I'm trying to start compositions but

[Yahoo]

I don't think I have enough programs, or do I?

Okay, well, what I've been doing is using Fruity Loops for most of a song and adding my hardware to it by making wave files with Cool Edit. I have the song running in FL and play the hardware, then trim the file and add it to the FL sequencer, which sometimes has me doing up to 30 takes before I get a satisfying recording, but I guess that's how it is with any other program that records hand-played audio, right?

Okay, so my main situation is that I currently only use fruity loops as one single pattern with a bunch of channels that I rotate and play along with. I want to start making whole songs comprised of differnt sections but I don't know if I want to even do this with FL because I imagine I will eventually want to move into a 'better' program, so I might as well start learning that program now (Cubase maybe).

So, Is the combonation of FL and Cool Edit in the way I use them any different that using something like cubase? From what I understand, cubase has piano rolls( much like FL's sequencer, where a sample can be typed in to change differnt pitches and other paramaters in perfect sync with the bpm), audio recording capabilities, and a multitracker.

For a lot of the professional music that I listen to (almost any genre), I hear a sound that I can't imagine achieving with FL. I assume this is because of effects, because samples should sound the same in any program when the're not altered, right?

So, are there any VST effects that I can use with FL to get a more 'professional' sound?

If there are VST effects that will make FL achieve a more pro sound, so you think I should get them, keep my current setup and learn midi recording to get the hand-played parts in perfect sync?

Are there any suggestions that you can make to help me?

Thanks a lot.

[clusterchord]

get real. get cubase.

 

what you're trying to do is fit an elephant in a Yugo.

 

Trust me, you want regret it. Cubase provides freedom of expression. Today, programs like Cubase and Logic got so good, that i can hardly imagine anything anymore that i'd want that they dont allow me to. Except do the work for me. From surgical audio editing, unlimited history of individual region audio edits, to vst instruments and flexible audio and midi recording.

 

example: One of my favorites is the recent implementation of TIME WARP (i use nuendo, but its the same in SX 2.0) , where you do a free-tempo performance (no metronome), on a piano for example, including all your accelerandi and ritardandi and extreme rubato if you will. After that you draw bars and beats on your performance, and drag them arround freely to fit what you played. The program automatically calculates tempo changes that you do and makes a tempo map that is entirely taken from your free playing. Now when you want to add some other instruments and have trouble imitating the original vibe, you quantize them to this tempo map, no sweat.

[Dan South]

Not enough programs????????

 

Lots of compositions have one sound - piano, guitar, organ, violin, etc. Lots of songs sound great with one instrument and a vocal.

 

I suggest that you turn off the computer and compose with your mouth. Hum or sing some melodies, some bass lines, some drum beats. Feel the connection with the music. Get to the point where you can really "hear" it in your head and in your heart. Then later, try to replicate those ideas on an instrument on in a computer program.

[coyote]

I never knew that Cubase was a requirement for composing music.

 

Dan, your response is perfect.

[Dave Horne]

Originally posted by coyote:

I never knew that Cubase was a requirement for composing music.

 

Dan, your response is perfect.

Exactly. I remember the old days when you sat behind a piano with a blank piece of music paper and a pencil.

[Tusker]

Writing and performance have become integrated ... for many. The medium may dictate the message.

 

I can score parts for a horn section more easily than I can get a loop groove and sound fresh. It's where my chops lie. Others may be different.

 

Gali, it would help if you told us what kind of musical goals you want to accomplish. Yes, the professional sound will require a lot of processing and effects. And production skills. It will take more than buying the right software.

 

But that sounds like a production issue. Do you intend, to write, perform and produce your music in an integrated manner?

 

Best,

 

Jerry

[Faruk]

Well, I dont think Clusterchord proposed anything else, but some serious hard work. It is normal to use contemporary equipment for music production. I think this proccess is called by Brian Eno "using studio as composing tool". Why would someone use only clasic instruments? It would be same to say "letters are the only proper way of comunication". If you dont have anything in your head, no music will come out no metter what composing method you use.

 

Faruk

[Dave Horne]

I can well imagine that in the near future the art of reading music (and writing music on paper) will be a lost art since any 'composer' only has to 'input' his 'thoughts' using midi keyboards and not paper.

 

The reference to 'letters' would be a good analogy if we used voice recognition technology. Once that technology becomes perfected, we will no longer need the skill of writing or typing; creating literature will become much like 'composing' is today. (Power failures will once again separate the boys from the men.)

 

I recall a conversation I had with someone years ago and a film score. There was a problem and the 'composer' (who only used keyboards to input the musical information) was called upon to actually read a march for a scene. Of course, since he did not know how to read printed music, things came to a stand still rather quickly. The 'composer' was unaware that those skills could come in handy (let alone be essential).

 

The above thoughts reflect the personal opinion of an old fart who can do 'both'.

[coyote]

I dunno; the way I read it he seemed to be saying that gali couldn't function without Cubase.

 

As someone who has composed on bar napkins, meeting notices, microcassettes and digital camera audio as well as standard manuscript and various computer programs, I beg to differ. While the end production result might call for a different sound or tool than what one has immediately available, the job of composing is all about what's in your head (as you rightly pointed out) and getting it recorded in some fashion. Cubase is not a requirement for that.

 

Originally posted by Faruk:

Well, I dont think Clusterchord proposed anything else, but some serious hard work. It is normal to use contemporary equipment for music production. If you dont have anything in your head, no music will come out no metter what composing method you use.

Faruk

[Dan South]

You may use whatever instruments, equipment, and people that you have at your disposal. But if you're getting stuck, then either you don't understand the underlying process well enough or the complexity of your studio has become a distraction.

 

Break music making down to its simplest elements, then add complexity when it becomes desirable/necessary. If you approach your music "studio first," the feeling and the communication of the music may, and probably will, get lost in the details. Either you'll get nothing done, or the projects that you do complete will sound as though something is missing. That "something" is the focus that becomes obvious - or the lack of it becomes obvious - when you strip the music down to its rudimentary elements.

 

If you haven't developed a musical idea to the point where you can express it with your mouth, then no amount of computer or studio gear is going to make it sound right. Music is a message from your heart and mind to the heart and mind of someone else. If it doesn't work on that level, then it doesn't matter whether or not you have "enough samples."

[Michelle ggurl]

Dan I totally agree with you. Don't think I could say it better than you did in your last post. What I can do is add some perspective based on a project I'm in now:

 

I am in a recording project now, all original compositions written by my parter (guitarist) and me (keyboardist). Initially the songs were played, we scribbled chord changes, and recorded into cheesy open-air recorder to get the ideas down. Neither of us is fond of notating music; we are mainly by-ear musicians.

 

After the fact, we hired a drummer and bassist to record. So I wrote proper charts for them.

 

We are working with a producer who is adding loops to go UNDER what we have already done. It's merely a texture; it didn't dictate the compositions at all. BUT, the audio was recorded and performed on the tempo grid, so it's super easy to chop up audio or add sequences as we please ... not the the music demands a lot of that, but that's OUR style.

 

Just another approach; you can work on the grid, compose the music and play as audio a guide track, add more/rerecord/whatever, and add loops. Our producer uses Pro Tools and Reason, combining live audio and loops all the time. He works with major labels as well as independent projects ... so I'd trust his practices as indication that you don't need JUST Cubase ... but if you want to use loops, you need to find a program that has features for how you want to work.

[Faruk]

Originally posted by Dave Horne:

I can well imagine that in the near future the art of reading music (and writing music on paper) will be a lost art since any 'composer' only has to 'input' his 'thoughts' using midi keyboards and not paper.

 

The reference to 'letters' would be a good analogy if we used voice recognition technology. Once that technology becomes perfected, we will no longer need the skill of writing or typing; creating literature will become much like 'composing' is today. (Power failures will once again separate the boys from the men.)

 

I recall a conversation I had with someone years ago and a film score. There was a problem and the 'composer' (who only used keyboards to input the musical information) was called upon to actually read a march for a scene. Of course, since he did not know how to read printed music, things came to a stand still rather quickly. The 'composer' was unaware that those skills could come in handy (let alone be essential).

 

The above thoughts reflect the personal opinion of an old fart who can do 'both'.

Dave, as you explicitly put it out there is no bad knowledge. There is only difference in what knowledge one thinks he/she needs. It is the way of civilisation development. Any old civilisation had their fond of knowledge (astrology, agriculture, how to skin a buffalo, etc). The only question is do you need it. For example ancient egiptians knew of steem machinery, but they never used it since they never needed it and ancient asirians never used wheel but, but they built Babilon tower and Semiramida's gardens and also knew of concrete but never used it in construction. I know I simplify, but it is same relationship in art, culture and any other human society activity yesterday, today and tomorow.

 

But, in the end, it all comes to your great statement: "Power failures will once again separate boys from men" .

[marino]

Hey Galiwaves,

 

rather than lecturing you abut the virtues of having some skills and working in your head, I'll give you one little tip:

 

Postpone the purchase of a new program just a little bit, and get instead a copy of "Composing Music", by William Russo. It's a book of composition 'exercises' - excellent food for thought. No 'theory' at all.

 

It has nothing to do with the genre of music you're used to, but that's a good thing. I mean, it has nothing to do with *any* specific genre. Just the basic building blocks of music.

 

Enjoy

 

Carlo

[clusterchord]

i guess i understood galiwaves question differently: i thought he's asking something from a pure technological standpoint, that he wanted a better work-flow software solution, not having to work with two half-baked ones. In other words, gear recommendation. apple and oranges, i guess.

 

By all means, having a cubase or whatever is not a requirement for making music. Actually, "requirement" as a word sounds suspiciously in contrast with words like "music", "creation", "emotion". I agree with most things said here about beginning composition/making melodies humming etc. While at it, if i may recommend another great book about composition, form, a bit of harmony etc, that was very inspirative to me, by Reginald Smith Brindle "Musical Composition" (Oxford Press)

[mildbill]

galiwaves: for what you're trying to do, cubase would make the process simpler, more efficient, and more enjoyable.

[Yahoo]

i guess i understood galiwaves question differently: i thought he's asking something from a pure technological standpoint, that he wanted a better work-flow software solution, not having to work with two half-baked ones. In other words, gear recommendation. apple and oranges, i guess.

That is what I ment...I may have missused the term "composition". I just ment that I wanted to mix different patterns together.