A discussion of the DAW as a compositional tool

Antimon

( This topic starts a bit odd since I split it from this thread:
http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-19783.html . )

I agree that latency can be a great creativity-killer.

/Stefan

Kassen · Posted: Tue Sep 04, 2007 7:59 pm Post subject:

blue hell · Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:09 am Post subject:

Johan Zwart · Posted: Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:38 am Post subject:

A modern DAW is essentially a traditional recording and production studio.
It can be used as an instrument and songwriting tool, which is a good thing, but this also poses a lot of creative workflow problems.

Some examples:

When you record your own material using a DAW, then first of all you should be a bitching goodamn pain in the ass musician who kicks engineer ass ( and that engineer is you ) and you lock the goddamn producer ( that´s you too ) out of the studio until you and the engineer ( which still is you ) have sorted out the recording of the tracks.

And... stay away from those more cowbell moments..

Kassen · Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:30 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:38 am Post subject:

I see few problems with modern DAWs, and clearly the products will be improved as well. Do you need hands on experience.. buy external control surfaces.
Writing.. yes.. that is the problem. A DAW is rarely the most effective songwriting tool.

Kassen · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:46 am Post subject:

That's what I meant, for recording they are fine but I don't think that that's what they are used for, I think most DAW users use them to write in directly. Because of their nature and workings this makes the whole thing into a start-stop process which affects the end result.

I don't understand why there are hardly any tools aimed at playing/improvising a five minute song in five minutes; sure there are plenty that will allow you to present previously written material in a form that has some facilities for re-structuring but that's not what I mean.

I suspect most of the uniformity and lack of spontaniousness in contemporary music comes from the uniformity in the tool used and those not being very conductive to spontanious gestures.

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:54 am Post subject:

Is it OK if I split the the thead and move the DAW related discussion to somewhere else.? This is an interesting topic.

OK.. I split the old topic. This topic originated in this thread:
http://electro-music.com/forum/topic-19783.html

Kassen · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:06 am Post subject:

Good move, agreed.

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:18 am Post subject:

Antimon · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:43 am Post subject:

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:48 am Post subject:

Good point. I do however imagine that you are in the right mode when doing this. It´s all about which one of the many incarnations of you that is in charge of the recording/writing session. Very Happy

The studio as a compositional tool is a valid concept and this is also the case with the dreaded DAW.

elektro80 · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:01 am Post subject:

Sure, I´m using the DAW as a writing tool myself. I can see notation and edit parts and stuff. I see the DAW as not one tool, but rather a lot of different tools available at the same time. I think what Kassen is getting at is that the various DAW and production studio hybrids tend to offer set ways of thinking when writing/producing a piece. This means that the tool could easily be the result rather than having the composer/musician in charge.

These days it is the norm to bundle all sorts of loops with a DAW, there will be at least one DR-55 or TR styled rythm box thingie in there too with lotsa presets. Kassen suggests that it´s way too easy to be picking pre digested cherries, prawns and feta cheese and building the dish based on available options rather than actually enjoying creative freedom.

jkn · Joined: Mar 14, 2004 Posts: 469 Location: La Porte, IN, USA

I still use my DAW as a glorified 4-track. Even when I use a program like Fruity or Rebirth (yes, yes, I'm very up to date on software... ha) - I'm running them in pattern mode and changing on the fly - routing the sound out to my mixer and hardware and then back into my old copy of Vegas to record the audio. Once all the tracks are recorded I'll start fidgeting with mixing and then later mastering in Sound Forge.

Of course - now that my really old DAW died... I'm going through the process of trying to get all my old software working on a newer computer - so I'll likely end up with some software changes. Hopefully not. I'm happy with what I have currently.

Good point on cherry picking presets and such with the packaged software tools. I'll argue that's always been a crutch whether we're talking about old hardware presets or new software presets. I do think it's easier to fall back on those crutches in software... but that's just my opinion.

Kassen · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:10 am Post subject:

Kassen · Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:24 am Post subject:

dewdrop_world

Antimon · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:55 am Post subject:

Soundcards sometimes impose latency. I used soundblaster cards for a couple of years, which worked fine for my humble requirements, until I bought a brand new computer circa 2001, and I suddenly experienced latencies around half a second - no matter what setting I tried to tweak. I didn't even know what latency was until this. My last soundcard (an M-Audio firewire box) promised near-zero latency, which I've learned to interpret as "enough latency to be irritating".

/Stefan

p.s. spellchecker wants to change Soundblaster to sandblaster Laughing

Acoustic Interloper · Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 10:52 am Post subject:

Kassen

@James;

Yeah, drawing to the screen is still expensive, especially if you want all those cool moving meters and so on, I wouldn't mind it so much if what was displayed was more immediately meaningful on a musical level.

As for interfaces, I'm thinking and testing... So far it's going fine but I also have to say that so far I've given myself a rather easy time by limiting the whole thing to rather simple music.

Things I found to work; Absolute controllers (so ones that send data relative to their neutral position, not to some arbitrary position on the screen) because those make muscle memory a lot more useful and auditory feedback. That last one is a weird one, I don't think anything normal uses it aside from very cheap keyboards that go "click" if you press a interface button which accidentally turns out to be useful if the button is one of the volume adjustment ones, but it works. Now I just need a lot more angles to the whole thing/ to music where interface sonification can intelligently be used.... Oh, and keeping it all simple and focussed yet powerful, writing a dozen or so good functions (normal usage of the word) easily beats a exhaustive list spanning many menus, even if amongst those (somewhere....) are two dozen ones that are better then the dozen hand-picked ones in some situation that might occur.

Kindly excuse me if I'm a bit hesitant to put my whole secret master plan/ doomsday device online. Also; most things that come out tend to sound like "Kassen", nobody seems to object to Live's tendency to sound a bit like "Monolake" but still. ;¬)

Breaking spellchecker news, for some reason "sonification" isn't in the EM spell check dictionary, nor in the Iceweasel one. This is odd, especially for EM.

Beermaster · Joined: Oct 22, 2006 Posts: 42 Location: London

From a composition point of view I don't see what all the fuss is about ! - tho I guess my approach to writing is a bit old school. I use Logic mainly as a midi sequencer with everything happening live through 64 channels of the desk - I record some overdubs as audio but the rest is run as live through the desk as possible - I rarely get the time to do a separate mix with clients so speed is essential for me as changes to tracks needs to be super fast.

Whatever I play on the keyboards is latency free as its all outboard - for me DAW is fantastic and more perfect than I need.

I guess with the growing use of Fruity loops and pre-made patterns that the newbie can glue together I can see how the lines have been blured between what was once the 'Home keyboard' market with its Auto-Accompaniment features and the PRO kit that is a more of a set of paints.

Beer

kijjaz · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:35 am Post subject:

for me, DAW is a good tool.
Yes, it's like a recorder / editor / virtual studio, with various additional features (depending on each DAW)..
But one thing that's very good about DAWs is that it is convenient to try something out and have a listen right away.

That means... a DAW in a good hand..
especially in a curious & experimental person,
will be a very nice playground / laboratory for doing experiments in musical ideas and sounds.

At least, the person should be able to do that .. experiment with compositions and sounds .. in his/her own brain,
but DAW helps turning those into sounds that they can present & cooperate with other musicians.

For me, DAWs are good.
But just don't let DAWs make you lazy, that's all.
Because they're just weapons and maybe some muscles,
but not the brain. Shocked

elektro80 · Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 2:48 am Post subject:

I think the DAW is a good thing too. I have however seen a lot of people get stuck with production issues rather than songwriting and the engineering/tracking part is often overlooked completely. This is more about lack of experience and workflow issues than a real problem with the DAW concept.

I guess it is a "problem" right now that the DAW manuals don´t come with engineering tutorials.

Beermaster · Joined: Oct 22, 2006 Posts: 42 Location: London

"I guess it is a "problem" right now that the DAW manuals don´t come with engineering tutorials"

That is SO true but further to that They don't come with How To Be Creative either ! - Too many people blame the tools for their lack of experience and grass roots musical understanding.