Anyone not use a computer for their music?

Every single band I know uses digital technology. If it is not pro-tools then its the 02R or something similar. I know one electronic band that does not use a computer and they are very good. I do not mean that there music is analog in nature just that they sequence on an older hardware sequencer.
Personally I find computers very easy and intuitive to use. Once or twice I have made tunes without a computer based sequencer. A drum machine... live synths... and a few guitar f/x overdubs all mixed to tape. Its great fun not looking at a screen but I wouldn't do it everyday.
 
balma

If I get what you're talking about, and I think I do, it sounds very Cagian, extraordinairily complex and, as you say, subject to the laws of chaos. When I read your earlier post, I assumed you were controlling all the synths from a single controlling hardware sequencer, but now I realize (I think) that you are using internal sequencers on a bunch of different devices and allowing all those different sequences to "interact" as they each do their thing?

That's pretty damn wild, for sure, and, while you could probably set up some sort of computer-based analog for that, it's clear that you've put an enormous amount of time, effort, and pondering into your own, seemingly utterly unique system.

It sounds amazing. I'd love to hear some of your music.
 
Peace I use the PC and then I don't here is what I mean. I do all my tracks outside the PC realm. I use MPC2000xl, along with my modules, etc. Then when I need lyrics to go on a track thats when I record what I did on the outside into Protools !!!. Now with the addition of Sampletank which is the Hottest computer module out, amplitube, ableton live, and reasons, now I use the computer. I can do beats in Reasons also, it gives me a total different style but I don't rely on it, computer is to easy and makes you lazy with loops I like to make my own drum patterns and freak it like that instead of using drum loops all the time. MPC has the best sequencer so I use it a lot.

www.ijmaenmt.com you can hear my tracks that's on my site I did it without a computer and you can be the judge www.ijmaenmt.com

peace
DA NOC
 
theblue1 said:
balma

If I get what you're talking about, and I think I do, it sounds very Cagian, extraordinairily complex and, as you say, subject to the laws of chaos. When I read your earlier post, I assumed you were controlling all the synths from a single controlling hardware sequencer, but now I realize (I think) that you are using internal sequencers on a bunch of different devices and allowing all those different sequences to "interact" as they each do their thing?

That's pretty damn wild, for sure, and, while you could probably set up some sort of computer-based analog for that, it's clear that you've put an enormous amount of time, effort, and pondering into your own, seemingly utterly unique system.

It sounds amazing. I'd love to hear some of your music.


Oh man, thanks.

Yesterday, I met another producer who only uses synths, no computers.

The most amazing thing, is that he never uses the PLAY button!!!
He plays a sequence, press HOLD, goes to another synth, press hold, goes to another synth, start to play an arppegio (with quantization). he doesn't use pattern or song mode. this is hard to do, how do you keep the beet right, or how do you match two kicks of two songs on a manual way, without running a sequence???

The guy is costarican, but he has 15 years living on Europe without visiting this country.

He didn't believe that other person was also playing with only hardware.

But when I told him that I don't use a mixer, he called me ignorant, sinner, etc etc (he offended me a lot in just the first three minutes of conversation and interchange of ideas) and he didn't show any interest for my music anymore since I told him about the mixer.

I don't know, but if there is a sin on the music, is the EGO.

He claimed himself to be the BEST LIVE ACT PRODUCER IN THE WORLD. Also, how intelligent he is, etc etc etc.

I tried to vomit but I just smiled and tried to seem interested on his opinion. it's a shame that the first hardware producer I met in person (and also millionarie) , is so egocentrist and pretentious...

but he's 40 and I'm 28....he will never improve that... je je

How could affect to play synths without using a mixer???

Am I on the wrong way????
 
Well, it sounds like you're on your own path.

I used to do a live (echo) loop act, playing my keyboards by hand, and also sometimes looping in guitar, bass, vocals, percussion and/or sound effects. But that was in the early 90s, when looping echoes were really limited by high memory costs, and my longest loop could only be 8 seconds (but I used two echo devices so I could overlap them, etc).

I liked the "working without a net" aspect of creating elaborate layered loops that way... but when you made a mistake it was a real drag... ;)
 
I used to do a live (echo) loop act, playing my keyboards by hand, and also sometimes looping in guitar, bass, vocals, percussion and/or sound effects. But that was in the early 90s, when looping echoes were really limited by high memory costs, and my longest loop could only be 8 seconds (but I used two echo devices so I could overlap them, etc).


That takes some balls, kid. There's not much room for error there.
 
It brought out the best in me, to be honest. There's nothing scarier than sitting in front of an audience not playing anything, and since I've been involved with collaborative all-improv oriented bands from the beginning of my performance career I've seen a lot of squriming, edgy audiences... :D Playing... playing anything is a lot less scary than that.

But when it comes to sitting in the comfort of my own home, where it's safe to make mistakes, fumble, noodle, self-indulge... I get nasty "red-button sweats" and rewind-itis.


___________________

At the end of my live-loop phase I was using two JamMan echo loops whose durations could be synchronized to MTC so the devil lured me into adding a drum machine -- which was proably the beginning of the end. But if you want to hear an example of that end-of-cycle period, check out this track at soundclick.
 
Last edited:
there is a place for all type of gear. in the end it all is music. wether you sample, use software or hardware, it takes a creative mind to bang out a hot beat. when people become close minded, they get left behind. when was the last time you rocked an 8 track? make beats don't worry how you do it. just keep it hot.
 
Actually, I just gave away my TASCAM 70-8 1/2" 8 track (with dBx NR rack) to a couple friends who I hope will have the drive and resources to make it whatever they hope to get out of it. 'Cause heaven knows I sure didn't get what I wanted out of it... freakin' p.o.s. was always breaking down.

Analog tape may not be a dead technology but it would be if that machine was representative... (I've actually owned more analog tape recorders than I can remember. Not even counting cassette machines -- and I know I've owned well over ten of those -- I've owned 9 analog (reel to reel) tape recorders. (And when I was a little kid even fooled around with a couple of old wire recorders I found in our garage.)

When I finally gave up on my 8 track and bought an ADAT it was a revelation. The thing just flippin' worked, well, except when it didn't, but at the time Alesis fixed them in a day or two. Once while I waited. [They grew too fast and didn't plan strategically. Too bad. They had a great start and a bum end.]

When I switched to using just the converters in my ADATs for an 8channel interface and my PC hard drive as a back end in '96 (Cakewalk Pro Audio 6) I knew I'd found the medium I'd always dreamed of. I freakin' loved direct access and kissing wind time goodbye. And as someone who had gotten pretty good editing analog tape with a razorblade I was an instant fan of computer based editing.
 
Last edited:
theblue1...

I forgot to answer your question. A full explanation will take at least 10 pages, so I'll try to be brief....
:p

If you make a mistake... I have received some tomatoes in a couple of
parties.

if you use a central sequencer to control all the other synths, but recording all the information on the format of the sequencer (like the EMU), you won't get too much sinergy, cause what you are doing is submitting the resources of the other machines to the advantages and LIMITATIONS of the sequencer.

You have to take advantage of the particular features of each one of the machines in order to create synergy.

I'll give a very fast example, of how I obtain synergy from the interaction of very different machines, using MIDI.

YAMAHA EX5: a super digital synth that has virtual analog, virtual acoustic, DSP, AWM2, FM and sampling technologies in just one 128 poly workstation.

EMU command station: the most versatile hardware sequencer IMHO. Forget about memory storage limitations. You can record, edit, program, play, everything, without stopping music. A super fast sequencer to capture your inspiration.

Korg Electribe: great analog feeling, the delay effect is awesome, you can record quantized notes during playing that will repeat perfectly on the same loop.


The EX5 is one of the best digital synths when talking about sound capabilities. But operatin this synth is a headache, and it has a lot of bugs, even some commands don't work at all, and the MIDI clock is the worst ever.

EX5's pattern sequencer rules.
You can specify for each track, a different duration, on measures, beats, and milliseconds.
For example, I can make a pattern with tracks of 4, 4.3, 4.3.120, 12.2.120, 2,3,360 each one.
And it has 100 different amazing groove effects, that control gate, velo, clock transponse, duplicate or double the velocity, even in fractions (I wantt this bass to a BPM of 133% of the original BPM.
You can obtain multiple versions of a unique pattern, duplicating it and modifying all these parameters and adding groove effects, without recording another one. Great of sequencing arppegios that will have great textures and variations.

when you combine these great sequencer features, with the complexity of a sound that has four different technologies, that produces different values for each note you recorded (FDSP Technoly, unique for the EX5) you can obtain amazing and organic sounds. The possibilities are endless... but how you can take advantage of them, with one of the worst operative systems ever????:

The EMU command station has hundreds of arppegios for any use, but they are kinda of rigid, you can't give them swing effects, of modify the clock of each note.

Solution?

1.Transmit several arppegios thru MIDI while the pattern sequencer of the EX5 is recording. Make several tests with different arppegios.

2. Now you have them recorded as notes on the sequencer of the EX5. Choose one, duplicate it, and start to experiment adding groove effects, modifying gate, velo, clock, etc etc etc, for each one.

3. Work a couple of months, creating patches that will interact with these arppegios. But assign to each one of the 256 user patches, a velocity range of 2-127, not 0-127, (patience...). This is the reason I can't use preset patches.

Now, use the KEYMAP of the EX5. The keymap is similar to the RPS system of the Roland grooveboxes series.

you can assign a huge patttern or a single track to each one of the notes.

but the problem is, in VOICE MODE, if you touch the C2 key, the track assigned to the C2 key will play with the actual selected patch, but also... the C2 note will sound...:( this sucks.

Now is where the synergy I was talking abbout appears.

With the EMU command station, assign one of the 32 tracks to the EX5.(external mode)
Record the notes, but with a VELO VALUE of 1.

In this way, you will activate the track or the pattern from the EMU with a single note, while you hold it, it will keep the EX5 track playing. The velo value transmitted is 1, and, the note you played won't interfer with the
track playing, because is under the velo range of the current EX5 patch.

I'm just recording one note on the EMU sequencer, to activate a huge variety of amazing combinations of tracks, and patterns on the EX5. I don't need to push the "PLAY" button of the EX5, 'cause the MIDI clock.... well, EX5 can't follow any TEMPO with MIDI. You will have a cacophony if you try it.

Need a PROGRAM CHANGE on the EX5, select another user patch???

I. Recod some tracks that have only a PC command on the EX5. This is fast, just go to EDIT MODE and intro some PC selections.

II. Assign this tracks to tthe black keys. On the white ones, the tracks, on the black ones, the selection of the patches. This is useful, cause where you are composing and feel very inspired, just record on the EMU a black key note to select a sound, a white one, to play a track or a pattern.
I can't waste time on stupid processes while creating music.

In this way, you are taking all the advantage of the versatile EX5 pattern sequencer and its powerful sound engine, and also, from the EMU arppegio menu, taking the best of each one.

I mean, this is a tiny example of how you can make two synths friends. you progress on your MIDI setup, with experimentation, making mistakes, using different ways of combinations until you obtain the best interaction.

Imagine this, but with two EMUS, one of them, controling a ROLAND JUNO 106, a KORG ELECTRIBE and a phrase sampler like the SP 505 or SP 808 with thousands of quantized samples ready to be activated with MIDI notes.

Another EMU, controlling a VIRUS B and the YAMAHA EX5.

Hook both EMUS just to sync the BPM, no mixer between them.

Who needs a computer with so much fun????
 
wow, balma. that ish is deep. you must spend a lot of bathroom time with the manuals.
 
fizzix810 said:
wow, balma. that ish is deep. you must spend a lot of bathroom time with the manuals.

je je, in fact, I learned them without manuals, not very good with English technical terms (until I reached FutureProducers web...)

I will like to help other producers to left the basement and play its own music like a DJ.
 
I GOT A KORG D1200 , BUT SINCE I WANT IT TO LAST ME A LONG TIME, I ONLY USE IT TO ADD VOCALS AND FINALIZE A SONG, I MAKE THE BEATS ON THE COMPUTER... THAT WAY I WONT BE ON IT LIKE 5 HOURS A DAY
 
It's hard to say all the reasons some gear goes bad before other gear -- but one thing some folks believe is that it's turning your gear on and off that puts wear and tear on it, since it's heating up and cooling down in those cycles, which is the primary "wear and tear" for an electronic device. (Of course, it also has a hard drive in it, but there is always debate about that, too.)

I wouldn't sweat it too much, if I were you. Turn it on for your session and leave it on until you're done but then don't worry.

Chances are (if it's like most gear manufactured these days) it'll still be running when you're really anxious to buy something new.
 
Last edited:
Technology is useless without chops. Computers, hard drives, etc. are just tools. It's what you do with them that counts. A $10,000 HD Pro Tools rig with all the bells and whistles will not write a great song (powerful melody & compelling lyrics). All you need for that is a good head, heart, pen & pad and a keyboard or guitar. Ask the Grammy winners and Hall of Fame songwriters about that. It's about a great song. All the rest is window dressing.

Of course, you'd like to pitch your music to the industry moguls and A&R directors want the song "radio, TV, or film ready". That means you need to use quality gear to record your song. But if your composition is mediocre, it doesn't matter whether you use a computer, hardware sequencer, or stand-alone DAW to record it. It won't make it past the gate keepers. Remember, the Beatles' "Sgt. Pepper" album was recorded just using a couple of 4 track decks. But if the material wasn't great, not even George Martin could have rescued it!
 
Especially not George Martin.

Ever heard any of his own projects?

They make the 101 Strings look like a hard rock bunch of crazies.
 
theblue1 said:
Especially not George Martin.

Ever heard any of his own projects?

They make the 101 Strings look like a hard rock bunch of crazies.

I'll have to check out some of his projects.
 
Balma, the methods of yours that you have described in this thread are really... huge. You most certainly don't have to ponder if you're on the right path; your path seems remarkable. Hats off and utter respect!

:cheers:

I would really like to see/hear you perform. Too bad we're, like, on entirely different continents and stuff :)
 
Last edited:
I use a Tascam 2488, a e-mu mp-7 and an MPC 1000 ,and a dr-5 also 2 technics, and two numarks
everything in my studio is hands on.I do have a Mac g4 but I run Stanton final scratch for deejaying on that, I feel that when making and recording music on hands on gear it's more yours than when a computer does EVERTHING for you.I'm not knocking the advanced technology,(great for easy portability & editing) but are YOU really a producer if your computer does ALL the work for you.
any idiot with a computer can put som loops together and say they produced something but where's the talent?where's the skill.
a few couple years ago I wrote a hiphop song
"produced" the track on a Boss dr-5 and recorded the song on a tascam porta 414 4-track tape recorder. then mixed down to cd on a philips cdr-775. no computers no effects.
That song was played on a Richmond,VA clear channel radio station right after a jay-z song
on a countdown that featured one local track a week.guess what.. It sounded fine ...go figure
 
DJBRIANG said:
I'm not knocking the advanced technology,(great for easy portability & editing) but are YOU really a producer if your computer does ALL the work for you. any idiot with a computer can put som loops together and say they produced something but where's the talent?where's the skill.

This seems like an odd take on computer centered producing. Using mainly (or only) a computer to create music is not about letting the computer do it all for you. It is anything BUT that. Someone with not enough creative potential or skill could use computer technology (or any proprietary sampler technology, in that matter) only for putting together pre-recorded loops, but the real deal is something entirely different.

I understand you are dissing a certain unimaginative way of producing here, and with that I very much agree. The mere act of using computers is, however, not synonymous with that kind of limited mode of creative thinking. Yeah, you actually might not even mean to generalize it like that, and I'm just reading it the wrong way :)

Anyway, there are a lot of people going to super-imaginative depths in sound generation/processing on their computer setups, mainly because the freedom it gives, as an abstract environment, to build and experiment with your very own and unique constructs that might be very difficult to reproduce by other means.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top