|
Gary the Llama posted:I've been looking to get my first hardware synth so the discussions about the MicroKORG and R3 are great. Any other opinions on a good first synth? (Less than $500 would be great.) The Alesis Micron is really nice too, but also suffers from a lack of knobbiness. You can probably pick up better synths second hand if you scout out eBay, but if you insist on new then it's a good bet.
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2008 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
Here's my own personal tip for everyone starting out, and it's one that I just figured out: Using Softsynths (VSTis)If you've chosen to go the softsynth route, there's something you need to remember: softsynths are instruments. Let me just repeat that: softsynths are instruments. Treat them as such. A lot of beginners (myself included) treat softsynths as nothing more than magical music generators. They'll surf through presets, find themselves annoyed that a certain free VSTi doesn't have the sounds they're looking for in its sound bank, and download a new one. Don't do this. Treat each VSTi like a hardware synthesizer that you dropped hundreds of dollars on (and if you're dealing with commercial VSTis, you may very well have spent hundreds on it). Learn the ins and outs of how to program it before you move on to a new one. The same goes for effects: learn how to use what you have before moving on. You should be treating your DAW like a real studio. Learn the ins and outs of each plugin as though it was a real piece of hardware. Play with it. Twiddle knobs. Ignore the presets, except when you're really stumped for inspiration or when you're just starting to play with a plugin and not sure what it's capable of. My personal suggestion is to start off with one nice, flexible commercial VSTi and one or two free ones, along with one of each common effect (flanger, chorus, reverb, etc). A suite that comes with these things already, like FL Studio, Logic Pro, or Reason, is an alternative to buying them piecemeal. Get to know your instruments. You'd be shocked by how much one can do with very little. Once you reach their limitations-the point when you just can't do what you want to with the plugins you have, not "I can't figure out how to make it sound good"-then buy or download some more. For an example of how flexible most softsynths are, I made a really quick (and sloppy) demo using nothing but Native Instruments FM8. The demo is nothing exquisite, since I made it specifically for this post about 10 minutes, but it should give you an idea of what's possible using one single plugin and no effects:  If one can do that with just FM8, a synthesizer I'm unfamiliar with and (ironically) often have to turn to presets to use, imagine what one can do with FM8, another VSTi, and a couple of effects. Personally, I didn't come to this realization until recently, but if you avoid the pitfall of surfing through presets and downloading new plugins constantly you'll learn how to make original sounding music a lot faster than I have. Learn from my mistake: all of my preset use and abuse means that I know far less about production than I should. Don't hamstring yourself in the same way.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2008 04:17
|
|
|
SchoolSucks1842 posted:The CME M-Key here seems like it's got everything I'd want in a MIDI keyboard at this pricerange. Thin, (I've little girl hands) semi-weighted and velocity sensitive keys and it looks hella good too. Is the equivalent M-Audio better somehow, possible mod/pitch aside? (No pads or knobs for me) Google's all dry, it's like no one in the world has bought one. You're really going to want a pitch bend/mod wheel for soft synths, even if you're eschewing knobs. Using both adds a lot of expression to your playing that you won't get otherwise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2008 18:39
|
|
|
I got bored tonight and pooped out a rather generic, repetitious tune on my Korg Emx-1 in an hour or two's time. I may flesh it out tomorrow since I think it has some potential. Either way, it's nice to see that after almost year of dicking around with music production in my free time I can do what might have once taken me two days in an hour or two. Plus now I can do it on the fly. Here's a "live" recording (as live as jamming on a groovebox can be, anyways): I really should be doing homework. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Apr 15, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2008 05:44
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:It sounds like one of the notes in your progression is out of key, it just sounds wrong and I'm not sure why. It shouldn't be, since I'm using an arpeggiator. I'll have to go back and check that since I'd be annoyed if it is, but you may be reacting to the fact that I inverted the chord before arpeggiating it. I'll have to go back and look at it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2008 17:48
|
|
|
Like an Accident posted:This brings up another question I have - what are the most essential controls that I should assign to my knobs on my Oxygen? The default ones seem to be random knob as volume control + one or two other things, and nothing else works. So I have to set them myself - I just don't know which effects are the most prominent to deal with, or even what half of them do. You should set them whatever you want to tweak on the fly at that moment. Ok, listen, take it from someone who has only working on teaching themselves electronic music production this for about a year (holy poo poo I've been doing for this a year and I still know so little!): stop trying to look for formulas. There aren't any. I know that the Reason rack is daunting, and I know you want an easy answer, but there isn't one so just get your hands dirty. Tweak knobs. Do things that maybe you ought not to. Only by experimenting and doing are you going to learn, and in the process you might stumble across something great. This having been said, do read tutorials and manuals (READ THE MANUALS!). They can teach you a lot. Just don't go looking for a formula or the "right" way to do things, because there isn't one when it comes to electronic music.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2008 20:39
|
|
|
Like an Accident posted:The manual is an obvious resource I have been overlooking - I'll make sure to read it thoroughly before I get my copies of Ableton and Cubase running. You can trigger the Redrum via MIDI so you can play the drums with your keyboard or a pad controller. I want to say that the Redrum automaps the samples to the second octave, but I'm not sure. Just hit keys until you find it. You can also load drum samples into an NN19 or NNXT and trigger them that way. I personally prefer the NNXT route, as it gives you the most sonic flexibility, but it's also the most complicated way of doing things. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Apr 29, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2008 22:39
|
|
|
sithael posted:"Filter Delay" There really can only be one response to this: lol (Granted, the other ones are what he needs, but Filter Delay and Resonators are nothing like what he needs)
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2008 20:29
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:I've fiddled with Ableton for production and its ok but a bit weird, and I've heard it isnt the best for sound quality (just hearsay, I think I read JFK saying it on the MSTRKRFT message board) and I was thinking of using Logic. Honestly, this meme is mostly people reacting to the sound of Live's warping algorithms. They're excellent, but the aren't perfect and do leave behind slight artifacts. Live's sound engine itself is excellent and it's very unlikely that anyone could tell the difference between an (unwarped) Live render and a Logic or Pro Tools render.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2008 05:36
|
|
|
Terrible Horse posted:So basically theres no advantage to Logic over Live? Great, one less thing to get. Well, no. Live is much more live-oriented, and Logic is much more production-oriented. As a result Logic's MIDI editing and sequencing features are much more robust than Live's. For a real world picture of what this means, I find Live's session view to be the best way to sketch out a song but I find the sequencer really limiting for polishing it up and making a finished product. More traditional sequencers, on the other hand, are really well suited for that task.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2008 06:53
|
|
|
Ok here's a more theory-based question than is likely necessary for dance tracks, but I've started listening to a lot of electro [house] again and it occurred to me that introducing traditional linear song structure into dance music makes more sense to me than the standard vertical, almost african inspired tradition of minimal and detroit stuff. This strikes me as doubly true when dealing with punk/metal inspired genres like electro. So here's my theory question: I've been working on a composition (standard strings and piano stuff) for my music technology class, and when I met with the professor today he repeatedly made it a point to say that my chord progressions are just flopping around (I'm using 12 bars blues based stuff). I found this vaguely confusing, and when I asked him about it, he told me to examine pop songs and note how all of their progressions "go somewhere." Now, I've been investigating this, and I'm not seeing what he means. Half of the pop songs I've been looking into just loop the same progression (say, I-IV-V7) throughout the whole song, maybe with a slight variation (say V-IV for the chorus). I want to begin working on an electro piece that incorporates pop structure once I get done with this music final, but I'm fearful of the aforementioned flopping. So my question is, in the context of pop music, what does "going somewhere" mean? My professor doesn't seem to be giving me an answer I understand here, so I figured you guys may be able to help. Is it putting the entire song into a I-IV-V structure and modulating it based on what portion you're in (say V (Gmaj) for the intro, I (Cmaj) for the verse, IV (Fmaj) for the bridge, and V (Gmaj) for the chorus), or...? I'm not seeing a ton of modulation in pop songs, and I'm certainly not seeing it in punk, so I can't imagine that's it. Going somewhere can't just be returning to the tonic either, because that is my professor's main complaint with my piece (it returns to the I chord too much, apparently preventing melodic progression). Any help? nah thanks fucked around with this message at 05:25 on May 6, 2008 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2008 05:22
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:Modern electro going somewhere? I think a good, and extreme example of this can be Sebastian's Motor. I'm not so much saying that modern electro goes somewhere as it makes sense to me to make it go somewhere. That having been said, I'm 90% sure he's talking from a theory standpoint, but maybe I'm wrong. Regardless, if I try to inject linear structure into electro I'm likely going to go with a simplistic punkish chord progression (a more faster take on I-IV-V, or I-bVI-IV ), not the 12 bar blues. Or I may just pump out power chords with a I-IV-V structure. I was just noting that that was what I was using in the composition my professor is talking about. Granted, I'm also now pushing away from electro house and into the realm of the now 20 some odd year old synthpunk, but you get the gist of where I'm going here. So the question remains: what in God's name does "go somewhere" mean in the context of pop structure? EDIT: Accidently wrote vertical where I meant linear. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 20:23 on May 6, 2008 |
|
#
¿
May 6, 2008 06:32
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:To be honest, I am perplexed at what your professor is advising you to do but if it is an academic exercise then so be it. Personally, when you start talking to me about having chord progressions and variations purely for the sake of having them in a song then I start to feel I am listening to pick and mix rather than music. This is kind of where I'm lost too. He says I'm flopping around, but I can't for the life of me understand what this means. Maybe I'm just being too repetitious? I haven't a clue. That having been said, the rest of your post was awesomely useful. I typically don't think about altering filter/cutoff values midsong, so I'm going to have to play around with that. quote:The way I sort of see verse, chorus, verse pop music is that the listener is kept attentive throughout the verse and they are waiting for the great chorus. Everything is pointing towards and building to the chorus. There may be some sort of bridge or transitional bit which is fleeting, doesnt last long and which you want to be repeated but it doesn't. Then you get to the end of the track and because its short enough you want to listen to it again. Its quite a good formular for hooking people onto some catchy groove but I frankly suck it doing it. I think this is where I'm having a problem. I don't quite understand how the verse is built to point to the chorus. Maybe I'm looking for theory where this is none, but I can't for the life of me understand it. Pointing via the lyrics? The melody? My piece lacks lyrics right now (which he's forcing to put in, and oh my god I am not good at this), so he can't be talking lyrically. But the pop songs I've been analyzing don't seem to go anywhere musically that points to the chorus: if anything, their verses are just the same three or four chord progression on repeat, with some variation to keep the listener's attention. Maybe I ought to try asking him again and see if I get a more useful response, but through two meetings with him I haven't gotten anything that sheds light on my question.
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2008 20:31
|
|
|
Like an Accident posted:to the guy above me: This is a decent point, and something I often fail to do (I have a tendency to drift back towards that I chord). I'll try to incorporate this from now on, and I think I'm going to have a go at structured modulation as well. WanderingKid posted:Its mostly a product of synaesthesia but I have a whole bunch of very loose associations to a certain idea or a mood. For instance (and this is purely individual but you may find yourself doing a similar sort of thing): I definitely do that sort of thing, though I have to disagree with your low cut/opening the freq analysis. That's obviously opening the door to a club and anyone who says otherwise is wrong I say, wrong! quote:I guess the point of all this rambling is that you can create a very complex sensation depending on what notes you play, what timbre the note has, how hard, soft, fast slow you play them, how much silence you leave between notes etc etc. I listened to the Vibrasphere track earlier today, and for the record, it's fantastic. That was a really good choice of a repetitious song that manages to avoid sounding repetitious. I had no problem just focusing on listening to the entire thing. Thanks for the tips on sound design, by the way. I typically flail about in the hopes of getting something good when I try my hand at patch design, so it's nice to have a framework to work within. I'll have to post my final piece once I get a chance to bounce it down -- it uses a K2000 from our lab, so I can't bounce it right now. It's a real gas though, let me tell you, since 1) It's the first thing I've ever done with lyrics, meaning they are hilariously bad, 2) My acapellist (is that a word?) housemate who was supposed to track the vocals for me flaked out (completely forgivably) because his finals were taking more time than anticipated, forcing me to sing the parts, and 3) I decided to make the song about Where the Wild Things Are, and reshaped my vocals into monster voices and a little boy lead singer. I've never created such a ridiculous track in my life. My professor is either going to love my creativity or hate how insane it is. I'm inclined to believe it'll be the latter, but what are you going to do. Repitching my voice made me wonder how some recording artists manage to repitch vocals so cleanly. I'm thinking of The Knife and Danger here specifically -- the pitched vocals on Silent Shout seem largely devoid of artifacts, while my repitched vocals gained that nasally quality the pitch shifts so often create. Danger pitches his voice way up there and I perceive little in the way of artifacts, though he may very well be doing a straight tempo change. I'm using Digital Performer's spectral effects to do the pitching so it's not as though I'm failing to alter the formants with the pitch. Are those clean shifts just a function of the hardware they use (I seem to recall that The Knife use a hardware pitcher, I want to say it's a Roland something something)? Or is something else going on? I would have guessed that it's that Andersson's vocals are usually pitched down, but that isn't really what I'm hearing on Silent Shout. Danger certainly flies in the face of this assumption. EDIT: Strike that, The Knife doesn't use a Roland. They use a Boss Voice Transformer. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 10:29 on May 7, 2008 |
|
#
¿
May 7, 2008 08:24
|
|
|
How is this for a quick stab at putting together the basis an electro house track? I've got it past the intro up to where it kicks in so far, but only with a mid-range bass and drums at the moment.
|
|
#
¿
May 11, 2008 20:25
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:Before it kicks in it's kinda lame, but the progression with the sidechaining's good. (that IS sidechaining right?) The only problem is it feels like its been done before, and it'd get annoying to listen to if you don't add something on to it. Oh, this is anything but done. It's just something I slapped together in an hour or two last night, and I wanted to post it to see if I was going in the right direction or if I ought to scrap it and start again. And yeah, that's some serious sidechaining. The number of effects and compressors I have on it right now is mindboggling for how simplistic the track currently is. Maybe I'll scrap the long intro and make it a much quicker punch to the open filter. The only reason I did that in the first place is that a long intro makes life so much easier when it comes to mixing the track. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 20:54 on May 11, 2008 |
|
#
¿
May 11, 2008 20:48
|
|
|
Yoozer posted:It's not rocket science if you have this, this, this and this. Yoozer that is actually kind of awesome. Why you gots to be so good at this? Any chance you can assist in making an electro bass sound in Reason? I've been twiddling with Thor, and the best I've come up with is this (forgive the simple line, I just drew in some random notes to loop while I worked on the sound):  I can't get it to sound remotely right without a stack of Screams, and I still seem to be lacking aggression. Maybe I'm filtering it too much? nah thanks fucked around with this message at 21:28 on May 18, 2008 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2008 21:25
|
|
|
Yoozer posted:I'm going to be 30 this year and I've been playing with synthesizers since I was 13 Awesome, thanks! I'll give that a shot. Also nice to see I was apparently on the right track. This was what I had going: 
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2008 22:33
|
|
.
(order of connection is from top to bottom, mod matrix is hidden since there's nothing happening there).
|
Yoozer that Thor bass sound was perfect. I was trying way too hard to get fancy I guess. In case anyone looking for this sort of sound has Reason 4, I slapped the bass patch into a Combinator, tweaked it a bit, and sidechained it to a Redrum (Yoozer I hope you don't mind). I didn't bother with the combi programmer at all, though I may program the knobs to tweak the release time, damage control, etc later. Here's the patch. Here's what it sounds like: 
nah thanks fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 19, 2008 |
|
#
¿
May 18, 2008 23:47
|
|
|
Kai was taken posted:The one plug I miss being on OSX is Sytrus I don't have any experience with Sytrus, but from your description and the looks of its interface it seems to be an FM synth right? That's usually the sort of synthesis that'll get you smooth, digital, metallic sounds. In that case check out FM8. It's probably my favorite plugin, unless you count Thor.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2008 07:50
|
|
|
BubbleBobDole posted:Here's a WIP clip (a very rough draft mix) of what I'm up to: Well, I certainly think it's awesome. You had better finish this one mister. 
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2008 18:16
|
|
|
I just sat down and forced myself to finish working out the basic sketch of my first attempt at electro house. It wound up being very rock-meets-dance I guess, given that it's pretty simple pop structure. Thoughts? Keep in mind this is rough as hell -- I'm probably going to go through and redo the drums so that they better maintain interest (I've got some loops in the choruses right now that I want to replace, and I want to add some fills and flourishes to the drums), add in more glitches like the ones in the intro, add in automation, and maybe add some chopped up funky vocals or something for the listener to latch onto. The transitions need work too. I mostly just wanted to stop dawdling and get the basic song down before I started messing with all of that poo poo. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 07:30 on May 25, 2008 |
|
#
¿
May 25, 2008 07:24
|
|
|
I present to you YAEHWIP: Yet Another Electro House Work In Progress. Feedback etc would be super appreciated, since this is just a rough draft.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2008 09:26
|
|
|
moron posted:http://www.demoralised.org/trance_thingy.mp3 This is really fun. I'm finding whatever they did to Live 7 has made it a lot easier to work with as a DAW and not just a live thing. Thank god for the 14 day demo -- I probably would have never dug into it like this if they didn't have it. I'm going to have to see if I can't find a cheap copy on Craigslist or something. I've also found that not bothering with transmitting MIDI via rewire to Reason, and instead just using the keyboard directly in Reason and only recording the output makes life a lot easier. Although I'm not sure that Live 7 being easier to use is necessarily a good thing for me, because the results turned out a bit weird. EDIT: Fixed the broken mp3 nah thanks fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Jun 22, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2008 01:44
|
|
|
Can't you drag the samples off of the impulse and into the drum rack, so that you can get whatever preset impulse sounds you want in there?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2008 23:41
|
|
|
That could be the coolest DJ trick ever. Holy crap I need to drop Traktor like a hot potato.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2008 02:55
|
|
|
frankthetank posted:Are there any Glitch plug-ins like this for Mac in AU format? I'm a big fan of Audio Damage's Replicant. You can try Live Cut too.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2008 16:23
|
|
|
frankthetank posted:Thanks man! Trying out Live Cut for now as it's free, but I'll see what's happening with Replicant at some piont. Definitely be sure to check out Replicant. While Live Cut is nice, Replicant allows you to program in individual steps and stuff which is nice. I also find that Live Cut causes my DAW to crash every once an a while.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 6, 2008 16:24
|
|
|
Ben and Stew posted:
Are the jittery vocals intentionally mixed so high at the beginning there? I can barely hear the drums and synth on my laptop speakers. Otherwise it's rad, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2008 19:11
|
|
|
I honestly wouldn't go below 37 keys. I have a Korg MicroKontrol, and while I love it I find having only three octaves a bit limiting at times. I couldn't imagine only having two.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 18:23
|
|
|
ManoliIsFat posted:Its really not that bad if all you're writing are lead synths and the occasional chords here or there. When I use it, its only to try out a couple melodies out before I quantize it all, so I never find it limiting. I guess, but when I'm playing around with chords I almost always need the third octave. It probably depends mostly on what you want to do and if you're content with programming in notes step by step versus playing the whole thing out.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 19:01
|
|
|
So I've been trying to do something every day, and today I decided to do something that isn't dance music. I'm pretty happy with the results, given that they represent my hour of forced production for the day:
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 23:43
|
|
|
IanTheM posted:That's some pretty catchy pop stuff, it sounds good as a whole though I think the piano progression could be less standard, but I really like it. Yeah, if it were to turn it into a full blown song I would definitely change the chord progression. It's currently just a idea I got from dicking with a technique I found in How To Write Songs on Keyboards (which, as an aside, is a really well put together if not basic book about writing chord progressions).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 14, 2008 23:57
|
|
|
So my micrkontrol randomly stopped working with Reason. It works fine with everything else, and midikeys works fine with Reason so Reason still accepts midi commands, but the microkontrol just refuses to work with Reason. No clue why, and I've double checked that everything is set up right in the control surfaces dialog (including deleting it and rescanning). Any ideas? Did I just trip some option I don't know about or something? EDIT: Oops I had changed the MIDI channel on the microkontrol when I was using it with my EMX, and I hadn't turned it back to channel 01. Apparently Reason didn't appreciate that. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jul 31, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2008 05:57
|
|
|
So I downloaded a set of 8 bit refills for Reason a while ago, and I just rediscovered them while working on a song. Combining the samples with more traditional synths is sounding absolutely wicked. The sounds are so fun that I've started to look into 8 bit synths and trackers, and I've pretty much settled on getting Nanoloop or LSDJ since I already own the hardware. Anyone have any familiar with these sequencers? What's better or worse about each? Any good alternatives? A lot of what I've read isn't particularly helpful, but I'm leaning towards Nanoloop because it has a nice looking interface and I'm not particularly familiar with trackers. However, I don't necessarily want to limit myself in terms of what I can do given the cost of a cartridge, and what I've read has mentioned that Nanoloop is a bit limited compared to LSDJ. EDIT: Also, has anyone used NitroTracker? The ability to transmit MIDI over wifi is intriguing. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 15:51 on Aug 5, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2008 15:39
|
|
|
ManoliIsFat posted:My bff uses LSDJ and loves it. Trackers are really easy to pick up if you've made electronic music before, so don't let that scare you. My boy (w.m.x) had only previously made tracks in fruity loops, learned renoise in like 4 hours, and was banging out beats on his gameboy in a couple days. I've never use nanoloop, so I can't help you there, but LSDJ is a tiny beast, especially if you have a way to flash samples to a cart. Interesting, thanks man. I guess I'll have to give LSDJ a download and try it out in an emulator before I make a decision. Trackers have always seemed so intimidating, but maybe it's time I gave them a proper shot. It'd be rocking if I could sync up my Gameboy and EMX. Your friend's music is rad, by the way. I dig Massif a lot. quote:Your in NYC, right? We'll have to jam some time. Vanmani posted:I can't really help you I'm afraid, but can I ask what the 8 bit refills were, and if they're free? I've been wanting some decent ones. The 8 Bit Magic refills. They were probably free, since I own very few commercial refills, but I downloaded them so long ago I have no idea where to find them again.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2008 20:56
|
|
|
So I've been experimenting with modulation and funky chords (introducing 7th, 9th, and 11ths into my chord structures) recently because my songs are way too bland, and I'm stuck wondering if I'm doing a decent job figuring out how to smoothly transition from key to key since I'm so unfamiliar with the concept. Am I getting the general idea with this experiment, or is there something I should be doing to make the change smoother? For reference, I'm going from A min to C maj.
nah thanks fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Sep 15, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2008 02:20
|
|
|
WanderingKid posted:Fair enough. I don't fully disagree with you -- ultimately you can't be chained to theory. I also agree that theory is more about learning to play correctly rather than using it as musical legos. I played bass (and more recently piano) for the longest time without knowing a lick of theory, and generally speaking I'm finding that the theory makes things much more interesting for me since I can now look back on stuff and say, "Oh, yeah, that makes sense." It also really helps me when I'm writing new stuff because I can think, "Ok, this worked like this before, therefore..." That having been said, yeah, I was applying the theory a bit bass ackwards there, but I've been trying to explore the concepts via experimentation rather than write songs by picking and choosing them.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2008 10:01
|
|
|
So I'm teaching myself Max/MSP in preparation for my Multimedia Arts minor senior project and for a class I'll be taking next semester on alternative controllers, and I've run into a weird snag with the second patch I've made while going through the tutorials. Can someone explain to me exactly why my patch's velocity sequencer (the first one with bars) is treating the last bar as step 1, while the note sequencer (the second one with lines) is acting like expected (i.e. treating the first bar as step 1)? It's driving me absolutely nuts. As an aside, the slider to the left controls tempo, so you may need to up that to get notes playing. Patch: http://dancinginthedarkroom.com/Simple%20Sequencer.maxpat
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2008 01:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 3, 2024 00:41 |
|
|
glitchkrieg posted:And if it's not called portamento, it'll be called glide.  Portamento and glide are the same thing.EDIT: Although I should say that I'm talking about on synths, since sometimes people do use glide to refer to glissando and then it's not the same thing at all. nah thanks fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Sep 24, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2008 16:22
|
|