impulse tracker intro code
category: code [glöplog]
we're looping on the usual topic, that it all went downhill...
More seriously, I don't think it's the synth trend that should be blame only. People don't rehearse more than two seconds. Back in the trackers day, you could rip a simple snare from an other module and still work with it a complete silly but funny way and it would make your tune different... while some others would just rip the snare and use the snare as it is.
Dunno if I'm offtopic, but I seriously think musicians are lazy.
More seriously, I don't think it's the synth trend that should be blame only. People don't rehearse more than two seconds. Back in the trackers day, you could rip a simple snare from an other module and still work with it a complete silly but funny way and it would make your tune different... while some others would just rip the snare and use the snare as it is.
Dunno if I'm offtopic, but I seriously think musicians are lazy.
I wouldn't necessarily say that things just went downhill.
While Jizz/Stash/etc were awesome for their time we had an awful lot of 64k's that just repeated them for the next few years especially in regards to music.
But eventhough i don't know exactly how people have done their music since there has atleast been some more variation in what people has done with softsynths after those first few years. The only thing i might feel went wrong is that the toolchains and projects people built led us into a static mindset, atleast in regards of music.
While Jizz/Stash/etc were awesome for their time we had an awful lot of 64k's that just repeated them for the next few years especially in regards to music.
But eventhough i don't know exactly how people have done their music since there has atleast been some more variation in what people has done with softsynths after those first few years. The only thing i might feel went wrong is that the toolchains and projects people built led us into a static mindset, atleast in regards of music.
IMO, coders are lazier than musicians.. That includes myself.
I just hate making user interfaces, especially for VSTi's.
I just hate making user interfaces, especially for VSTi's.
I do know for fact that to really correctly replay the Impulse Tracker format (regardless of how the samples are handled/generated eventually) the actual source is needed to "get" all the quirks required for proper playback. PTCT's player had that advantage, but that was somewhat corporately backed. I'm unsure if anyone has that huge ASM file that is IT these days.
i hate coding.
@superplek: jeffrey lim probably? :)
if anything I think softsynths have slowed down invention in intro music for the most part. oh sure there are exceptions like (kb, reed and little bitchard to name three) , but the timbre I'm hearing from the drivers seem to suggest, or at least push the music into similar directions. on the one hand it could well be the demo dictates that, but on the other let us still work just with varied samples. there is still much invention to be had there, even to the chagrin of coders in that limited memory space.
Jeff Lim still has the ASM source, yes, I have recently asked him for the part that does the filter calculation and I actually got it.
Also, I'd rather say that you need FT2's sourcecode to "get" all the quirks required for proper playback! IT is pure sanity in comparison to that shit!
Also, I'd rather say that you need FT2's sourcecode to "get" all the quirks required for proper playback! IT is pure sanity in comparison to that shit!
4mat: Too many features compared to the time spent per tune is what slowed down invention.
I'm sure there'll be plenty of more invention right down the alley, once the majority of musicians realize that they should stick to the features of a given synth and tweak it to fit their needs instead of simply adding a VST because they need "that snaredrum from that synth and the default bassline-preset of another one".
Less than two years of practice with a softsynth usually means there's plenty of possibilities yet to be exhausted. And in that sence, some musicians are getting lazy. Tracking musicians are used to tweak samples using tons of effects through years and years of experience. Try downloading all 4ch entries from i.e. The Party 1994 (there's almost 100) and you'll find, that the exact same thing was a problem with the tracking musicians back then. They simply ripped a few samples and put it together with no actual care for the overall composition.
Most of the points given here is up for debate on this page too ;-)
I'm sure there'll be plenty of more invention right down the alley, once the majority of musicians realize that they should stick to the features of a given synth and tweak it to fit their needs instead of simply adding a VST because they need "that snaredrum from that synth and the default bassline-preset of another one".
Less than two years of practice with a softsynth usually means there's plenty of possibilities yet to be exhausted. And in that sence, some musicians are getting lazy. Tracking musicians are used to tweak samples using tons of effects through years and years of experience. Try downloading all 4ch entries from i.e. The Party 1994 (there's almost 100) and you'll find, that the exact same thing was a problem with the tracking musicians back then. They simply ripped a few samples and put it together with no actual care for the overall composition.
Most of the points given here is up for debate on this page too ;-)
<pouet>
yea samples. a weapon from a more civilized age.
</pouet>
(excuse me while I miss the sky)
yea samples. a weapon from a more civilized age.
</pouet>
(excuse me while I miss the sky)
sorry, I can't hear you, I'm actually retrigering like a bitch.
can you hear me now ? :D
Punqtured: I guess so, but what seems to happen in some softsynth tracks is they become like the "party version" of an intro. The vast majority of the time has been spent mucking around with presets rather than thinking of any sort of composition within the overall demo. With samples you have the wide spectrum of timbre already and just get on with the bulk of the composition work, then it's just fitting everything in where the tweaking is important. There isn't the distraction of sitting for hours twiddling parameters. (and let's be honest, we all do that with softsynths) But anyway, this kind of argument never goes anywhere, it's just personal opinion.
From a technical side I'd argue that within intros hardly anyone has still really pushed what can be done in modules that much. Sure, kb did some great experiments with DSPs and there's the 'pre-calculated samples' thing (which I'd argue is more like a softsynth anyway) But now we can have outboard mixing, assign channels out to different DSPs (easier than ever in DirectX), there's a ton of stuff. The argument I hear back is "oh but that bit can't be real-time previewed like in a softsynth" and I agree, but then lots of other things in demos aren't previewed in realtime still and we still manage.
From a technical side I'd argue that within intros hardly anyone has still really pushed what can be done in modules that much. Sure, kb did some great experiments with DSPs and there's the 'pre-calculated samples' thing (which I'd argue is more like a softsynth anyway) But now we can have outboard mixing, assign channels out to different DSPs (easier than ever in DirectX), there's a ton of stuff. The argument I hear back is "oh but that bit can't be real-time previewed like in a softsynth" and I agree, but then lots of other things in demos aren't previewed in realtime still and we still manage.
No sorry, still can't hear you, Tyler the creator hijacked youtube.
4mat: The quality/compression balance when using samples is still the main issue, I think. From a sample-source, you would always require a certain quality - even if post-processed on DSPs etc. Eventually, you could end up with a ultra-short sine-sample, which is then post-processed. But that'd be exactly what softsynths use oscillators for. So ultimately, there's not much difference in a softsynth and a sample-based + postprocessing engine. The same things could be achieved. There's no reason a sample couldn't be used for source instead of an oscillator, and at least a few of the softsynths used in intros offer this feature.
That said, there's no doubt far more time is spent fiddling with presets' parameters when using softsynths, but in my opinion, that's exactly what makes a tune stand out. The same amount of time spent creating samples that suit your need could be equally tiresome. There's just more samples lying around than presets for a given proprietary softsynth ;-)
That said, there's no doubt far more time is spent fiddling with presets' parameters when using softsynths, but in my opinion, that's exactly what makes a tune stand out. The same amount of time spent creating samples that suit your need could be equally tiresome. There's just more samples lying around than presets for a given proprietary softsynth ;-)
Hmm you have a point here. It's the same. If you create all your samples then it's the same as creating all your presets, it's tiresom. I always suggest that when you don't want to make music, you still can create samples/presets and store them so next time you'll make music, you'll have bunch of already done sounds and you won't ruin your motivation when you're up for making music.
Anyway, to me, the only difference between softsynth and sample based is the amount of pattern command trickery you can do but that's a very trackerish point of view, it's about being used to a way to work and the way this way to work sounds in your ears.
Whizzter is actually right on a point, if I understood it correctly, the fact musicians just have to use a vsti and send the .obj to a coder, it separates all processes and only coders become responsible for the whole production unless the coder creates a demomaker for the scenes and he can relax while somebody works on it but in the end, it's often this way:
Somebody sends ssomething
Somebody else sends something else
Somebody compiles the whole
And sometimes, it feels like the music has been started before the prod has been thought but the crew just ask for "any unreleased tunes" from a musician... or the musician didn't see anything from the production while he was making the tune. Or [insert any other scenario]
Anyway, to me, the only difference between softsynth and sample based is the amount of pattern command trickery you can do but that's a very trackerish point of view, it's about being used to a way to work and the way this way to work sounds in your ears.
Whizzter is actually right on a point, if I understood it correctly, the fact musicians just have to use a vsti and send the .obj to a coder, it separates all processes and only coders become responsible for the whole production unless the coder creates a demomaker for the scenes and he can relax while somebody works on it but in the end, it's often this way:
Somebody sends ssomething
Somebody else sends something else
Somebody compiles the whole
And sometimes, it feels like the music has been started before the prod has been thought but the crew just ask for "any unreleased tunes" from a musician... or the musician didn't see anything from the production while he was making the tune. Or [insert any other scenario]
The way evilpaul and myself usually work it is he'll code a couple of fx and I'll have some raw tracks of a few patterns, from the outset. Once we've decided on which track to work we usually do our parts concurrently, with a 3-minute placemat version of the song to aid timing. (usually just looping the same couple of patterns) Then we switch back and forth, he sends the next part of the fx, I write a couple of patterns to fit, he syncs bits of it to the patterns and so on. I must admit working with him is the only time I've done that though, usually the coder has a finished song to work from and I'm pretty much hands-off. (such as the Orb and Equinox releases)
So meet face-to-face more often.
You read my mind trc.
I actually believe it's a big difference when some demo mates live in the same city and meet often in order to work on a production. Internet must have changed a lot of things and it would be nice to have some different point of views from oldschooler about how it was when internet wasn't our everyday.
I actually believe it's a big difference when some demo mates live in the same city and meet often in order to work on a production. Internet must have changed a lot of things and it would be nice to have some different point of views from oldschooler about how it was when internet wasn't our everyday.
4mat: placemat sounds like some kind of untalented twin :)
knl: I agree. I spent most time fiddling with presets. However - I usually create a simple track, that is especially good for just that preset. That way, not only the preset gets done, but you end up with a nice collection of bits and piece to implement either as they are or serve as inspiration for use of the preset.
In Fnuque - we strive to meet once every or every other month. We usually invite others to join in as well, but instead of ending up hammered at noon, alcohol is kept at a reasonable level, while the work on our productions are the main focus. We tend to work from a preview of a completed tune. No effects are created before the music is pretty much in place. Then we all agree on some design/overall "feel" of the intro and each effect is then created. During this process, minor changes are made to the tune, to emphasize a certain mood, fit a need for special timing/sync. It kind of develops gradually during work on the production. No groupmember gets to lean back and relax before it's all done and ready for release - typically a few hours from deadline ;-)
On the effects-work with trackers. That's not all that different from creating all the midi-sends to the synth (if your softsynth supports it) which ends up creating the exact same effects, you would end up with using the effect-codes. So in that matter, samples-based composing is not all that different from softsynth-based composing either.
In Fnuque - we strive to meet once every or every other month. We usually invite others to join in as well, but instead of ending up hammered at noon, alcohol is kept at a reasonable level, while the work on our productions are the main focus. We tend to work from a preview of a completed tune. No effects are created before the music is pretty much in place. Then we all agree on some design/overall "feel" of the intro and each effect is then created. During this process, minor changes are made to the tune, to emphasize a certain mood, fit a need for special timing/sync. It kind of develops gradually during work on the production. No groupmember gets to lean back and relax before it's all done and ready for release - typically a few hours from deadline ;-)
On the effects-work with trackers. That's not all that different from creating all the midi-sends to the synth (if your softsynth supports it) which ends up creating the exact same effects, you would end up with using the effect-codes. So in that matter, samples-based composing is not all that different from softsynth-based composing either.
knl: Well that is the overall process of the intro/demomaking. Personally i'm not that much agains't having pre-made music. A bunch of my failed demoprojects has been due to fickle musicians who disappeared or didn't like the way their tunes ended up and kept redoing stuff over and over when we had little time to finish everything. So having pre-made tunes is a big plus for me.
What i was mostly thinking off is how softsynths overall are made up and how the tunes gets made and why we've had alot of similar sounding stuff with softsynths. Many of the similiar sounding things or other cases like it has followed some of the first patterns here..
1: Soundwise-Clueless coder asks musician, what do you need to do music for something like that last cool 64k. Coder gets an answer and makes a softsynth that is able to do a tune sounding like it.
2: Soundwise-Clueful coder (but crappy as a composer) coder makes some obscure but fairly flexible synth that can do more than last years hit 4k/64k but never gets into the hands of someone who actually makes a tune.
3: Musician/Coder makes a pretty good synth, but spends too much twiddling with it (like parameter/sample twiddling of other musicians)
This is stuff i've often seen with people and softsynths and the results can be very varying. The lucky instances is often when you get:
A: a soundwise clueful coder who knows a good composer well and they make a good cooperative work (4klang intros, elevated)
B: when we have a good musician/coder who is able to put something together without getting too lost in the fiddling around. (jizz/stash? cdak? fr-08?:)
So learning from this? Well problem case 1 can be made into success case (A) with lots and lots of iteration (and some basic talent). problem case 2 is harder since it can mutate into problem 1 or 3.. but if the right musician encounters problem coder #2 there MIGHT be sweet music. Problem case 3 just needs a big kick in the ass and some firm hand to be success case (B).
What i was mostly thinking off is how softsynths overall are made up and how the tunes gets made and why we've had alot of similar sounding stuff with softsynths. Many of the similiar sounding things or other cases like it has followed some of the first patterns here..
1: Soundwise-Clueless coder asks musician, what do you need to do music for something like that last cool 64k. Coder gets an answer and makes a softsynth that is able to do a tune sounding like it.
2: Soundwise-Clueful coder (but crappy as a composer) coder makes some obscure but fairly flexible synth that can do more than last years hit 4k/64k but never gets into the hands of someone who actually makes a tune.
3: Musician/Coder makes a pretty good synth, but spends too much twiddling with it (like parameter/sample twiddling of other musicians)
This is stuff i've often seen with people and softsynths and the results can be very varying. The lucky instances is often when you get:
A: a soundwise clueful coder who knows a good composer well and they make a good cooperative work (4klang intros, elevated)
B: when we have a good musician/coder who is able to put something together without getting too lost in the fiddling around. (jizz/stash? cdak? fr-08?:)
So learning from this? Well problem case 1 can be made into success case (A) with lots and lots of iteration (and some basic talent). problem case 2 is harder since it can mutate into problem 1 or 3.. but if the right musician encounters problem coder #2 there MIGHT be sweet music. Problem case 3 just needs a big kick in the ass and some firm hand to be success case (B).
It suddenly made me think about the amount of unfinished projects vs the amount of completed ones. There must be a ratio to find.
knl: wish granted. retrigger it is. I'l call it the kaneel-mode ;)