|
Wikipedia posted:The remaining five notes of the chromatic scale (the black keys on a piano keyboard) were added gradually; the first being B which was flattened in certain modes to avoid the dissonant tritone interval. This change was not always shown in notation, but when written, B♭ (B-flat) was written as a Latin, round "b", and B♮ (B-natural) a Gothic b. These evolved into the modern flat and natural symbols respectively. The sharp symbol arose from a barred b, called the "cancelled b". That's the way I've always heard it - it evolved from the way the letter b was written, and along with it came the symbols for accidentals.
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2009 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Kramden posted:Where can I get a noise maker, either controllable by guitar or buttons or whatever? You can get noise makers at General Store in your City Market District. If you want manual control, General Store now has noise makers which operate by pushing, wildmoving or lungblowing. Screeching and reverb are standard but thumps and bumps are usually included in a separate package along with whizzes and hoots.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 23:41
|
|
|
Kramden posted:Perhaps I should explain myself better - Or you could use Reason (or any number of synth/sampling programs) to dial in whatever sound you can imagine, and control it externally via MIDI. ...Or if you're feeling a bit more obscure, you could buy or build an oscillator and run it through a bunch of effects. ...Or if you are a glutton for punishment, you could learn Csound and code your own sounds. But since you're saying you don't want to use SuperCollider, I guess you're not interested in more audio synthesis languages. Hope this is the direction you're looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 19, 2009 04:10
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Can someone recommend a good tutorial on how to equalise tracks for a total beginner? I want to understand why all my recordings sound like muddy poo poo. Along with that, something like this will help you get a feel for what is where in the audio frequency spectrum, but beware. Do NOT use it as a hard-and-fast rule, just use this to help you get familiar with what's where, and internalize that familiarity. You can find plenty of eq "recipe books" that say what to cut/boost for a given sound, but be careful to use them as only general guides, and use your ears as the authority. Other tips: with eq, always cut before boost. Cut frequencies you don't want instead of simply boosting the ones you do want. If you go through your tracks putting in a bunch of eq peaks, boosting the stuff you want, your mix will get out of control very fast. Cut first, then adjust the volume of the tracks accordingly. These are tips that assume you know how to generally use an eq, though. I don't have any links if you're trying to learn the absolute basics, sorry.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2010 22:15
|
|
|
SlippyHat posted:Try panning the different instruments so that they occupy the space a little differently -- and think about three dimensional space, as well. Reverb and echo can move a sound forward and back in the mix, and will add depth. After that you can apply the EQ that bluestrat was talking about. SlippyHat's got a lot of good advice for you, and I agree with it except for this last sentence. If you are going for clarity, eq everything first, before panning and before adding much reverb or echo effects. Try to carve out the raw tracks, in mono, until they all complement each other and balance nicely. That's the best way to know what's REALLY fighting with whatever else. Then after you've got a balanced mono mix, do your panning and add your reverb effects for 3D depth and space. You don't have to do all your mixes with this method, but this is how you learn to get clarity/balance. If you start mixing by adding reverb and panning stuff you're burying (and making it harder to address) your real problem, which is eq. Address eq first and your mix will behave a lot better when you do the fun depth/space stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2010 01:58
|
|
|
Gorilla Salsa posted:I'm fixing to buy a set of studio monitors (loving finally), and I'm not sure on how to go about using them as normal speakers. I want to run my computer's output, interface's output, a metronome, and maybe an iPod or something through them. Is a line mixer (particularly this one) the way to go for something like this? These might be more what you're looking for? I have a Samson C-control for that purpose and it does a great job for the price.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2010 13:38
|
|
|
Popcorn posted:Can anyone identify the percussive chime-like/woodblock instruments in this track? I think there's a few kinds in there... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPPsrcYl4Qo I'm hearing a few different mbiras (also called kalimbas or thumb pianos) of different sizes. You can hear that some have buzzing elements on em ("machachara," according to the wiki page). Here's a very peaceful example of mbira music They are also very easy and fun to make.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2011 03:18
|
|
|
Cumhand Luke posted:What instrument produces the melodies on The Birthday Party song "Mr Clarinet" ??
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2011 13:14
|
|
|
Scottish Uncle posted:It feels like there is something wrong with my lead playing. Something's wrong. Number one thing is rhythm, it totally falls apart as soon as you start your "soloing." Try 1) tapping your foot or moving/dancing/whatever to keep your internal clock solid, and 2) playing shorter melodic phrases that are more rhythmically clear/distinct. You're playing unaccompanied, so it's a bit trickier to maintain the thrust of what's going on harmonically and rhythmically while still "soloing," but it's entirely possible. Right now your solo sounds disembodied from the (more important) rhythmic/harmonic core, because you're not playing bass notes or anything to suggest it. A simple technique to improve this performance would be to do a sort of call-and-response with yourself: comp on the first chord, play a short lick/phrase, comp on the second chord, play another phrase in response to the last. Build outward from that idea. This helps the audience (and you) keep a clear idea where the musical core is, rather than just hearing some kind of disembodied solo. Lastly, even if there was a band backing up your solo, it's a bit noodly and a little boring. Take your very first phrase - that little upward pentatonic movement is something way too many guitarists do, because it's easy - you're following your fingers instead of your ears. Try to think of more tasteful, short phrases; for example, think of what a laid-back trumpeter would do on top of these chords. Your chords/rhythm suggest something more Latin-inspired or jazzy, but it's not here - your choice in notes doesn't seem "deliberate," it seems kinda like auto-pilot. So take your time and be more deliberate, more melodic, more patient, laid-back, focus on tasteful phrasing rather than following where your fingers go. I hope this isn't too harsh, I just have done a lot of unaccompanied playing so I feel like I've spent some time addressing these issues in my own playing. Hope it helps!
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2012 00:45
|
|
|
wormil posted:I'm involved with a school project where I help a junior high kid build a wood xylophone. He has the idea to hang blocks vertically from one attachment point, like a cross between xylophone and chimes. Ultimately he gets to make the decision but I'm supposed to provide guidance and my knowledge of xylophones is limited. Hoping you guys have some thoughts about it or on making xylophones in general. 1) making sure the mounting system uses the right nodal points of each bar so that they're suspended without obstructing the bar's natural resonance. Experiment with suspending a single bar and making sure it still resonates well before commiting to the whole approach. 2) the bars have to be suspended from the top and the bottom, or stabilized in some other way, or else they will flap around and hit each other and be annoying to play. Those were my main hurdles when working on mine, which may or may not be helpful. Sounds fun though, good luck!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 07:12
|
|
|
Chroisman posted:So I previously asked a question about studio headphones, requiring flat response and minimal sound bleed for acoustic and vocal recording. In this thread and another, people were happy to recommend the Beyerdynamic DT770s, which I really appreciate. I can't compare them to the DT770s (not enough experience with em) but I LOVE my DT250-80s. I've had one pair for 7 years and enjoyed it so much I bought another, even though my old pair is still going strong. Before getting into sound quality comparisons, I've spent a lot of time with various AKGs and Sennheisers, and the Beyers are the only ones I am happy to wear for long, long periods. They don't have that vinyl stuff pressing up on my head, they don't make my ears too hot, and they cup around my ears perfectly without being awkward. Comfort is super subjective, I know, but they're perfect for me. I like the curly telephone cord too. Sound quality-wise, I find them well-balanced and detailed, if slightly on the dark side. Before I bought my second pair, I tried A/B comparisons with some comparable Sennheisers and felt like the Beyers had a more "depth," a more immersive/lifelike representation of things, a crispness that wasn't unnaturally crisp, just detailed. Others will probably give you a better or more prominent bass response, but I've never found it lacking for my purposes. They have the typical pros/cons of closed-back phones, which I'm sure you've researched. Great for tracking due to low bleed but equally due to their comfort during long sessions.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
TapTheForwardAssist posted:I've been spending too much time F5ing Craiglist to find a decent deal on one of several models of used synthesizer I'm shopping for. Is www.list-alert.com reputable or no? That or any other way I can set up a search which will just alert me as things are added to certain cities' Craigslists? Plus, I prefer browsing Craigslist that way because it's easier to scan through a bunch of pictures instead of line after line of text listings that may or may not be descriptive.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Sorbo Shirtless posted:Both of the long cables are the same cable. Not sure if they're mono or stereo. They also both individually work. By mono or stereo, he was referring to whether they're TS or TRS cables:  TS is typical for guitar cables, TRS is capable of carrying stereo signals and they're a little unusual to be used as guitar cables. If you've got TRS cables, there's a possibility that your pedal doesn't like them. That'd be my guess, but someone else probably knows more about this.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
beatlegs posted:So is "stem" a new term for "multitrack", or is it something different? The term is often used when another person is going to make a new mix from your material - situations like film mixing, or someone doing a remix of your song, etc. You won't give them each and every individual track, you'd give them a handful of stems (drums, guitars, keys, etc) and they'd construct the mix as they like. I don't think it's very common, but some mastering engineers do stem mastering if they want extra control over the individual components of a mix.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
BRAAAAAAAINS posted:I browsed the Musician's Lounge, but found no classical music (mega)thread? Do we just have very few classical musicians here? Did I miss it (I double checked, but I'm easily distracted)? ..or is there some other reason? You could make a thread, though! Classical musicians seem to be relatively few/quiet around here but maybe some would come out of the woodwork. I mean, we had a classical guitar thread that had a lot of repertoire discussion, if I remember correctly. I think a lot of the general discussion threads around here tend to be centered around instruments/gear and not genres, though there are exceptions.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
salisbury shake posted:Any of you gently caress around with cSound or SuperCollider? I had fun playing with Tidal, but its a pattern engine with limited predefined samples for composition. While its interesting to write functions to pass samples through to get new distinct sounds to string together, its not a synthesis library. I've never messed with SuperCollider, but for what it's worth I took some CSound courses in college and ultimately I found it hard to enjoy, both as a programming experience and a way to make music. I'm a musician who enjoys programming, but CSound involved too many idiosyncrasies and unintuitive quirks of the language for me to really enjoy it. The language felt old and outdated to me. With that warning aside... In my opinion, CSound is best suited to making ambient music/soundscapes or generating one-off sound designs. You'll learn a lot about synthesis and sound-manipulation on the microscopic level but nothing about music theory/composition. For example, it doesn't do any out-of-the-box handholding in terms of musical notes (you're working with frequencies, not musical notes). So if you're not a musician, you might actually like that because CSound requires absolutely no knowledge of music. It's more about using code to tell the computer EXACTLY what to do with oscillators or samples over time. There are different front-ends/plugins/etc that supposedly make CSound more user-friendly but I never really used them, because the point of CSound is to code sounds, and if you want to make noise with a nice UI then open up Ableton and you'll have a much better time (and get things done much quicker). If you do end up learning CSound, you can PM me if you need help (I don't remember much of it but I can probably help with the basics).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
salisbury shake posted:What's the workflow like with Ableton for someone who knows what they're doing from using the synthesizer efficiently to sequencing MIDI events? Do you do it all graphically by hand, or is there a way to automate things with macros or scripts? Approaching it naively has probably given me the wrong idea about how it can be used. Well, I just mentioned Ableton as an example but I personally don't use Ableton, I use Reason for synths/samples and Reaper as my main DAW. You wouldn't like Reason if you don't like UIs that mimic hardware, since Reason does that in the extreme (for example, you control signal flow by moving virtual cables around to plug one unit up to another). So I can't answer your Ableton workflow question. But I do think it's important to note that you might be talking about two different workflows: one is designing sounds, and the other is arranging when sounds happen and at what pitches, etc. I am curious to see if SuperCollider fits what you're looking for. It might be a good idea to ask in the synthesizer thread, since I'm sure you can find folks who are into algorithmic sound creation. Also, if you haven't already, you might want to check out trackers since making music with them is based on inputting numbers/data into a grid. I've never used one though. Lastly, I don't know of any good music theory or computer music resources for you, all I have is a bunch of textbooks and stuff and none of them were Fantastic Reads Worth Recommending. Sorry! I'm sure someone around here knows of some good resources, though.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2013 04:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:06 |
|
|
Hip Hoptimus Prime posted:Hey y'all, I'm looking for a quick answer--hopefully I'll find one here. Also, I don't want to be discouraging but most people don't realize how bad streaming revenues are. Check out this chart, you need 4 million Spotify plays a month just to make minimum wage. It's sad. Again, not trying to shoot you down, I just wanna be upfront because none of those sites like to tell you how small the artist's cut is.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 19:03
|
|