When future Macs have 2GB+ processors running a 400Mhz+ memory bus, then we'll start seeing a whole new series of music production apps. Like maybe the equivalent of a full <a href="http://www.symbolicsound.com/brochure/index.html"; target="_blank">Kyma</a> system running natively without external processing hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And when they get to that point some people will still be saying that it's not enough.
Look, I have been doing 3D animation for about 9 years. The truth is, as technology evolves you can do more, and since you can do more, you push the limits of your hardware more. So, no matter how much power you have, either the software companies will be able to implement more advanced features that will consume more resources, or the user will be able to add more to his/her creations, which will consume more resources.
We all want bigger, faster, better, but think about what you can do now that you couldn't,just a couple of years ago.
No he just produce fantastic music, just with the instruments he have, a pen, paper and a fantastic brain who was able to playback a whole orchestra.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good idea!
Music is meant to be read, not heard!
Wouldn't it be great next time you're in a movie theatre, if they just handed out the score to the film, and didn't bother to record anything, that would save a whole lot of money!
Better yet, if they did the same thing with CD's -just write in some squiggly notes, don't bother to record anything because hearing music is quite besides the point isn't it?.
Hey, whaddaya say we try it now!
"Right about now, the funk soul brother ... check it out now, the funk soul brother, right about now" ...
Man, it's a HIT!
I guess it must of really pissed off Mozart that people even bothered to show up for his concerts, being the purist genious he was; I'm sure he would've much rather mailed out the score to his fans rather than have to go thru all the fuss of actually getting all those people in one place and having all those musicians learn to play the stuff.
I suppose all this stuff about composers wanting better tools just so they can make their stuff sound better is obviously quite besides the point and is really just a bunch of whining;
Wouldn't it be great next time you're in a movie theatre, if they just handed out the score to the film, and didn't bother to record anything, that would save a whole lot of money!
Better yet, if they did the same thing with CD's -just write in some squiggly notes, don't bother to record anything because hearing music is quite besides the point isn't it?.
Hey, whaddaya say we try it now!
"Right about now, the funk soul brother ... check it out now, the funk soul brother, right about now" ...
Man, it's a HIT!
I guess it must of really pissed off Mozart that people even bothered to show up for his concerts, being the purist genious he was; I'm sure he would've much rather mailed out the score to his fans rather than have to go thru all the fuss of actually getting all those people in one place and having all those musicians learn to play the stuff.
I suppose all this stuff about composers wanting better tools just so they can make their stuff sound better is obviously quite besides the point and is really just a bunch of whining;
Idiot. Do you think all the music you hear at the movies was made entirely with the computer? Most high-production-value movies with, in turn, better soundtracks use real musicians. Oh my God! The horror! People! Yes, people. That's the greatest tool in music. Music is written to be performed, generally speaking.
Of course, you might not get it, seeing as how you think Fatboy Slim is the epitome of modern compostion.
Get a clue, or keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself.
<strong>All the more reason to use real instruments in place of synthetic ones. And to practice more.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
In addition to electronic music, I've been playing piano for over 25 years, so practice is not an issue. You have some misguided image of electronic instruments being a replacement for conventional instruments and that electronic musicians just push a button and create a whole composition, which is not true. I don't know of any "real" instrument that can produce timbres as unusual as some Reaktor ensembles, for example. Electronic music is just another medium of expression. It's not better or worse than conventional music, just as photography is not better or worse than painting.
<strong>What is it that you do powerdoc?</strong><hr></blockquote>
no i am definitevely not a genius in music (just the reverse) .
The brain of genius does not work in the same way as common people. A genius in chess see mentally the images of the draught board and the various moves, a genius in calculation see mentally the numbers in front of him , and for a genius of music (and many good musicians) notes on paper are songs. Mozart was able to see the result of his work without musicians. Of course, the repetition where important in order to make rectification, because musicians are not robots.
This is not the case for a poor guy like me and many others people, so that's why i prefear ear music.
If mozart was living now, you can sure that he will use computers (and for sure a mac, because every genius use macs : that's well known <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ), but he did the best whith what he has. So if someone complain because there is only a dual GHZ computer in the market, he will always complain, because in twenty years the computer will be one thousand time fasters.
So buy the duallie and do the best music you can do. In ten years even a 2 ghz G5 will be good for the garbage.
Idiot. Do you think all the music you hear at the movies was made entirely with the computer? Most high-production-value movies with, in turn, better soundtracks use real musicians. Oh my God! The horror! People! Yes, people. That's the greatest tool in music. Music is written to be performed, generally speaking.
Of course, you might not get it, seeing as how you think Fatboy Slim is the epitome of modern compostion.
Get a clue, or keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Having myself either made or been involved with the creation of music for CD, Television or Movies for over a decade, I'd say you're the "idiot" here - quite so actually.
A - In response to your first point, yes, in fact ALL the music you hear on CD, television or movies these days, real musicians or not, goes thru a computer at some point. Don't take it hard.
B - FWIW - I myself fooled a producer, big into chamber music, into thinking we hired a string quartet for a gig - I could almost certainly fool you. In fact, if you've got out from under your purist rock once in a while and actually had a peek behind the curtain - you'd realise you're fooled all the time. The catch is, it's not in anybody's interest to tell you when you've been fooled - we certainly never told the producer, why would we then screw things up and tell the audience, or the likes of you? The whole point of a record or movie is to create an illusion, not spoil it.
C - Almost no music heard today is purely the creation of a score and some holy grail called "real musicians". Certainly all the writers I've ever worked with (myself included) start off in a sequencer, if they eventually needed to hire real musicians and chart or score, they do, if not, they don't. Which means almost all the music you hear these days, anywhere, is usually some form of hybrid. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it doesn't - that aspect at least hasn't changed since even before Mozart's day, computers or not.
And finally - and it amazes me that I have to keep repeating this - music is only as good as it sounds: period. That's always been true and will always continue to be true, no matter how pretty or intellectual the dots on page happen to be ... they were never more than a means to an end. More computing power simply means more ability to control that end ... which, if you're actually serious about making music that sounds good, should be something that interests you.
As for this notion that only wimps use computers as a musical crutch ... great, the more bozo's who think that, the more work there is for me.
Having myself either made or been involved with the creation of music for CD, Television or Movies for over a decade, I'd say you're the "idiot" here - quite so actually.
A - In response to your first point, yes, in fact ALL the music you hear on CD, television or movies these days, real musicians or not, goes thru a computer at some point. Don't take it hard.
B - FWIW - I myself fooled a producer, big into chamber music, into thinking we hired a string quartet for a gig - I could almost certainly fool you. In fact, if you've got out from under your purist rock once in a while and actually had a peek behind the curtain - you'd realise you're fooled all the time. The catch is, it's not in anybody's interest to tell you when you've been fooled - we certainly never told the producer, why would we then screw things up and tell the audience, or the likes of you? The whole point of a record or movie is to create an illusion, not spoil it.
C - Almost no music heard today is purely the creation of a score and some holy grail called "real musicians". Certainly all the writers I've ever worked with (myself included) start off in a sequencer, if they eventually needed to hire real musicians and chart or score, they do, if not, they don't. Which means almost all the music you hear these days, anywhere, is usually some form of hybrid. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it doesn't - that aspect at least hasn't changed since even before Mozart's day, computers or not.
And finally - and it amazes me that I have to keep repeating this - music is only as good as it sounds: period. That's always been true and will always continue to be true, no matter how pretty or intellectual the dots on page happen to be ... they were never more than a means to an end. More computing power simply means more ability to control that end ... which, if you're actually serious about making music that sounds good, should be something that interests you.
As for this notion that only wimps use computers as a musical crutch ... great, the more bozo's who think that, the more work there is for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know this. But I simply don't think that music is going to get better by us getting faster computers. That's it. I don't think computers can play as well as real musicians.
But I also know that composers in the past used the technology that was available to them, which was a keyboard and some paper. I don't think it's cool to belittle them for that. Your music doesn't magically get better when you process it. If was good music to begin with, the sound quality we improve. If it was shit to begin with, it will be enhanced shit, which is still shit.
I'm sorry if I came off as sounding condescending toward those who use electronic instruments. I just think that some of the comments were rather silly. As a musician, a dual-gigahertz won't cut it? There are so many great artists out there who use much more basic computers than that, and I don't think their music suffers for it. Moby, whom I like, uses a Blue and White for all his albums. Does it sound bad? Michael Kamen is composing on a Ti 500. Are his compositions not as good because it's not powerful enough a computer.
My favorite album in my collection right now, the John Coltrane Quartet's Crescent, was produced in 1964 with no computers. I still think it sounds better than the crap Kenny G and his ilk shit out with all their advanced processing equipment.
Moby, whom I like, uses a Blue and White for all his albums. Does it sound bad? Michael Kamen is composing on a Ti 500. Are his compositions not as good because it's not powerful enough a computer.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both Moby and Michael Kamen have dozens of hardware synthesizers/samplers and racks of hardware in their studios. They use their Macs for simple multitrack recording and could get by with a Mac 6100 in that case. They aren't using their computers as a replacement for all their hardware instruments. This is what I'm interested in doing and as a result, I need a very fast computer.
Computers fast enough to do that are available, they're just not available for $3K.
If the rumors are right, maybe this time next year? But it's hardly Apple's fault that they can't magically leapfrog everyone else.
This summer should be interesting for audio folks, since it's when all the big audio apps are supposed to come out. (It was to be this spring until the developers found out that 10.1's audio layer wasn't as complete as Apple hoped it was. Whoops.) OS X should make possible a lot of things that weren't possible in OS 9 - or which, at least, were only possible with the aid of PCI cards.
[quote]In addition to electronic music, I've been playing piano for over 25 years, so practice is not an issue. You have some misguided image of electronic instruments being a replacement for conventional instruments and that electronic musicians just push a button and create a whole composition, which is not true. I don't know of any "real" instrument that can produce timbres as unusual as some Reaktor ensembles, for example. Electronic music is just another medium of expression. It's not better or worse than conventional music, just as photography is not better or worse than painting.
<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. There is something lost when the element of live musicians is removed from music. A computer cannot recreate the chemistry that sometimes occurs between live musicians playing instruments in real time.
Likewise, I've yet to see a photo that is as expressive as a Van Gogh. I like photography, but painting comes from the soul.
My tag name is based in part on the fact that I think that we lost something when we went from vinyl LPs to digital CDs. I have a suspicion that the decline of guitar-based rock is due in no small part to the fact that we now deliver our "product" in an unsympathetic medium. (So as you might imagine I've tended to turn my nose up at the whole MP3 thing.)
That said, I truly believe that overtoasty is able to fool people just like he says. I saw Phillip Glass perform the score to Koyannisqatsi a couple of years ago. He just played with a couple of other guys on their big-arsed synths, and if you closed your eyes you would have sworn that there was a full choir right there in the auditorium. Spooky and impressive.
Well, the level of debate in here really has fallen off the deep end eh?
All Nepo asked was when we could expect faster systems. It's really unfortunate how many people decided to attack his musical ability instead (which I guarantee none of you have even heard).
I agree with the people who predict MWNY. And Nepo, I too am waiting for a faster system, particularly with faster ram and bus speed. Faster processor'd be nice too.
Moby, whom I like, uses a Blue and White for all his albums. Does it sound bad? Michael Kamen is composing on a Ti 500. Are his compositions not as good because it's not powerful enough a computer.
Both Moby and Michael Kamen have dozens of hardware synthesizers/samplers and racks of hardware in their studios. They use their Macs for simple multitrack recording and could get by with a Mac 6100 in that case. They aren't using their computers as a replacement for all their hardware instruments. This is what I'm interested in doing and as a result, I need a very fast computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I noticed on mtv cribs that Moby had a rackmount G4 running Pro-tools TDM, just like anyone who needs power should be doing. To the guy who thinks he needs a G5, if you are really that good, buy a pro-tools h|d system and you will have all you will need for years to come. If you can't afford it, then keep practicing and learn to sell enough music to be able to afford it. That's what the rest of us do. That's why this systems exist. And to PHP, in regard to your post about how much software you can use at once: I can open all of that and more with a Ti500. Maybe you should switch to Logic. Anyway, I read an article with a certain very successful producer who mentioned that he never leaves plug-ins instantiated. Also a good way to make commitments in your work. I liked that idea...
And to PHP, in regard to your post about how much software you can use at once: I can open all of that and more with a Ti500. Maybe you should switch to Logic.
Sorry, but you can't be serious on that. We're talking about hardware replacement, i.e samplers. If you want to do that natively, you need a VERY fast computer. Your Ti500 is a dream, but give it a few good reverbs and some sampling and it will say good bye to you. WE NEED A G5, because that was then, but this is now! I don't want to pay a fortune for Digidesign's Pro Tools which is a great system, but not even capable of using VSTi's, unless you buy Logic Platinum plus system bridge. Try to think ahead. Mac users suddenly become so retro in their way of thinking, I wonder why ;-)
Both Moby and Michael Kamen have dozens of hardware synthesizers/samplers and racks of hardware in their studios. They use their Macs for simple multitrack recording and could get by with a Mac 6100 in that case. They aren't using their computers as a replacement for all their hardware instruments. This is what I'm interested in doing and as a result, I need a very fast computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see. I actually hadn't considered that you had no pro audio hardware.
I have to agree with junkyard here ( having once been in a band myself ) nothing can replace the chemistry between real musicians.
Having said that I also have to say I love electronics and how far instruments have come with them.
I used argue for them back in the good old days when stick in the mud people used to say things like " those things aren't natural " and " they don't take talent, don't they play themselves "? Well a piano which they traditionaly accept is a very complex mechanical contrivance that would never happen in nature. This attitude is just as mistaken.
These are tools to create with just like a banjo nothing more. The creative process doesn't come from them.
However electronic instruments and the ability to make them work together or to write music on a computer is ment to help or augment the creative process not to replace it. If you can't make good music with 2 gigahertz of PPC power I'm sorry but, no amount will help you.
PS. My favorite dumb statement about my old Moog synthisizer was " well, you can't even tune it to the other musicians can you "? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
I see. I actually hadn't considered that you had no pro audio hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sold my last hardware synths a few months ago. Got rid of my rack and recording gear much before that. It's not like I needed the money my bookie, either . It was my desire to scale down. And yes, I can afford a large ProTools system if I wanted one, but I'm a minimalist. I really like the idea of having everything available to me in one compact workstation-computer. Back in 1981 I had an Alpha Syntauri digital synth based on a Mountain DSP card in an Apple II plus. Every since then I dreamed of the day that my entire studio could be based in a single computer. It's looking like that will happen real soon.
Comments
<strong>
When future Macs have 2GB+ processors running a 400Mhz+ memory bus, then we'll start seeing a whole new series of music production apps. Like maybe the equivalent of a full <a href="http://www.symbolicsound.com/brochure/index.html"; target="_blank">Kyma</a> system running natively without external processing hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And when they get to that point some people will still be saying that it's not enough.
Look, I have been doing 3D animation for about 9 years. The truth is, as technology evolves you can do more, and since you can do more, you push the limits of your hardware more. So, no matter how much power you have, either the software companies will be able to implement more advanced features that will consume more resources, or the user will be able to add more to his/her creations, which will consume more resources.
We all want bigger, faster, better, but think about what you can do now that you couldn't,just a couple of years ago.
<strong>
No he just produce fantastic music, just with the instruments he have, a pen, paper and a fantastic brain who was able to playback a whole orchestra.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good idea!
Music is meant to be read, not heard!
Wouldn't it be great next time you're in a movie theatre, if they just handed out the score to the film, and didn't bother to record anything, that would save a whole lot of money!
Better yet, if they did the same thing with CD's -just write in some squiggly notes, don't bother to record anything because hearing music is quite besides the point isn't it?.
Hey, whaddaya say we try it now!
"Right about now, the funk soul brother ... check it out now, the funk soul brother, right about now" ...
Man, it's a HIT!
I guess it must of really pissed off Mozart that people even bothered to show up for his concerts, being the purist genious he was; I'm sure he would've much rather mailed out the score to his fans rather than have to go thru all the fuss of actually getting all those people in one place and having all those musicians learn to play the stuff.
I suppose all this stuff about composers wanting better tools just so they can make their stuff sound better is obviously quite besides the point and is really just a bunch of whining;
Edison Cylinders For Everybody!
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
Good idea!
Music is meant to be read, not heard!
Wouldn't it be great next time you're in a movie theatre, if they just handed out the score to the film, and didn't bother to record anything, that would save a whole lot of money!
Better yet, if they did the same thing with CD's -just write in some squiggly notes, don't bother to record anything because hearing music is quite besides the point isn't it?.
Hey, whaddaya say we try it now!
"Right about now, the funk soul brother ... check it out now, the funk soul brother, right about now" ...
Man, it's a HIT!
I guess it must of really pissed off Mozart that people even bothered to show up for his concerts, being the purist genious he was; I'm sure he would've much rather mailed out the score to his fans rather than have to go thru all the fuss of actually getting all those people in one place and having all those musicians learn to play the stuff.
I suppose all this stuff about composers wanting better tools just so they can make their stuff sound better is obviously quite besides the point and is really just a bunch of whining;
Edison Cylinders For Everybody!
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Idiot. Do you think all the music you hear at the movies was made entirely with the computer? Most high-production-value movies with, in turn, better soundtracks use real musicians. Oh my God! The horror! People! Yes, people. That's the greatest tool in music. Music is written to be performed, generally speaking.
Of course, you might not get it, seeing as how you think Fatboy Slim is the epitome of modern compostion.
Get a clue, or keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself.
<strong>All the more reason to use real instruments in place of synthetic ones. And to practice more.
In addition to electronic music, I've been playing piano for over 25 years, so practice is not an issue. You have some misguided image of electronic instruments being a replacement for conventional instruments and that electronic musicians just push a button and create a whole composition, which is not true. I don't know of any "real" instrument that can produce timbres as unusual as some Reaktor ensembles, for example. Electronic music is just another medium of expression. It's not better or worse than conventional music, just as photography is not better or worse than painting.
<strong>What is it that you do powerdoc?</strong><hr></blockquote>
no i am definitevely not a genius in music (just the reverse) .
The brain of genius does not work in the same way as common people. A genius in chess see mentally the images of the draught board and the various moves, a genius in calculation see mentally the numbers in front of him , and for a genius of music (and many good musicians) notes on paper are songs. Mozart was able to see the result of his work without musicians. Of course, the repetition where important in order to make rectification, because musicians are not robots.
This is not the case for a poor guy like me and many others people, so that's why i prefear ear music.
If mozart was living now, you can sure that he will use computers (and for sure a mac, because every genius use macs : that's well known <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> ), but he did the best whith what he has. So if someone complain because there is only a dual GHZ computer in the market, he will always complain, because in twenty years the computer will be one thousand time fasters.
So buy the duallie and do the best music you can do. In ten years even a 2 ghz G5 will be good for the garbage.
[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: powerdoc ]</p>
<strong>
Idiot. Do you think all the music you hear at the movies was made entirely with the computer? Most high-production-value movies with, in turn, better soundtracks use real musicians. Oh my God! The horror! People! Yes, people. That's the greatest tool in music. Music is written to be performed, generally speaking.
Of course, you might not get it, seeing as how you think Fatboy Slim is the epitome of modern compostion.
Get a clue, or keep your ill-informed opinions to yourself.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Having myself either made or been involved with the creation of music for CD, Television or Movies for over a decade, I'd say you're the "idiot" here - quite so actually.
A - In response to your first point, yes, in fact ALL the music you hear on CD, television or movies these days, real musicians or not, goes thru a computer at some point. Don't take it hard.
B - FWIW - I myself fooled a producer, big into chamber music, into thinking we hired a string quartet for a gig - I could almost certainly fool you. In fact, if you've got out from under your purist rock once in a while and actually had a peek behind the curtain - you'd realise you're fooled all the time. The catch is, it's not in anybody's interest to tell you when you've been fooled - we certainly never told the producer, why would we then screw things up and tell the audience, or the likes of you? The whole point of a record or movie is to create an illusion, not spoil it.
C - Almost no music heard today is purely the creation of a score and some holy grail called "real musicians". Certainly all the writers I've ever worked with (myself included) start off in a sequencer, if they eventually needed to hire real musicians and chart or score, they do, if not, they don't. Which means almost all the music you hear these days, anywhere, is usually some form of hybrid. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it doesn't - that aspect at least hasn't changed since even before Mozart's day, computers or not.
And finally - and it amazes me that I have to keep repeating this - music is only as good as it sounds: period. That's always been true and will always continue to be true, no matter how pretty or intellectual the dots on page happen to be ... they were never more than a means to an end. More computing power simply means more ability to control that end ... which, if you're actually serious about making music that sounds good, should be something that interests you.
As for this notion that only wimps use computers as a musical crutch ... great, the more bozo's who think that, the more work there is for me.
<strong>
Having myself either made or been involved with the creation of music for CD, Television or Movies for over a decade, I'd say you're the "idiot" here - quite so actually.
A - In response to your first point, yes, in fact ALL the music you hear on CD, television or movies these days, real musicians or not, goes thru a computer at some point. Don't take it hard.
B - FWIW - I myself fooled a producer, big into chamber music, into thinking we hired a string quartet for a gig - I could almost certainly fool you. In fact, if you've got out from under your purist rock once in a while and actually had a peek behind the curtain - you'd realise you're fooled all the time. The catch is, it's not in anybody's interest to tell you when you've been fooled - we certainly never told the producer, why would we then screw things up and tell the audience, or the likes of you? The whole point of a record or movie is to create an illusion, not spoil it.
C - Almost no music heard today is purely the creation of a score and some holy grail called "real musicians". Certainly all the writers I've ever worked with (myself included) start off in a sequencer, if they eventually needed to hire real musicians and chart or score, they do, if not, they don't. Which means almost all the music you hear these days, anywhere, is usually some form of hybrid. Sometimes it sucks, sometimes it doesn't - that aspect at least hasn't changed since even before Mozart's day, computers or not.
And finally - and it amazes me that I have to keep repeating this - music is only as good as it sounds: period. That's always been true and will always continue to be true, no matter how pretty or intellectual the dots on page happen to be ... they were never more than a means to an end. More computing power simply means more ability to control that end ... which, if you're actually serious about making music that sounds good, should be something that interests you.
As for this notion that only wimps use computers as a musical crutch ... great, the more bozo's who think that, the more work there is for me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know this. But I simply don't think that music is going to get better by us getting faster computers. That's it. I don't think computers can play as well as real musicians.
But I also know that composers in the past used the technology that was available to them, which was a keyboard and some paper. I don't think it's cool to belittle them for that. Your music doesn't magically get better when you process it. If was good music to begin with, the sound quality we improve. If it was shit to begin with, it will be enhanced shit, which is still shit.
I'm sorry if I came off as sounding condescending toward those who use electronic instruments. I just think that some of the comments were rather silly. As a musician, a dual-gigahertz won't cut it? There are so many great artists out there who use much more basic computers than that, and I don't think their music suffers for it. Moby, whom I like, uses a Blue and White for all his albums. Does it sound bad? Michael Kamen is composing on a Ti 500. Are his compositions not as good because it's not powerful enough a computer.
My favorite album in my collection right now, the John Coltrane Quartet's Crescent, was produced in 1964 with no computers. I still think it sounds better than the crap Kenny G and his ilk shit out with all their advanced processing equipment.
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: gafferino ]</p>
<strong>
Moby, whom I like, uses a Blue and White for all his albums. Does it sound bad? Michael Kamen is composing on a Ti 500. Are his compositions not as good because it's not powerful enough a computer.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Both Moby and Michael Kamen have dozens of hardware synthesizers/samplers and racks of hardware in their studios. They use their Macs for simple multitrack recording and could get by with a Mac 6100 in that case. They aren't using their computers as a replacement for all their hardware instruments. This is what I'm interested in doing and as a result, I need a very fast computer.
If the rumors are right, maybe this time next year? But it's hardly Apple's fault that they can't magically leapfrog everyone else.
This summer should be interesting for audio folks, since it's when all the big audio apps are supposed to come out. (It was to be this spring until the developers found out that 10.1's audio layer wasn't as complete as Apple hoped it was. Whoops.) OS X should make possible a lot of things that weren't possible in OS 9 - or which, at least, were only possible with the aid of PCI cards.
<hr></blockquote>
I disagree. There is something lost when the element of live musicians is removed from music. A computer cannot recreate the chemistry that sometimes occurs between live musicians playing instruments in real time.
Likewise, I've yet to see a photo that is as expressive as a Van Gogh. I like photography, but painting comes from the soul.
My tag name is based in part on the fact that I think that we lost something when we went from vinyl LPs to digital CDs. I have a suspicion that the decline of guitar-based rock is due in no small part to the fact that we now deliver our "product" in an unsympathetic medium. (So as you might imagine I've tended to turn my nose up at the whole MP3 thing.)
That said, I truly believe that overtoasty is able to fool people just like he says. I saw Phillip Glass perform the score to Koyannisqatsi a couple of years ago. He just played with a couple of other guys on their big-arsed synths, and if you closed your eyes you would have sworn that there was a full choir right there in the auditorium. Spooky and impressive.
All Nepo asked was when we could expect faster systems. It's really unfortunate how many people decided to attack his musical ability instead (which I guarantee none of you have even heard).
I agree with the people who predict MWNY. And Nepo, I too am waiting for a faster system, particularly with faster ram and bus speed. Faster processor'd be nice too.
<strong>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by KeilwerthReborn:
Moby, whom I like, uses a Blue and White for all his albums. Does it sound bad? Michael Kamen is composing on a Ti 500. Are his compositions not as good because it's not powerful enough a computer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both Moby and Michael Kamen have dozens of hardware synthesizers/samplers and racks of hardware in their studios. They use their Macs for simple multitrack recording and could get by with a Mac 6100 in that case. They aren't using their computers as a replacement for all their hardware instruments. This is what I'm interested in doing and as a result, I need a very fast computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, I noticed on mtv cribs that Moby had a rackmount G4 running Pro-tools TDM, just like anyone who needs power should be doing. To the guy who thinks he needs a G5, if you are really that good, buy a pro-tools h|d system and you will have all you will need for years to come. If you can't afford it, then keep practicing and learn to sell enough music to be able to afford it. That's what the rest of us do. That's why this systems exist. And to PHP, in regard to your post about how much software you can use at once: I can open all of that and more with a Ti500. Maybe you should switch to Logic. Anyway, I read an article with a certain very successful producer who mentioned that he never leaves plug-ins instantiated. Also a good way to make commitments in your work. I liked that idea...
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: giant ]</p>
[QB
And to PHP, in regard to your post about how much software you can use at once: I can open all of that and more with a Ti500. Maybe you should switch to Logic.
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: giant ][/QB]<hr></blockquote>
Sorry, but you can't be serious on that. We're talking about hardware replacement, i.e samplers. If you want to do that natively, you need a VERY fast computer. Your Ti500 is a dream, but give it a few good reverbs and some sampling and it will say good bye to you. WE NEED A G5, because that was then, but this is now! I don't want to pay a fortune for Digidesign's Pro Tools which is a great system, but not even capable of using VSTi's, unless you buy Logic Platinum plus system bridge. Try to think ahead. Mac users suddenly become so retro in their way of thinking, I wonder why ;-)
<strong>
Both Moby and Michael Kamen have dozens of hardware synthesizers/samplers and racks of hardware in their studios. They use their Macs for simple multitrack recording and could get by with a Mac 6100 in that case. They aren't using their computers as a replacement for all their hardware instruments. This is what I'm interested in doing and as a result, I need a very fast computer.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I see. I actually hadn't considered that you had no pro audio hardware.
Having said that I also have to say I love electronics and how far instruments have come with them.
I used argue for them back in the good old days when stick in the mud people used to say things like " those things aren't natural " and " they don't take talent, don't they play themselves "? Well a piano which they traditionaly accept is a very complex mechanical contrivance that would never happen in nature. This attitude is just as mistaken.
These are tools to create with just like a banjo nothing more. The creative process doesn't come from them.
However electronic instruments and the ability to make them work together or to write music on a computer is ment to help or augment the creative process not to replace it. If you can't make good music with 2 gigahertz of PPC power I'm sorry but, no amount will help you.
PS. My favorite dumb statement about my old Moog synthisizer was " well, you can't even tune it to the other musicians can you "? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
I see. I actually hadn't considered that you had no pro audio hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I sold my last hardware synths a few months ago. Got rid of my rack and recording gear much before that. It's not like I needed the money my bookie, either