On the verge of thinking about debating the merits of making music involving a computer and software

[ZapAxe]

This may have been started as a joke topic, but is actually a valid topic for discussion...

After having used a Tascam 4 track Porta-Studio for years, then going straight into computer DAW recording, at a time when I barely even knew how to use a computer. That was a really hard transition. I bit off more than I could chew, and had to teak a break because I just didn't know how.
During this break, I sat with just my acoustic guitar, pencil & paper. I wrote the essence of about 10 or so songs in a very short period of time. I've since have become efficient with using computers, and recording with them.

While it's true that having too much stuff to deal with while trying to create music can get in the way, it's really a matter of what you do with what you have at your disposal...or the will power to keep things simple, and only use what you need, when you need it. Spending an hour or two sifting through sound patches in VSTi's or midi drum beats in EZDrummer to find just the right sound or beat can take away time you could have used to create or follow through with an idea, rather than losing the inspiration, or what the idea was in the 1st place!

I now have/use a 3 computer DAW set-up. This can become very complicated & confusing fast...but only if you let it. Each computer has it's own task (dedicated VSTi & midi machine, dedicated audio recording machine etc). I often work with one computer at a time, for creating 'as usual' on certain aspects of the process - if working on midi tracks with VSTi's, or recording audio tracks. I sync two or 3 computers together, only when I need to bring those elements together.

I can always sit with my acoustic guitar, or my keyboard with a piece of paper & pencil any time I want ...doodle and come up with stuff

[She Changed Her Mind]

'If you can compose on an instrument or sheets the computer is a blessing, it helps you to put ideas down and be very productive.'
@rod_zero

I think that depends on the composer. And what you will call 'productive'.

Telemann didn't have a computer, but he wrote more than any other composer.

[rod_zero]

Mmm I didnt imply that a computer would make someone produce more.

In the context of this topic I think that people which already has a background in compossing benefit more,from computers than people who dont, Basically that music should come first.

[jancivil]

I can see 'wrote more songs with a reel-to-reel' as to the tech as a distraction. I've written a couple of songs, that is, straightforward melody to lyrics since I got involved and I wrote in a cafe on whatever paper was handy notating the tune in a shorthand I developed. Realizing the arrangements is a different matter.
But that is not typically my interest for years.

I'm not a big gear-chaser, I don't care a lot for other people's presets and I've never used another's midi file for a track. So having choices, not a time-suck for me at all.
I like the process of setting up, typically I start with creating a sound world and the sound inspires me to populate it and let it speak. It's like writing dialogue, you create conditions and a dynamic and character backstory is like instruments' history and personality and you let them speak.

[fedexnman]

I wrote more songs when I only had a mono reel to reel.

As a songwriter I found a minidisc recorder and stereo mic attachment quite a good combo as well as a small pocket sized notepad and pencil with eraser long ago . Now to the year 2000+ smart phones can record and there is a note pad app ..... I don't think one could ever ditch computer audio , you'll want to polish those songs or song ideas.

[Hink]

I wrote more songs when I only had a mono reel to reel.

Which is why I suggest that singer songwriters try hard to not get bitten by the daw bug, and put most of their energy into arranging, songwriting, lyrics, not chasing ASIO around the block, and let audio engineers worry about all the other technical minutia we get so caught up with and distracted by.

that's fine for you perhaps, myself I enjoy learning and tackling new ground, in fact I call it growth. I totally understand Gary's point and I also see your point however unless you're recording a single mono track project if you were to bring that to engineers to finish it up, well there would be an awful lot of minutia and very little they could actually do. So perhaps you might have more songs but it's likely the quality would not be all that and personally I refuse to sacrifice quality for quantity.

I'll say it again, one of the things I am most grateful for in life is technology has grown parallel to my ability to learn it and grow. I still sit and read the Samplitude forums and think about how little of Samp's power compared to other users Iuse. That's not a bad thing though, I have plenty of room to grow and we do not have to use all of a DAW's capabilities to get the most out of it for us.

It's the limitations of tape that I am happy to be rid of, it was cool when I did 11 tracks in a song of just Gregorian chants (plus drums, guitar, bass and other vox) all on a 4-track. It was fun, it was creative but all that remixing took it's toll and it sounded like it was done on a cassette.

I too get less accomplished now, but when I am done I have something that reflects the the work I put in in a more pleasant listening format and accentuates my passion, the guitar. But to be really fair the truth is I got more done in those days because I had less to worry about elsewhere in life. When I was young and single I could lock myself away for a weekend and get a lot done, today there is so much more on my plate (and wonderful things at that) and when I sit down in my studio and write/play the satisfaction I get from being able to achieve a much, much better sounding piece than 20, 30, 40 years ago reflects growth and my not stagnating because I refuse to learn new technology. Even if I dont finish things for ages the pleasure I get in my little world is worth the price of admission ten fold.

You see I was a tape snob for many years, I found reasons to avoid digital, I thought copy/paste was cheating, I thought samples were cheating, I thought storage would be an issue and I would have to erase material to make room for new stuff. All that was was pure ignorance on my part, but then I decided to start breaking all my silly rules of my youth that made for better talking about than the actual quality of all my efforts.

I started with breaking my rules of sticking to tape and soon I discovered every time I broke a rule I grew even more. So I guess what matters is what is important to the individual, if someone has the money and is striving for fame then sure, go to a pro. However if you are like me and want to learn more and have more understanding so you can do even better on the next song there is nothing wrong with being bitten by the DAW bug.

I look forward to the future and what technology brings to my passion, I use to hate it because I feared it. Now I have embraced it and am far better having done so and I can no longer blame my gear when I am not satisfied. I like to grow and as long as I am able that is exactly what I will strive for everyday of my life.

[She Changed Her Mind]

@rod_zero

Yes, some people think knowledge about theory will make them less spontaneous composers.

However, what I like about a piano roll is that I just can put notes in it. I am not entitled to any note as it comes to the knowledge I have about music theory, but it doesn't bother me as well. Matter of perception.

When a note doesn't sound good to my likes, I just put it somewhere else. For instance

[LawrenceF]

I wrote more songs when I only had a mono reel to reel.

Which is why I suggest that singer songwriters try hard to not get bitten by the daw bug, and put most of their energy into arranging, songwriting, lyrics, not chasing ASIO around the block, and let audio engineers worry about all the other technical minutia we get so caught up with and distracted by.

that's fine for you perhaps, myself I enjoy learning and tackling new ground, in fact I call it growth.

That's why the net is often not the best place for these kinds of discussions. Because unless you get really wordy and very literal and lengthy explaining things, there's almost always a case where someone somewhere reads a thing as somehow applying specifically to them when it really doesn't. Let me explain that in more detail...

If a guy or gal is a songwriter looking to get published or looking to grow in - that - craft to some productive and financially rewarding result, it's - sometimes, not always - the case that introducing loads of technology into that equation - for some - does nothing more than become a big distraction, take time away from improving the other maybe much more important skill sets.

You can see it all over the web in places like Soundcloud and Bandcamp, where people become fascinated with the recording and mxing arts and don't so much work on songwriting skills. A literal ton of (relatively) well recorded and mixed home produced songs that are, by and large, quite boring and not saying much of anything interesting to anyone. Partly because - some - of those people spend way more time chasing the next cool mix trick or arguing about digital minutia, or chasing down technical issues with all of that gear, than they ever do studying songwriting and arrangement.

That doesn't apply to everybody. It only applies where it applies. That's why some singer songwriter types are quite happy with Garageband because 99% of their effort is spent on the craft of good songwriting, not on mastering (or acquiring) technology.

It doesn't apply to me either because i'm not a songwriter. But I've seen it, and still see it, people get the bug and forget what's really important, great songs, great lyrics, emotion, musical tension, so their songs are well enough recorded and mixed and have a great amp sim tone or whatever but are generally un-interesting.

We, the tech nuts, and I am certainly a nerdy tech nut, not a songwriter though, can see the result of all that by thinking about how much of each others music we actually even buy, if any. What we mostly do is pat each other on the back about songs that nobody else cares about, congratulate each other for a great synth patch, and it kinda ends there, because many of the songs mostly don't really evoke any emotion in people.

I mean, we aren't gonna be the next Smokey Robinson or Diane Warren fiddling around with cool tech all day.

[Hink]

I wrote more songs when I only had a mono reel to reel.

Which is why I suggest that singer songwriters try hard to not get bitten by the daw bug, and put most of their energy into arranging, songwriting, lyrics, not chasing ASIO around the block, and let audio engineers worry about all the other technical minutia we get so caught up with and distracted by.

that's fine for you perhaps, myself I enjoy learning and tackling new ground, in fact I call it growth.

That's why the net is often not the best place for these kinds of discussions. Because unless you get really wordy and very literal and lengthy explaining things, there's almost always a case where someone somewhere reads a thing as somehow applying specifically to them when it really doesn't. Let me explain that in more detail...

If a guy or gal is a songwriter looking to get published or looking to grow in - that - craft to some productive and financially rewarding result, it's - sometimes, not always - the case that introducing loads of technology into that equation - for some - does nothing more than become a big distraction, take time away from improving the other maybe much more important skill sets.

You can see it all over the web in places like Soundcloud and Bandcamp, where people become fascinated with the recording and mxing arts and don't so much work on songwriting skills. A literal ton of (relatively) well recorded and mixed home produced songs that are, by and large, quite boring and not saying much of anything interesting to anyone. Partly because - some - of those people spend way more time chasing the next cool mix trick or arguing about digital minutia, or chasing down technical issues with all of that gear, than they ever do studying songwriting and arrangement.

That doesn't apply to everybody. It only applies where it applies. That's why some singer songwriter types are quite happy with Garageband because 99% of their effort is spent on the craft of good songwriting, not on mastering (or acquiring) technology.

It doesn't apply to me either because i'm not a songwriter. But I've seen it, and still see it, people get the bug and forget what's really important, great songs, great lyrics, emotion, musical tension, so their songs are well enough recorded and mixed and have a great amp sim tone or whatever but generally un-insteresting.

well I agree on somethings and ironically my mixing skills suck because I spend more time playing than mixing...a pitfall of never finishing things

I agree that for people wanting to make a career of being a singer/songwriter it could be better for them to just go to a studio and let the experts handle it while they write interesting songs. But here's where we differ, I forget which book it was (read while working at a small music store on slow days), it was about mixing and before computers were popular for making music. One point the author made a lot and has stuck with me is that part of the mixing engineers job is to make the song interesting as well.

Editing isn't new, it's just a lot easier now but in your scenario the experts are doing the editing (presumably under the supervision of the talent) as well as the mixing which is how it's been since Les Paul started exploring multitrack recording. Again this is a skill that I need more work on myself and I'm not going to sit here and list a whole bunch of songs that might have been less than spectacular examples of songwriting that were made good by creative mixing. It's far too subjective, but it would surprise me if you couldn't think of plenty.

What I replied to was "try hard to not get bitten by the daw". You seem to have backed off that some in what seems to be an attempt to suggest I read too much into what you wrote. I just happen to disagree with you and was articulate as to why

[LawrenceF]

Yeah, I didn't expect "singer songwriter" to be taken as everybody.

To me, a "singer songwriter" is a person who spends hours every day doing that, with a guitar or a piano mostly, not assembling songs in daws. Their focus is on touching people with their music emotionally, first and foremost. After that, the really great arranger guy or production team steps in and adds great strings or drums or whatever for the record.

A great song really doesn't need anything but a good singer and a piano and a guitar to be great. All of the other stuff isn't really songwriting, it's "record production".

And of course, that also certainly doesn't apply to genres where technology is a necessary ingredient and often enough nobody is singing anything anyway.

[jancivil]

My experience with recording technology started in my teens, my interest in it has everything to do with getting 'a song' produced.
I wasn't writing the songs then, although I had dabbled, I was interested in getting something that would be a good demo of someone's songs. I used to read what I could on it. So we get in a studio and the engineer/studio owner needs someone to talk to and starts talking shop, thinking I'm speaky the lingo. The songwriter was interested also, as a Beatles fanatic he kind of got what George Martin brought to the thing.

So, I don't know what people are getting lost in that side of it. I think most people, like most things, most endeavors, don't have a lot to say so there will be a focus in the ancillary concerns. A lot of 'remixes'. So what.

I guess I'm not the best at detecting irony, especially on this forum, so I have to admit I did not get that from the OP. But 'debating the merits' is kind of precious, to my view. And here we have a kind of dichotomy turning up, between songwriting and the process of production. What I'm trying to say is that for me, the sound is integral to the composition; the mix is part of orchestration. But I never found strumming an acoustic guitar and contriving relatable, derivative tunes over it all that fascinating.
At 17, another kid I knew did and there was a glimpse of possibility in commercial music and I thought my skills and interests could bring that over the goal line possibly.
Then I focused on an instrument very closely. But even there, getting a better recording was of interest for the auditions.

[jancivil]

A great song really doesn't need anything but a good singer and a piano and a guitar to be great. All of the other stuff isn't really songwriting, it's "record production".

Well, even in the early 70s I was well aware of the competition. I thought this guy's songs were good enough, better than a lot of it. So I brought my best guitar solo and McCartney bass impression. He was very aware of 'strings' and sweetening and we moved towards that.
Lady Gaga can make a great song happen just with voice and piano. Look at it takes, though. This may be a necessary dichotomy for this person you've constructed but I don't really think that's the wisest path.

[LawrenceF]

Yeah, like I said... it's the net.

All you have to do on the net is tell people what you have personally observed happen, something maybe not good, and to suggest that it's maybe something to be aware of, trying to just be helpful to those who may be falling into that, and 15 other people who don't have anything to do with that and/or haven't experienced or seen any negative effects from that, take offense to it as if you just kinda made it up out of thin air.

Again, it only applies where it applies. I didn't just make that up.

Somebody out there somewhere is so caught up in technology that their other skills are maybe unnecessarily suffering. I think that's a pretty clear truth, that some get so caught up in daws and producing records that they aren't even as good of musicians as they once were because they don't ever even play with anyone else anymore, but anything you say on the web will draw some level of debate, so no biggie.

It's a potential pothole that we should avoid stepping into. It doesn't suggest everyone or even most actually do step into it.

[jancivil]

Well, someone out there is surely making mistakes. I agree.
I don't think I'm debating it if you're not.

[LawrenceF]

From what I hear on Bandcamp and Soundcloud, from (some) people who seem to want to be professional songwriters, it's a lot of somebodies.

It's a rare day indeed when I log on the net and even hear a lyrical song (pop, rock, soul, whatever) that evokes any kind of lasting emotion in me or makes me think about anything. When that does happen it's most often kinda country, curiously enough, with me not being a country fan.

But hey... it's not my music (mine is actually much worse ) so I shouldn't even care... but it's a discussion forum so we sometimes talk about things we observe.