rabidmusic wrote:
> I see a lot of people shifting back towards hardware to a limited
> extent. You can pay $200 for a used Roland MKS-70 or D550, or you can
> pay $100 for a piece of software that tries unsuccessfully to
> replicate these units and may or may not work after the next OS
> upgrade. I have a full software setup, but I get tired of having to
> watch the CPU meter. A single complex patch can bring my P4 to the
> edge of failure. I don't have that problem with my Command Station or
> Nord Modular. That is why I choose to buy a used Wavestation SR for
> $250 instead of spending $200 on software that sounds like a
> Wavestation. Software does still have a place in my heart, but that
> place has changed. No longer do I expect to create a full mix with 24
> tracks of VSTi's. Instead I create my tracks with hardware, then look
> for software instruments to use in the recording process. Software
> has made me happy with the B3 sounds in my Vintage ROM because I know
> when it comes time to record, I can change over to NI's B4. I guess
> software has created a market for cheap hardware. But, I will not be
> spending $3000 for a ROMpler again.
ironically, my intention initially was to explain why companies seem to be
going to software, but i agree with your point. i myself like hardware
better. the less interaction with a computer i have, the better my music
seems to flow. i think there is a very visceral sense with hardware that
can't really be duplicated by software and a little mini control keyboard
with multifunction knobs.
Reason was an excellent purchase, but it often seems TOO flexible, in that
there are just so darn many ways to do things that getting started with an
idea can be more difficult.
i tend to pick simple hardware - stuff i can grok in less than 30 minutes.
i'm a big fan of actually trying out stuff in a music store before buying
online or what have you - how do i interact with the physical machine? does
it like me? do i like it? these are important questions. trying out software
in a similar manner is only possible when the "demo" of the software (or for
you swashbucklers, the aye-matey versions) is functionally complete and
works for at least 30 minutes without bugging the crapola out of the user -
nigh upon impossible to find demos such as this.
i think it all boils down to: know your gear. i've heard better things
coming out of rEalm's XL-7 and Roland loop sampler than 90% of the stuff i
see that is accompanied by two roomfuls of multiracked MIDIfests. Richie
Hawtin milks a TB-303 for all it is worth. a TR-606 and a Juno 106 were
enough for some folks to make a whole album of amazing stuff. these folks
know their gear and work within its limitations. they know what it can do
and what cannot be done, and with the boundaries set they can then explore
within that confined and navigable space. computers with their endless
plugins are an expanding universe of possibility, but that comes at the cost
of unfamiliarity. too much flexibility.
i have three synths (just sold my fourth, actually) and run Digital
Performer in Mac OS 9, with three groups of plugins that were reasonably
priced, and three virtual instruments, all of the single-instance retro
recreation variety. i doubt i will get anything new in the next year or two
- already i am overwhelmed by the sheer possibilities with what i already
have.
ok, somewhere in that ramble is an idea - not sure where it is, though. :D
--
Bruddah Max
Lord of the Dance