
every suggestion. Not that anyone would care, but the new version is
here:
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte.ogg
--the old version (for comparison) is here:
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte_old.ogg
-steve d
4 Jul
4 Jul
8:24 a.m.
Last Sunday 03 July 2005 14:48, Steve D was like:
the new version is
here:
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte.ogg
I can only repeat the best bits of advice I was ever given:
1) Don't Know.
2) Never listen to advice.
It's on my playlist and it makes me smile everytime I hear it. Reminds me of
Camel / Metheny a little.
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk
1:28 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 11:24:02AM +0100, tim hall wrote:
I can only repeat the best bits of advice I was ever given:
1) Don't Know.
2) Never listen to advice.
tim hall
--- --- ---
Hey, *great* advice! No matter what you do, somebody's not going to like
it, so you might as well do what you want. The only critic one really
needs to please is oneself, I guess.
-sd
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Don't be afraid to try. Remember, a lone amateur built the
ark, whereas a team of professional engineers built the
Titanic.
----------------------------------------------------------------
1:51 p.m.
Steve D wrote:
No matter what you do, somebody's not going to
like
it, so you might as well do what you want. The only critic one really
needs to please is oneself, I guess.
Stravinsky said he wrote for his "imaginary other". I don't know if
that
qualifies as advice but I do like that attitude.
Btw, thanks for the mention, Steve. Feel free to bend, fold, spindle,
and mutilate my tracks as you wish. :)
Best,
dp
3 Jul
3 Jul
6:31 p.m.
Hi,
On Saturday 02 Jul 2005 08:38, Steve D wrote:
I try to learn the amazing wealth of Linux tools for
musicians and
digital-audio recording a little at a time. The last couple days I've
dug into the Hydrogen drum sequencer and, finally, the imposing and
daunting Ardour.
Anyway, here is a rough draft of one of my pieces (I'm a musician, not
an accomplished mixer/masterer):
http://www.xscd.com/pub/music/ogg/lonesome_butte.ogg
I've listened to both the new and the old now. Really good stuff, great
performance, good recording. The only thing I can really comment about is the
drums, they sound a bit repetitive but they are bearable.
For what it's worth I liked the cheesy synth in the first version :), though
the flute sound is probably more appropriate.
Good stuff!
/Robert
The drums are pure Hydrogen, using its default drum kit. All
digital-recording was done in Ardour and the session was exported to
.wav file, then encoded to OGG using oggenc.
Hydrogen
--------
I was nervous about trying to create a believable drum part using a
sequencer. I'm not a drummer and I felt it would sound very mechanical
and awkward. However, Hydrogen's "human feel" time smear and velocity
variation in the FX section of the mixer helps a lot.
Ardour
------
I had put off learning anything about Ardour for a long time. I was
scared of its seeming complexity. However, by concentrating at first on
just the features that I needed to understand in order to record
something, it wasn't as hard as I thought. It will take time to learn
the program well though.
Anyway, it sure is fun playing with these and other programs. I'm very
impressed with all the great audio-oriented stuff available to Linux
users and very grateful to the developers who create the tools.
Steve D
New Mexico US
--
http://spamatica.se/musicsite/
6 Jul
6 Jul
11:31 a.m.
On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 10:30:50PM +0200, Robert Jonsson wrote:
I've listened to both the new and the old now.
Really good stuff, great
performance, good recording. The only thing I can really comment about is the
drums, they sound a bit repetitive but they are bearable.
Seconded.
For what it's worth I liked the cheesy synth in
the first version :), though
the flute sound is probably more appropriate.
I thought the flute was a much better.
--
Joshua D. Boyd
jdboyd(a)jdboyd.net
http://www.jdboyd.net/
http://www.joshuaboyd.org/
10 Jul
10 Jul
5:49 a.m.
On Sat, 2005-07-02 at 00:38 -0600, Steve D wrote:
Nice song, playful, it made me smile and relax.
Aside from what everyone else said about bumping up the bass, I don't
really have any comment about mixing/mastering, which is quite
remarkable per se. No, I'm not a sound engineer either.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
7077
days inactive
7085
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
27 comments
11 participants
participants (11)
-
Dave Phillips -
Florin Andrei -
Frank smith -
james＠dis-dot-dat.net -
Joshua Boyd -
Mark Constable -
nigel henry -
Robert Jonsson -
Steve D -
Thorsten Wilms -
tim hall