SanderXpander wrote:
If you don't like Play, you can always use VSL, LASS/Kontakt, Garritan, etc.
No thanks
Besides, I already tried most of everything. If I had to choose, I'd choose Kontakt and what is available for it. But overall: I am no longer interested in computers. For me it's been a huge waste of time.
It's not true that I have no respect for computer nerds who are musicians: please don't misunderstand.
I am speaking of the computer nerd who doesn't know much about music except at a superficial level, which is 85 per cent of all music software developers.
When a software company markets a product for musicians and calls it ' a groove manipulator' I can tell it from miles away that they are -not- musicians.
You say that the effectiveness of computers has been proven by film composers, etc...again, for them it's NEVER been a choice. They had to use a computer because they didn't get paid enough to hire musicians.
No composer would prefer computers to real musicians, given the choice.
Anyways: as you said, to each their own. I am not speaking for everybody and ultimately what someone decides to do or not do it's their business.
I simply clarified that this belief about eastwest or VSTs being the BEST option for a composer, is simply not true. Why don't you ask all the composers who scored soundtracks in the 80's, if they love computers?
I have not heard of one of them, yet, who says 'wow man, yeah I love my computer, it's so exciting'.
We are talking about two things, really. One is that Eastwest is hyped, often by people who have no direct experience with their products, and the other one, is the belief that if you don't use sampling libraries on a computer, you are limiting yourself severely.
I disagree about both things. If you like computers, great, it works for you. It never did for me. I'd rather spend more time on musical skills. It's not like one trains in music for a year, or two, or three, or five, and then he can say he doesn't need to learn anything about music anymore.
All these 'composers' whom you speak about, I mean, it's a fact of life: if you learn more about one thing, you must necessarily learn less about another, because you only have 24 hours a day.
So I just do not understand the logic of investing such disproportionate time on the computer (given the fact that this effort is required, because of their complexity), instead of spending more time on the craft of composition or arrangement itself.
I know this: composers, until about 15 years ago, were all doing fine without computers.
But, if one wants to believe that a computer and a huge sampling library will help them achieve their goals faster and better, fine, it's their time and their money.
I am not saying that computers and sampling libraries for them are useless (although I am no longer interested in them). I am only saying that it's not true that they are better than a keyboard workstation, and that it's not true that they give you better results. And that whoever says this is true, are never the ones who are doing it day in and day out.
And the more I look, the more composers I find who could not care less about computers. They are church organists, classical musicians, jazz musicians, songwriters. All good musicians and good players. I see lots of them on youtube.
Yes, if you want to be a composer you might want to work with computers. But you don't HAVE to. And unless you have to do it day in and day out, then I would seriously question why do you think you need a computer.
And then we get into all the mental traps I was talking about before, such as:
1. it's faster
2. it's cheaper
3. it works out the best
4. it's the most flexible way
etc etc etc.
But, hey. It's a free country. I guess I just have an aversion for computers. But just because I don't care about computers, doesn't mean I am no composer.
A composer is not someone who works with computers. A composer is someone who writes music consistently, using musical processes.
Then, it so happens that a composer also uses a computer, nowadays. But this fact has NOTHING to do with being a composer. It's just an option, it's not a requirement of being a composer.
But again....I have nothing against computer nerds. I respect for whoever puts efforts in an endeavour. All I am saying is that computers aren't indispensable to a composer, for the process of creating music, unless he believes they are.
And also, you seem to believe that just because the majority does something a certain way, then it's the best way.
I am not interested about what the multitude does. Just because Hans Zimmer does this or that, doesn't mean I should do the same. I try stuff for myself, and then decide what I like best. I tried computers for years and achieved little. But with real instruments and a keyboard workstation, I achieved a lot. That's enough proof for me.
I don't know, I find a lot of stuff that to me is not true. For example, I hear many saying that sequencing with Cubase is easier and faster than sequencing with a keyboard workstation like the Motif.
To me, it has always been the clear opposite. Which is what I was saying before: the Kronos, the Motif, etc, are real musical instruments. Computers are just....computers.
Good for reading pdfs and making google searches and paying bills online....
.
Korg Pa300. Keyboards I have owned over the years:
Kurzweil K2000, Ensoniq SQ1, Korg Trinity, Roland XP-80, Yamaha Tyros 2
Roland F20, Yamaha MOX
and various others.
yes absolutely