thread starter Does anyone else feel like using programs like Reason, Ableton, Pro-Tool, et Al. is kind of cheating? Not, of course, in the sense that anyone who uses them is a terrible terrible person and should be banished from music land just for thinking about using them. It's just that it's almost too easy. The sounds are too good.
I ask this question because I am starting to feel this way myself, having only ever used such programs to make electronic music. It's almost as if i'm skipping a whole bunch of really important steps. I'm sure that this is an oft-debated topic, but perhaps it needs a re-hash. I don't know... Is it worth beginning to invest in actual EM gear? Opinions? Replies
sure, but calling a DAW "cheatware" is amusing. pretty large amount of precision tools to write off for the sake of being a purist.
i'll say what i've said to all my highschool friends who claimed that "electronic music isn't real music". while its incredibly easy to make computer music, it takes years of practice and talent to make computer music that is actually good and most importantly, original. computer music is often hard to distinguish from composer to composer, so i think orginality is key.
"Now that things are so easy, there's so much to do." - Morton Subotnick
i write a new program in C++ from scratch every time i make a song
I know you are joking, but wow, that is great. I only write a new piece of software like once per band. Yeah, but those "cheaters" get so much more done than the purists. If their tracks sound better than yours, you are doing something wrong, not them.
Software vs hardware rants are timeless. I am totally a preset monkey. The difference is I make my own presets to fit a certain task, then reuse them like crazy. I have a bunch of presets and racks in ableton that fit a certain sound design idea. Then I just plug it in, and tweak to fit the song. It is so much more productive than trying to make everything from scratch every single time. Time is valuable! Find the software/hardware that HELPS you make the sounds that you want to make. For some people.. that is extra software, custom written synthesizers, presets, randomizers.. etc.
Process doesn't mean shit to the ears. The end result should be your focus. If you make something good, nobody will care how you did it.. and the ones that do care will be left scratching their heads anyways. I use my computer to write up my poetry instead of my trusty pen and paper... am I cheating?
It's technology people, might as well get used to the fact that people are inherently complacent. The more we progress the more we encourage laziness. ...that Subotnick quote is a good one.
Recent blogs: A secret admirer?
Mechanism said: "I use my computer to write up my poetry instead of my trusty pen and paper... am I cheating?" No, but writing lyrics/poems on paper just feels better to me  Spark said: "Find the software/hardware that HELPS you make the sounds that you want to make. For some people.. that is extra software, custom written synthesizers, presets, randomizers.. etc. Process doesn't mean shit to the ears. The end result should be your focus. If you make something good, nobody will care how you did it.. and the ones that do care will be left scratching their heads anyways." the end result doesn't have to be your focus, in an experimental context it rarely is.. jack123 said: "i'll say what i've said to all my highschool friends who claimed that "electronic music isn't real music". while its incredibly easy to make computer music, it takes years of practice and talent to make computer music that is actually good and most importantly, original. computer music is often hard to distinguish from composer to composer, so i think orginality is key." exactly, computers are a tool like anything else. its just as easy to write a shit tune on a computer as it is to write a shit tune on a guitar. being an amateur just means you're not proficient with said chosen tool. Someone (i forget) on em411 said it a long time ago: you're not a real musician until you build your own bass drum from an animal that you killed, skinned, and tanned yourself.
lysdexic said: " Spark said: "The end result should be your focus. If you make something good, nobody will care how you did it.. and the ones that do care will be left scratching their heads anyways." the end result doesn't have to be your focus, in an experimental context it rarely is.." I would argue that a result is always the focus of experimentation. If the objective of an "experiment" isn't the results.. then what is it? If you have no hypothesis, and no idea, then you have no experiment. i actually went out with a girl who made a drum from an animal she killed and skinned.
do i get a prize? quip said: "i actually went out with a girl who made a drum from an animal she killed and skinned. do i get a prize?" Isn't that prize enough? Isn't the point of producing any type of music to transcend what you use? no matter what it is? Just seek your voice and don't look at the tools that you use as a crutch or a window. It is what you have right now. Use it. Seek your voice.
how the hell is it cheating?
using unaltered loops could be called cheating.. but using software doesn't write a song for you... (well I have this idea.. and soon I will own every song possible.. but.. shhh) If you wanna start talking about 'cheating' ... then yeah.. you gotta kill the animal using homemade tools or build the machine using raw materials like rocks and shit. mined/refined/manufactured with tools you made yourself... and made from your own ideas, not from a plan that someone gave you.. and you're not allowed to have any hunting lessons either, you have to learn that yourself. Signup to comment
|