Although I'm a real techno freak - in the sense of technology not techno-music - I'm dissatisfied with the concept of the technology in music making and not with the concept of technical music. It happens many times that I spend hours with hard and software problem solving instead of making music and that bothers me. The technology limits my creativity and it should be the other way round, not?

I don't know if I'm the only one on this list with this feeling?

That's the law of nature. More capability == more complexity. Something as cool/complex as the NM requires a bit of brainpower to make it shine. If technology limits your creativity, then you shouldn't be using technology to create music. Either that, or sit down with everything and LEARN IT.

When I first sat down with the Modular, it took me a while to "groove" with it. That is, I couldn't get anything but thin, crappy sounds out of it. After some asking on this list and a lot of practice, I finally have an instrument that I know well enough to eek out exactly what I want. It took time. It took patience. It took PRACTICE. But never did I ever whine about it being too hard to use, nor should I. The Modular is a VERY complex piece of gear with infinite flexibility, and the UI is far easier to use than I would've expected.

If you want to still use your electronic equipment, then do what I do: Map out your music in its entirety. Start with a bass line, a lead sound, and a simple/stupid beat. Write the whole thing out. Then go back and sound design it. Change sounds, add passages, change the drum beat, etc...

I see electronic music making as a two pass endeavour - the first is musical, the second is technical. You'll find that if you're technically stuck, you're only working on technical issues. The only way to get beyond the technical challeneges is to bite your lip and plow your way through it. It's an enormous hump to get over, but once you do, composing is nothing more than a reflex. I was stuck in the mode of having a new mixer, 7 new synths, a new computer, a new sampler, new sequencing software, and a new audio device. Talk about the learning curve - it took me WEEKS until I was comfortable with all of it.

Whatever you do, DON'T get a bunch of new/unfamiliar equipment all at once!

Sadly, there's a mentality that seems to be worldwide - people are afraid to learn anything new. They act indignant about the fact that they have to learn something. It's a "I want the capability but I don't want to have to learn anything" mentality. It drives common sayings like "I can't even program my own VCR!" - since when is this a thing to be PROUD of? Sheesh!

That happens to me a lot of time when I sit down to make something too. It's very frustrating.

Buy a guitar or piano and start playing music... You notice soon enough if you really have musical talent or if you use technology as an excuse for lack of talent and/or motivation...

Excellent advice. I often try out a melodic line on a non-electronic instrument, for instance, to see if it sounds good -- even whistling can work here. And, once again, having that variety can be inspirational. I spent one evening with pan pipes and it really had an impact on what I was trying to do with my NM that week!

What did you put in the pan pipes?

Yes, I experience this too, but I think it's important to differentiate between technology that is necessarily complex to achieve flexibility, and technology that gets in the way because it has a poorly designed, clumsy user interface, or that is just plain unreliable.

I have had problems involving midi sync and digital audio recording that were of the latter type, and this kind of problem definitely gets in the way of the creative process.

I have noooooo complaints about the user interface on the NM. Most inspired & inspiring UI ever on a synth, IMO. Love it love it love it.

There seems to be only one solution if _technology_ does not work; scale it down until it works! The only reason the _technology_ does not work is actually if it is too complex for the job. And imho modern computer configurations have become way too complex for many applications, just because they are expected to be the "Jack of all Trades", but instead they become "Master of None".

I think it should be possible to run the NM editor and Logic or cubase on a single computer without problems... this is not too complex, but... Its not easy to get this running properly... I have 3 different USB Midi interfaces at my place now to test, after day one im close to give the NM its dedicated edit laptop back again....but I dont like to give up yet...maybe next week I find some time to do music... Midi and computers realy suck from the day the Atari disapeared!

I think you have an interesting point here, and I'm sure many people (including me) often feel the same way. There follows an overly long ramble to this effect - please feel free to ignore me if you haven't got much time on your hands...

Let me guess - most of the problems that you have originate with your computer. Am I right? Thought so!

In terms of music making, computers are probably the most versatile instrument ever created. It is quite incredible that with a couple of hundred quid and a bit of hookey software you have a setup which is perfectly cabable of creating a musical masterpiece. Or even the next Michael Jackson record.

But, just as with women and booze, this awsome blessing also comes with a curse. Computer based music setups on one hand have practically infinite possibilites, but of course this also menas that they can potentially have an infinite learning curve (And, at times, what seems like an infinite number of things to go wrong as well!).

Because of this, paradoxical as it sounds, I'm coming round to the idea that I can be far more productive with fairly limited gear and a rigid pattern of working, than with a setup that has limitless possibilites. Recalling my already stretched metafor, think of it as having only one woman at a time and not drinking too much!

Anyway, to this ewnd I've just been out and bought a hardware sequencer/sampler. Whilst it has no where near the cababilites of something like Cubase, there is also very little to go wrong and not so much to learn. I am learning to get the most out of the effects which it has built in rather than wrestling with a list of plugins as long as my arm and then foolishly downloading 25 more from the internet. I'm learning to sequence my music by listening to it rather than looking at little blocks on the screen as well. In addition to that, after I turn it on it's ready to go in about 10 seconds. And I can take to to gigs!

Yes, it is cable of far less than my PC, but I've done more music with it in the last week than in the last month of using my computer.

Having said that, I'm not saying that you have to totally ditch your computer. Maybe you can just simplify it. Just have two programs on it and a few plugins (oh and the modular editing software - just so this isn't off topic!). Learn to use them well and don't be tempted to keep changing what you have. When your mate comes roung with the CD with the new version of Sonic Wavelab Acid Pro Deluxe Sudio 10.4, tell yourself that you don't need it! The same goes for harware - you really don't need more than maybe a couple of synths a little mixer and some processors. Tops! Ignore the pictues of peoples studios that you see on the web from time to time - you know, the ones that look like an explosion in a knobs and button factory. YOU DON'T NEED IT!

Sorry for the diatribe, but I've just made this change myself and I feel much better for it. I guess it's like feng-shui for you studio. Actually that's not right, my studio still looks like a shit-tip. Lets call it studio bonsai instead, to keep the oriental theme. Comments?

Sure, my point (which was more about trying to expand the discussion) is that there are a few tools around that enable you to write in a "different" way to that of being constrained within a soft sequencer, which, imo, is not a good tool for that job. And despite the mkting blurb, this is not what they were designed for. Hardware seqs are okay, but nevertheless limited in what you can do with them (I appreciate that there are all sorts of tricks, but that's not the point, there are loads of those with soft sequencers).

Something like Live! (and there may well be other tools), break out of the constraints of the past and bring a different type of creatively to music making. And, at the risk of repeating myself, are very cool when used with the NM.

Let me give you one example of something creative in Live that is unique in my experience. In realtime, as you are changing your arrangement, also in realtime, you can record a loop of something you are playing (or part, or from a mic of the audience, or of a NM noodle) and it then have it come in on the next bar after you stop recording, automatically. You might say, "What's the use?", but the point is that the tool allows very flexible creatively in music making and doesn't; get in the way. Where it is very useful, is bringing a composition together. You kinda don't necessarily start and the start and move forward, which is how seq tend to push you, but you build a composition in free form.

Ach well, either you try these things or you don't. I do wish that there were more usable creative composition tools out there. There doesn't seem to be a lot of creatively in the software world in this space. Heck, you can't even get decent software arpegg beyond up, down and random...

To add to all the stuff that's been said, I think that computer based tools that support composition are, on the whole, very poor. The mainstream sequencers are simply not sources on inspiration for song-writing/music-making, imo. There is not a lot of creativity support within them. I do produce this way, but it's very hard unless I have a very clear road-map to start with - and while this is one way to produce a toon, it is not the only way.

This is one reason I love the NM and it's 4 slots (and why a MIDI out will make things even better). As a composition inspiration tool it is fab. I was actually going through my "ideas" folders yesterday, and almost all of them are 3 or 4 NM patches + a text file (of reminders to myself). Sometimes I briefly sketch something in a seq, but not often.

I've mentioned before that I tried, and enjoyed Ableton Live!. This is the best creative/inspiration tool I have found to date. Best of all it works brilliantly with the NM (even though there is no MIDI).

So while "simplifying" your tool-set by moving to hardware gear is definitely one route (as is simply playing guitar or keys - which is where my *best* works comes from), I think that identifying the right tool in a given situation is another and that's a hard thing to do on a computer when we are mostly wedded to the idea of doing everything in a seq from the start.

Rob Hordijk wrote: If you were able to be creative with the NM on your old PC, where all worked fine, according to your earlier remarks, then why not go back to that configuration? See, you have to do best with what works, which is in fact always rubbish technology compared with what Microsoft and Apple will make for us in another two hundred and twentyfive years. Were _all_ born centuries too early! The wisdom is simple, "what works" works. "What does not work" is probably nothing more than some new blabla thing someone wants us to buy. Only rely on 'proven' technology.

My first idea was to get rid of my old pc and to do everything with that new ultra-powerfull pc to save space and to keep the number of gear as limited as possible. But after reading all the reactions, it looks like most of the people on the list use something like an old pc or a laptop to edit the NM. Maybe I've to change my idea? Throw away that damned Midiman Midisport 4x4 and spend some money to give my old pc a reincarnation?!

Rob Hordijk wrote: There is only one solution if _technology_ does not work; scale it down until it works! The only reason the _technology_ does not work is actually if it is too complex for the job. And modern computer configurations have become way too complex for many applications, just because they are expected to be the "Jack of all Trades". So many are "Master of None".

The basic idea of my setup is to keep it as simple and cheap (!) as possible (pc with a consumer soundcard and sequencer, midi-interface, piano keyboard and of course the NM) but simplicity and cheapness seems very often proportional to complexity. Most pro-equipment has a nice userface where you can alter every parameter, MIDI-interfaces have the choice between USB, parallel, serial, ...Most consumer gear has only a very arcane interface and limited - often fixed - settings which make life hard.

Rob Hordijk wrote: Perhaps, and that is no shame, you let yourself be overwhelmed by technology. But remember _you_ are in command. And if you really _are_, you know that you can give commands to the footsoldiers, but they must be able to execute the commands. And the trick of a good commander is knowing his troops and never let them do something they just can't. Instead only let them do what they actually are good in and hope that wins the fight. And imho that goes for computers and synths as well. A sculptor can do wonders with some clay and only a simple spoon as a tool. But give a non-sculptor a million bucks worth of tools, he wouldn't know what to do with them.

I remember when I was working on my Ph.D., the worst, most dangerous distraction was knowing that I had access to the largest, most comprehensive library in the US west of the Mississippi River, just minutes from my apartment.

Too many choices can indeed be a liability, and self-discipline and focus in this way is an extremely valuable practice. You'll know, after focusing down, when you've truly hit the limits (and that's probably a very long ways off with the NM!), and _then_ you can think about other hardware/software. Meanwhile, I find working on a computer like working in an environment filled with voices constantly trying to seduce me away from what I really want to be doing. Kind of like watching TV that way...

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. The main one being the NM! I suppose it's because whilst it has the potential to be awsomely complex, it's cabable of being pretty simple for beginners (as long as you read the manual!). Its scalable, logical, consistent and reliable. It gets the best features of the PC (big screen with a mouse), whilst also getting the best out of hardware (pretty much everything else!). Wouldn't it be great if all hardware was configurable via the PC but could then be disconnected and used stand-alone?

I think you are right about simplifying drastically and then working 'till you hit the limits. I think if I had started out doing electronic music with just a modular and a cheap PC to program it with I would probably be awsome on the NM by now instead of pretty average. Then I could have added another tool, only when I absolutely needed it. Instead, my approach when I first started doing electo music was to fill my PC up with dodgy software, never really learning more than 5% of anything.

Now things have changed, and for the better. I use my PC with FruityLoops to control the modular and another synth, the I muck around a lot and record the results in real time to a minidisk. Then I turn off the PC and walk away with a minidisk full of weird noises and beats! I use my hardware sequencer/sampler to chop up and rearrage what I have - usually beyond all recognition and I don;t have to look at the PC again. Great!

Drifting off topic a bit, I'd be interested in hearing how other people get the best from their modular. And what set-ups you folks find the most efficient/creative...

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, and I think much depends on what kind of music you wish to create: for me, technical problems (things not working) are a real frustration, but the learning curves are what it is all about--I am interested in creating sound(s), new and unusual, and then working them together into compositions. For me tweaking, routing and rerouting, using different programs and the NM to filter sounds, this is much of the fun of creating compositions.

If I were a blues guitarist, though, I think the technology (sequencers, etc) would drive me nuts. My son plays rock guitar and has no interest in the technological side at this point.

On the other hand, when I cruise the net for new sounds, or buy "new" music, I sometimes feel as if the infinite possibility of sound production now available has in some inexplicable way made much of the music sound the same: as if the software (and even hardware) determines the sound of contemporary music. This was brought home to me after I spent months creating "experimental" music pieces that I was sure were absolutley new, only to hear very similar stuff coming off the experimental music sites.

I know what you mean about the technology controlling the sound of the music created by it. But this has always been the case- we have more control over the sounds we use in music than people ever had, short of literally inventing new instruments. The trick is to learn the hardware well enough to make music with it- something emotionally satisfying. Innovation as the goal of music is kind of a weird goal - I think the most innovative musicians have all been well grounded in the music around them. The thing is that while there are theoretically inifinite ways to produce sounds now, still each method has a certain characteristic sound - for example the NM has its own sound compared to a minimoog, and while there is a lot of flexibility within the NM, if you really want a moog, buy a moog, or a really good analog copy. Plus the interface helps shape the way people create sounds- uising acid vs. Cubase to arrange tracks, for example.

Personally, when I hear people creating music similar to my own, while there is a slight disappointment, there is always somewhere that they did differnt from what I would do, and that makes listening to music really interesting - sometimes more interesting the closer it is to what I write. Love this thread- very interesting topic.

Old trusted gear will never be extinct.

Please take note of the fact that Atari is very alive and kicking. It never disappeared. Volunteer software developers make their old programs available for free; some enrich them responding to new demands; a couple of new tools are under construction.

To get a fresh idea, especially of the numerous beautiful Algo-comp programs visit

ATARI MIDI INFO

Atari-Midi FILES : http://groups.yahoo.com/files/atari-midi

Atari Midi LINKS : http://groups.yahoo.com/links/atari-midi

Atari-Midi Archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atari-midi-archives

AOTM folder: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/atari-midi/files/AOTM/

( AOTM = Application of the month)

The classic Atari is cheap these days. Nevertheless: For a beautiful Atari emulator (PC) with excellent MIDI handling: there is a free program. STeem v. 2.x (with regular updates) Go to http://www.blimey.strayduck.com/

Aux wrote: I do wish that there were more usable creative composition tools out there. There doesn't seem to be a lot of creatively in the software world in this space. Heck, you can't even get decent software arpegg beyond up, down and random...

My comment: No problem with twenty years old Atari's... I use them daily. Like the hammer reaching its final state of development. Digital audio on a dedicated machine. Don't lose time being a guinea pig of the music industry.

For the NM: a PC laptop, and all the good people of this list who I want to thank very much.