why trackers?

[runagate]

The question, I presume, is asked by someone who does not make music consisting almost
wholly of quantized eighth notes.

I find myself pondering why I drive myself nuts trying to make my 1/128th notes
in FL's patterened paradigm which is made expressedly for dance genres but no
matter what you use there's always a trade-off.

[rpc9943]

dude tracking is the fastest way to get your ideas out, in my opinion.

I use my midi keyboard routed through revisit into tracktion, drag drop instruments, bam done. It's awesome.

RonC

[Modeler]

I can't look at a tracker without thinking of those God-awful soundtracker sample sets from the Amiga. The sound of badly looped strings at 15.977 KHz will be forever etched in my brain...

[paulmerchant]

I use Aodix. To me I think it is the easiest tracker. (Actually, probably the easiest music software that I've ever learned.) Renoise is much more of a pure tracker (better for keying in note offsets, etc.) and it has awesome sampling power, but Renoise (the last I tried it) doesn't give you the routing power or the ease of Aodix. They are both excellent but, of course, everything does have trade offs.

[rounser]

All of the positives described for trackers here I could easily apply to my trackerless rig (quick, precise, technical, sample control, etc). I'm sure a lot of others could, too, about their respective rigs. Methods change, but end results are pretty easy to come by given any advanced system.

I doubt it. Workstations and audio-based sequencers aside, perhaps, only in a tracker is your sampler your sequencer and your audio editor. This level of integration brings a workflow that a seperate sampler, audio editor and sequencer cannot compete with; you probably won't understand that until you've used "render to sample slot", "apply FX to sample" and audio edited an MP3 directly inside Renoise - and it can do all this because it's not rooted in catering to the plugin model. I doubt you can draw your envelopes and LFOs either; powerful envelopes seem to be peculiar to trackerdom because it's internal sampler is not catering to MIDI (and therefore ADSR).

So, in short, if your "rig" is MIDI or plugin-based, as they virtually all are, trackers probably have it beat on several counts (audio setups come pretty close, mind you). That said, trackers bring problems of their own which require workarounds or grinning and bearing it (e.g. I've rigged renoise up to a step sequencer for initial sequencing).

[goldbaker]

I use the Psycle tracker a lot. It's free, and I find the interface much easier to deal with than the piano roll. After the initial getting used to, I find it much faster to work with. Of course, I do all my composing with the keyboard/mouse. Also, it's a big help to be able to see the notes on multiple tracks at one time. I like Cakewalk and Tunafish, but have gradually come to prefer the tracker model. Also, Psycle runs fine on a couple of old computers I have around, provided I keep an eye on which plug-ins I'm using.

[Jafo]

The QWERTY interface can be blazingly fast and elegant, but trained keyboardists (even bad ones like me) tend to find it frustratingly slow and clumsy. With MIDI, one keystroke inputs the note, the velocity, the duration, and more parameters if you have aftertouch; but in a tracker, you have to enter most or all of them separately and I never got the hang of quantizing everything into 4's. But a tracker beats five kinds of living hell out of mousing around (except for simple edits), and doesn't require an external controller. Plus, trackers have a very appealing geekiness to them: any idiot can learn to hit a middle C on a piano keyboard, but hitting a middle C on a computer keyboard is another matter!

[brambos]

I can't look at a tracker without thinking of those God-awful soundtracker sample sets from the Amiga. The sound of badly looped strings at 15.977 KHz will be forever etched in my brain...

There was something very charming about playing around with ModEdit, Octamed and later FastTracker2. I've spent hours hacking away keyboard codes with that stuff.

However, I wouldn't want to go back to that again. I like my sequencers a tad more visual and less like spreadsheets these days.

[VitaminD]

However, I wouldn't want to go back to that again. I like my sequencers a tad more visual and less like spreadsheets these days.

I feel the same way... for the most part..

if im in a creative slump or just want to do something different, I may fire up the tracker... I write different kinds of music (different genre, different tempo, different feel etc) just by nature in a tracker.. I'm much more rhythmic and a lot less melodic when im trackerizing (:hihi:)

I'd say learning how to copy/paste in Impulse Tracker really opened the doors to my tracker usage... things get done SO much quicker with the copy/paste features!!!

[shamann]

his level of integration brings a workflow that a seperate sampler, audio editor and sequencer cannot compete with

For you maybe. But the software I use, I've been using a long time. Speed is simply not an issue in the least, it has all become second nature to me. I have never encountered a point at which I simply couldn't achieve a given sound/effect/etc with what I use, nor have I ever lamented that it would simply take me too long.

I've used trackers, there are definitely cool things about them. And certainly the things I do aren't necessarily done in the same fashion, but there is not a single sound or piece of music that you could get with a tracker that I couldn't get with other software. Just I'd maybe have to do it in a method that wouldn't work for you as a tracker user. It's the nature of advanced software systems, they all ultimately cover the same ground through different methods. Any expert user of any one system could easily perform as adeptly as any expert user of any other system.

[rounser]

For you maybe.

For me definitely. Won't go back to seperate audio editor/sampler/sequencer if I can help it.

But the software I use, I've been using a long time. Speed is simply not an issue in the least, it has all become second nature to me. I have never encountered a point at which I simply couldn't achieve a given sound/effect/etc with what I use, nor have I ever lamented that it would simply take me too long.

That's good. I couldn't stand the back-and-forthing, so that wasn't for me.

I've used trackers, there are definitely cool things about them.

Actually, I'm talking about some features of a specific tracker that the others don't share...stuff like reading mp3s, render to sample slot, apply fx to sample. They're not typical "tracker features", but a side effect of the integration.

Just I'd maybe have to do it in a method that wouldn't work for you as a tracker user.

I'm not a typical "tracker user", as such, though. I don't use pattern commands except as a last resort, and sequence everything from a piano roll.

Yes, technically all sequencers can do the same stuff; the devil is in the details. We can't really discuss this on a comparison basis, because I don't think either of us has a full idea of what the other is talking about.

[insaneacyde]

i am/was a guitarist and to me programs with piano rolls really pissed me off, i mean i know notes and scales on guitar according to there names i.e C# is C#
not some f#$%n black key on a keyboard, i mean how rude is that!
Luckily Buzz let me tell it exactly what notes to play. And i'd rather learn QWERTY than piano roll.
Also having to fiddle with your mouse changing lengths and clicking on the step length thingy in piano roll makes me want to bite the wall!!!
As far as dance genres go nothing can beat a tracker unless your music is loop based.

[DWb]

The really big thing I miss about trackers is using the keyboard to do the song structure for loop based music - I can understand how people would prefer a piano roll or a keyboard for entering sequences, but for laying out the track, it just seems quicker and more natural to have the cursor / track layout and go 1212123456565656........11112222 or whatever than to sit there duplicating and dragging around clips. I honestly don't understand why lots of sequencers don't have anything like this.

[djdorian]

I agree that "tracker" based GUIs are more precise and efficient than traditional "sheet-music" views or *shudders* the ubiquitous "piano roll" interface that's popular now.

However, Sheet Music interfaces provide critical advantages for professional composers (i.e. people who get paid... I won't go into semantics games here.)

For example, laying out time-based (and BPM based) compositional and articulation effects such as crescendos, sforzando, double-stops, etc. are 10 times faster, more intuitive, and most important of all, easier to communicate a "general idea" of performance characteristics, which can later be printed in an orchestral score for "real" performance.

This advantage to sheet-music views becomes even more profound when you consider things such as scoring for movies, in which timing indications have to be made to accomadate time-signature changes, performance indications, various audio FX, and on-screen action simultaneously. Tracker views become very bothersome to use in this context.

I will not bash any particular interface, as they all have advantages/disadvantages. I have used tracker view programs for years now, and RENOISE is hands-down the king in that category...

In my opinion, however, an optimal sequencer host would accomadate both tracker AND sheet-music views, with the additional ability to print finished scores.

...And a really good mixer view built-in to the host program, that could be made available by simply clicking a "tab," would be a very useful tool as well!