FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Forum for Roland FA-06/08
Post Reply
stevel
Posts: 520
Joined: 07:08, 17 May 2015

FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by stevel »

Here's the way I work:

Create sequence in DAW using MIDI tracks.
Play back sequence to generate audio from the FA.

Then I have two basic options

1. Record each sound individually on its own track.
2. Record a stereo mix of the, well, stereo mix onto a stereo track and be done with it.

Obviously, for #2 it's one pass. For #1 it's as many passes as you have Parts for. I have enough gear in my studio that I could theoretically do 16+16+16+8 - not that I'd ever do anything that large, but who knows.

Obviously, with different synths, I could also take a stereo mix from each synth (DAW is set up so each synth comes in on its own inputs) or I could mix and match.

This actually brings up another question though:

When recording sounds, should I record them in Stereo? For stereo instruments with discrete L/R effects, it makes sense, but for a Bass, or a Lead Synth, should I still be doing Stereo? It's not like it really takes anymore time or anything. I suppose theoretically I could assign Part 1 L, and Part 2 R, and Part 3 to the sub out, and then record 3 individual mono tracks in one pass, but I don't think I need that extreme of a time-saver. Doing multiple passes is OK.

But I suppose I should be recording everything that that comes out of the FA to Stereo DAW tracks, even if it's a sound that might have been produced traditionally by a mono (not necessarily monophonic) output synth. Or should I?

That begs the question though - how's that going to affect my panning...

While on the subject of separate outs, does the USB allow you 16 direct? Can the internal sounds be mixed down as "multiple mono" instead of a stereo mix if bouncing down to WAV?

Finally, and this may be more of a philosophical question:

Let's say that we're going back to #s 1 and 2 above.

Let's assume there's not going to be any sort of processing whatsoever in the DAW.

In fact, since I can mix down to WAV directly in the FA (I can, correct?) is there even any reason to output to a DAW first?

But let's assume that I have to use another Synth as well so I am going to just port the stereo mix from each Synth into my DAW on 2 separate pairs of stereo tracks.

Is there any reason - again assuming I'm not going to do any further editing in the DAW - the pieces are "perfect" when the Sequence plays - not to use the stereo mix from each device?

I mean, is there any sonic benefit to recording each sound on it's own track as opposed to a stereo mix of all the sounds coming out of each keyboard?

Also, I'm already going to be going analog cables out (unless USB can do 16 direct) becuase of the other synths in my set up, which don't do audio over USB.

Part 2 of this philosophical question is, if the stereo mix from each keyboard is satisfactory, or even if you do have to run them to separate tracks for better sonic quality even if not doing any other processing, do you feel the music needs to be "mastered" in any way?

Sure, another set of ears are good, and some styles follow particular mastering trends.

So what I'm getting at is, using only the sounds and effects in the FA, with everything mixed as you want it, is it possible to get a top-of-the-line professional quality produced either straight from the stereo mixdown WAV file, or from output from the audio of the FA into a DAW (so going though a couple of converters here...) to a stereo track in the DAW, just to mix it down to a WAV file (and maybe other formats, hence the use of the DAW)?

My issue is, I'm a perfectionist. If I load the piece into a DAW, I'm going to want to further tinker with each track - thinking I need to add things because "that's what everyone does or says to do" as opposed to just going with my initial inspiration for the songs.

So to avoid my getting sidelined in the "production" aspects, I want to record some sounds, fix them up in the sequencer, and essentially dump it to an audio file with as few steps in the "audio" end as possible (because I'll spend enough time already just tweaking things in the Sequence!).

Of course, this all assumes there isn't something specific in the DAW like a great rotary emulator the FA just doesn't have I'd have to use the DAW for, but let's ignore those things for now.

Can you run a sequence in the FA, drop it to audio, and have a professional level piece without further fussing over it needed?
Paul99
Posts: 117
Joined: 18:05, 23 June 2017

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by Paul99 »

Steve, I do not quite understand your point. But let me explain how I do things.
I don not use the sequencer of the FA-06. I have bought a sequencer called Reaper for $60. It is great. I record all my midi into it and it renders all tracks in one render and in much less time than the song is long.
I could imagine myself recording an idea or demo in the FA-06, but for the real work I would always use a DAW for the much better and more elaborate edit possibilities of a DAW and the use of a big monitor.

About mono/stereo: you can use all tracks in stereo, but it turns out to be smarter to keep mono sounds like bass and vocals as mono track. Of course you can also pan a vocal stereo-track more or less left or right, but there will be remains of that other side in the mix that will clutter up things which makes use of surgical EQing necessary. In my experience it is also sometimes better mixing an organ sound mono sound in a mix with a bit of reverb than the same track in stereo. It all comes down on how you want your music to sound and what is the dominant instrument that has to pop out as first.
Skijumptoes
Posts: 681
Joined: 11:08, 21 June 2010

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by Skijumptoes »

Wow there's a few questioned there stevel! :)

Firstly, USB Audio is going to be the best quality, but it's only the stereo mix down of what's playing (Not each part) - that recorded into your DAW is going to be spot on.

Recording into your DAW via 'analog' cables maybe yields a nicer sound for more authentic instruments however, i.e. organs/rhodes etc. i like to route via some hardware fx rack, just give it a little bit of dirtiness basically (analog distortion is much nicer than digital).

Also, mono/stereo - for me depends on what i'm recording, a piano part with the FA's effects i would put to stereo, bass, synths etc. always prefer mono and i strip the FX off, again run them through my rack, or plugins on Logic (my DAW).

My workflow is also very strictly track by track when recording, most of the time i record straight to Audio (either via FX rack, or not) i only use MIDI first if it needs to be spot on/electro-style music. For Piano/EP/Organ etc. i find that i quantise everything as a habit with MIDI and it ruins the sound.

So, mixing in with real guitars/bass/vocals i really like to get the FA sounding like it's sat in a smokey ol' Abbey Road studio if i can! :)

Luckily, i've never found myself in the position of having 8/9+ Midi tracks and facing the prospect of mixing it all down into audio. In that position i guess i'd bounce them all down to Audio using my analog cables - very rare do i use the USB Audio interface on the FA. And i would probably do them all in stereo if i had already got things panned as i like. oh that's a tricky one, as it does limit you for mixing further! :)
RoFa08
Posts: 27
Joined: 13:02, 9 June 2017

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by RoFa08 »

Very interesting workflow Skijumptoes...I'd like to listen your music project.
I use to record audio via usb, I use FA as main pc audio/midi interface in my projects. I record midi tracks routing to the FA, then I record audio track by track for mixing, rendering and mastering.
stevel
Posts: 520
Joined: 07:08, 17 May 2015

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by stevel »

Paul99 wrote:Steve, I do not quite understand your point. But let me explain how I do things.
I don not use the sequencer of the FA-06. I have bought a sequencer called Reaper for $60. It is great. I record all my midi into it and it renders all tracks in one render and in much less time than the song is long.
I could imagine myself recording an idea or demo in the FA-06, but for the real work I would always use a DAW for the much better and more elaborate edit possibilities of a DAW and the use of a big monitor.
Hi Paul - I use Reaper as well (and Cubase before that, which I like better still for selecting sounds on an external synth.

What I usually do is record everything as MIDI tracks and then fine tune things like Quantization, Velocity, etc. where necessary.

At that point, if everything is "perfect", what I could do is:

1. Just play back the sequence (in Reaper) and take the audio output mix from the FA back into a Stereo Audio Track in Reaper, and essentially that's like "recording the FA sounds to 2 track tape". Of course I get a "mixdown" of every sound the FA makes during this process.

2. The other option is to record each track of the sequence, one sound at a time, on to its own Audio track in Reaper - so if I had 5 MIDI tracks in my sequence I'll end up with 5 audio tracks as well - this is a time-consuming process - # of tracks x time - but it allows you to further process the audio of individual sounds if you want to.

In either case, once it is in an audio format, I can "render" (mixdown) to a WAV file (or whatever format I want).

2 basically takes longer to do, and since it gives me the option of messing with the audio tracks, I'll probably mess with the audio tracks, making it take that much longer still!

So I'm considering cutting out that process and just mixing a "mix down" of the sequence.

However, I have a problem in that my computer is ancient and I can rarely run a sequence that doesn't drop a MIDI note or have a stuck note. So I'd probably have to run the entire sequence 100 times before it ran it perfectly - so the other process could be just as practical.

But I could also export the MIDI file to the FA and import it into the onboard sequencer, and then play it from there, either making a WAV from that directly internally, or sending it back to Reaper to record as Audio (stereo mixdown).

I suppose I could also export the sequence from the FA as multiple mono files, and import them all back into Reaper to further process as individual audio tracks, then render.

But because of the glitches in Reaper's playback of the sequence on my system, I either must make individual passes of the tracks, or export the .mid to the FA then mix down there or run it back again.

So you see, 6 one way half dozen the other.

My big issue is, if I *can* make individual audio tracks of all the files, and I do, then I *will* get caught up in spending days and days tweaking the audio portion of a project I've already spend days and days working on the MIDI portion - and all that equates to KISS and "less is more" which I'm no longer doing at that point!!! So projects never get finished...
stevel
Posts: 520
Joined: 07:08, 17 May 2015

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by stevel »

Skijumptoes wrote:Wow there's a few questioned there stevel! :)
I'm well known on other forums as being that TL?DR guy!
Firstly, USB Audio is going to be the best quality, but it's only the stereo mix down of what's playing (Not each part) - that recorded into your DAW is going to be spot on.
Got it.
Recording into your DAW via 'analog' cables maybe yields a nicer sound for more authentic instruments however, i.e. organs/rhodes etc. i like to route via some hardware fx rack, just give it a little bit of dirtiness basically (analog distortion is much nicer than digital).
Makes sense.
Also, mono/stereo - for me depends on what i'm recording, a piano part with the FA's effects i would put to stereo, bass, synths etc. always prefer mono and i strip the FX off, again run them through my rack, or plugins on Logic (my DAW).
In Logic, for mono, do you just use a Mono track and record only the Left input from your interface or something?

I was wondering because really I'd think you'd want something "summed to mono" like what happens when you only use the Left/Mono output on a keyboard. If you have both jacks plugged in you're always getting "stereo" and for some instruments, like some sounds where the low notes are panned left and the high notes are panned right, if you only take your Left Input in your DAW your high notes will be too quiet. Sounds like that need to be summed to mono first (like sent out the Sub Out jack - not sure if panning the sound all the way right in the internal mixer will do it).????
My workflow is also very strictly track by track when recording, most of the time i record straight to Audio (either via FX rack, or not) i only use MIDI first if it needs to be spot on/electro-style music. For Piano/EP/Organ etc. i find that i quantise everything as a habit with MIDI and it ruins the sound.
Well I encounter this. I'm not a strong enough keyboardist to do the Piano/EP/Organ work I want to do - I even need to record hands separately usually.

I suppose I like MIDI better primarily for grid placement and editing, moving things around, copy and paste, etc.

But I agree, it kind of makes you want to perfect things just because you can - and that's part of my problem with doing MIDI first then Audio later - because the audio is the extra step that makes me want to futher perfect things just because I can - I can't leave well enough alone...and since I can't record direct to audio as well as I'd like a lot of times, then I do it via MIDI.

So I'm the opposite of you in that regard - you're kind of skipping the MIDI because you don't "need" it and going directly to Audio and doing all your processing there.

I want to do everything in MIDI and process there, and I'm trying to convince myself that I don't "need" to convert everything to audio and mess with it further.

Which is why I sort of am asking, is the Stereo Audio output from the MIDI Sequence "good enough"????

Steve
Paul99
Posts: 117
Joined: 18:05, 23 June 2017

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by Paul99 »

I am doing my music in the box with an already older PC (4 years) and when I bought it it wasn't a race monster at the beginning so to speak. Price was 750 euro, so you get the picture.
I don't have many trouble with my music, which usually is about 15 tracks, 5 buses, 4 AUX and per track one VSTi or WAV file with 4 or 5 VST's plus a couple of 8 VST's on my Master channel. To be fair: programs like Addictive Drums 2 and Kontakt 5 are rather CPU hungry so my drum track gets freezed after it is finished and when using samples, I use only one instance of Kontakt with several patches and multi-out in Reaper so I maintain full control over the different patches. Also for these tracks I do freeze them as soon as the composing is finished.
Since I had no external synth to use in my composing proces, I don't know how Reaper will behave with the FA-06. I haven't installed the proper drivers yet to experiment because first things first: getting to know my FA-06 and creating all the sounds for the band. When everything is set, I can start using the USB-Audio interface of the Roland which will be an extra benefit for me to have.
Of course I know that rendering a VSTi can be done very quick because it works internally. When rendering an external synth, it has to be done in realtime. In deed, every midi track in real time will take quite some time.

So this would be my approach if I would start using my FA-06 as a sound engine.
Suppose I have a song with 10 tracks, all from the sounds in my FA-06. I would use Reaper to compose my midi and send it to a SS with those 10 instruments I use. I know that 10 midi tracks are in no way any problem to Reaper. So composing and playing my composition will be no problem.
As soon as I think my song is ready, I would render all the 10 tracks in one time to a audio track right under the midi track. This will take the same amount of time as rendering one track. I would then mute all the mid tracks and use only the audio tracks until i had to make changes in which case I still have the midi tracks to make the change.
I think this would have been an acceptable way of working if I would not have had a DAW with several VSTi's.
But you have to know I am already an older guy. I started making music in the early 80s with a tale deck that had sound-on-sound capabilities which was great. But making one mistake in a take, ment recording the complete take again. And that for every mistake. How about that in these days when you can edit a mistake away in no time. Or having the luxury of quantisation!
Boy oh boy, the times are a changing, don't they? Someone should have made a song about those changing times...

I hope you will have any use out of my story Steve.

P.S. It would have been a bit more handy if Roland had made the FA-06 available as a VSTi within the DAW. I think Korg that that with their Krome, IIRC.
Skijumptoes
Posts: 681
Joined: 11:08, 21 June 2010

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by Skijumptoes »

stevel wrote: I'm well known on other forums as being that TL?DR guy!
lol, must admit i have a huge respect when i see people using a single paragraph to explain or ask something, that takes me about 5 paragraphs to!! Sometimes i have to go back and re-edit a post 3-4 times too. Think it's called OCD. lol :)
In Logic, for mono, do you just use a Mono track and record only the Left input from your interface or something?
Well, depends how i'm routed, how i have my mixer setup is the FA goes into a stereo channel (i.e. inputs 11/12) - this can then be bussed straight out to my DAW... Or if i go through to an FX rack, like a lexicon, i will mono (summed) aux out of my mixer through to the lexicon with a stereo return. That generally sounds really nice pushing a thick mono synth signal out and then expanding it after.

But then, you have to remember that i'm the 'audio in' guy, so if it sounds right at that point, it's all good - and i'm not so worried about what elements technically may be wrong... But because it sounds right! :)

But I agree, it kind of makes you want to perfect things just because you can - and that's part of my problem with doing MIDI first then Audio later - because the audio is the extra step that makes me want to futher perfect things just because I can - I can't leave well enough alone...and since I can't record direct to audio as well as I'd like a lot of times, then I do it via MIDI.

So I'm the opposite of you in that regard - you're kind of skipping the MIDI because you don't "need" it and going directly to Audio and doing all your processing there.
For your approach i think that you're best to actually use the audio export function of the FA if it's easy for you to fetch that data? You will then have the midi lanes and corresponding audio stems, and it will be quicker than recording each audio in realtime, surely?!

That's if you want to use stems of course, with the option of post processing elements in reaper.

If you just want that final stereo mix, then i would probably favour the digital export from the FA itself for the best quality? Again, providing it's easy for you to pop the card out and copy across etc.

One thing, why do you not mix down each midi region to audio as you do it? Or would that completely ruin your flow? i.e. you re-visit each part multiple times to edit etc.
stevel
Posts: 520
Joined: 07:08, 17 May 2015

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by stevel »

Paul99 wrote: As soon as I think my song is ready, I would render all the 10 tracks in one time to a audio track right under the midi track. This will take the same amount of time as rendering one track. I would then mute all the mid tracks and use only the audio tracks until i had to make changes in which case I still have the midi tracks to make the change.
That's kind of what I've been doing - so I end up with 10 MIDI tracks muted, and 10 audio tracks. But I'm having to run my MIDI tracks one at a time to create the audio versions, so if the piece is 1 minute, it takes 10 minutes to run all the tracks.

And that's what I'm debating on - assuming I'm not going to do any audio processing whatsoever to the audio tracks, I'd probably be OK with the stereo mix - though in my case I can't do it because it may not run the sequence correctly. So I may try to work with the internal stereo mix in the FA. And I believe you can run individual wavs from the FA if you need to - so I could do it and just import/export to and from the card. Extra step, but if I have to run the entire sequence twice because of dropped note, that adds up to a lot of time.

I was actually using Cubase LE last night and even though I paid for Reaper, I'm leaning towards using Cubase. It's just so much more intuitive for me. I could do MIDI in Cubase, then port it out to the FA.

Tonight I'm going to try a sequence that's glitching in Reaper and see if it's any more reliable in Cubase.
stevel
Posts: 520
Joined: 07:08, 17 May 2015

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by stevel »

Skijumptoes wrote:
One thing, why do you not mix down each midi region to audio as you do it? Or would that completely ruin your flow? i.e. you re-visit each part multiple times to edit etc.
So, last night I was "composing" this idea.

I did Piano for the first part, then I added a harp sound for another part, then I added a hollow square type synth line, and then a synth bass - and by that time, I decided that the harp wasn't the right sound. So I changed it.

Then I change the piano to a wurlitzer, and then I ended up taking hte original bass piano part and keeping it piano and making the wurlitzer only the melody part.

Then I changed the hollow synth sound because I did a CC11 fade in and the attack of the 2nd note was too drastically different from the attack of the first note...

So I'm sort of writing and orchestrating as I'm going - so if I mixed down one part to audio, I'd just have to go re-do it when I needed to change a sound.

So I do everything in MIDI so I can hear the composition as a whole, and change and tweak along the way - and a lot of this is "rough drafts" so I'm kind of just working as I'm going.

So I don't commit to audio until I'm sure of the sounds I want and that they're all going to work together in the composition.

Because otherwise I'll have a sound that's too dense or whatever and I'll spend more time trying to EQ it and still not have what I want, when I should just change the initial sound to something that works.

So yeah, my flow is like my internet posting - stream of consciousness and train of thought a lot of times! Can't commit anything - otherwise, like you, I"m editing the post 3 and 4 or more times trying to "perfect" things!

I only perfect things once I'm happy with the MIDI sequence, then commit that to audio for the "final version" (and of course MIDI allows me to generate other versions/mixdowns as well)
Skijumptoes
Posts: 681
Joined: 11:08, 21 June 2010

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by Skijumptoes »

Slight tangent this, but how do you find 'letting go' of a song and saying it's finished, or are you the "TL;DR guy" who also has 400 unfinished masterpieces at his hands?! :)

I think this is why i make a conscious decision to get as much into audio regions (Logic calls them regions) as i can, as early as i can in the production of a song - because i can't resist but going back and changing elements and end up with so many projects/songs on my drive that i run out of names, so i have projects saved under names like "Cake" and random letters like "afkadbfk". This is exactly why i prefer outboard FX, outboard synths, and of course Guitar/Vox etc.

So the question i put to you is, do you find you are getting your projects finished with the current workflow? If not, then it may be worth a try to only have a single midi track and then bounce to audio when finished focusing on that track.

You'd be surprised how you creatively come up with different ideas.

I have a friend who uses reaper, but he doesn't use click tracks, count ins, tempo - anything like that, it's literally like a multi-lane tape recorder which he presses play/record on - and yes, he and his band can play well, but it totally turned my head on it's side to see him working so free-form like that. Just multiple take after take to get a section down correct.

And his stuff sounds fantastic. In fact, last time i saw him he had mic'd up a hammond organ and played 4/5 different chords and was copying those chords in as he needed them on the timeline - as he's a guitarist he can't play it live. But you'd never know hearing back.

I'd love to be more creative minded vs technical like that, open to the elements and working how you want to work, not how the system wants you to. :)
stevel
Posts: 520
Joined: 07:08, 17 May 2015

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by stevel »

Skijumptoes wrote:Slight tangent this, but how do you find 'letting go' of a song and saying it's finished, or are you the "TL;DR guy" who also has 400 unfinished masterpieces at his hands?! :)
Maybe not masterpieces, but a lot of "unfinished ideas".
So the question i put to you is, do you find you are getting your projects finished with the current workflow? If not, then it may be worth a try to only have a single midi track and then bounce to audio when finished focusing on that track.
Psychological issue. I have a number of books I never finished because I don't want them to be over. I've got TV series I've binge watched to all but the last 1 or 2 episodes, and then never finish them. Maybe it's a fear thing.

But it's also partly the perfectionist thing - so combined with the fear thing, it's like if I "finish" a piece, I also am afraid I won't like it and will want to go back and "fix" it. If I don't finish it, I spend lots of time "fixing" it. Sometimes I almost feel like I'm "procrastinating" - I will keep messing with something almost to avoid finishing it. I have written some bigger compositions and do get sort of a "post partum depression" if you will - going back and listening over and over to the old piece rather than getting on to something new.

I'll also waste time (on internet forums) putting off working on things, but honestly I do have to be in the mood and in the right frame of mind to work on stuff when it's "inspired" rather than "tedious" - otherwise I lose interest.

So what I'm trying to do is find ways to get as much work done with as few steps as possible (by eliminating that whole running down to audio then processing the audio versions) so I can complete things while I'm still interested in the piece. But if I write it all, pick all the sounds, tidy it up, then go, "so, now it's ready to be run to audio..." then I'm like, I'd rather just run it to two track stereo and be done with it.

But is that "good enough"...

I exaggerate because there are things that I finish - but what I've found out about myself is it's important for me to work from initial idea to completion in a relatively short time. I write "art" compositions as well (like notation for acoustic instruments) and many times if I don't finish the piece at its initial inspired moment, I don't finish it. So most of my finished work is short.
I have a friend who uses reaper, but he doesn't use click tracks, count ins, tempo - anything like that, it's literally like a multi-lane tape recorder which he presses play/record on


I sort of do this with MIDI, and I do sometimes do it with audio as a "sketch pad" and scratch pad.

One thing that happens to me, and why I don't usually work that way is, I'll pick a sound, and the sound will inspire me to create a certain musical passage - then the inspiration builds and I start getting all the "ooh this would be cool" and many times things sort of "write themselves" in that way - but - usually the sounds I pick at that point are just "roughed in" - I think, "ok, I need a "bell-like sound here" and I just grab one and continue to compose/write while the inspiration is hot. But later I'll go back and start to fine tune things, saying "I'd like the bell to be more airy" and things like that. So rather than spend 2 hours picking the perfect sound and losing inspiration, I just go with a "place holder" sound while I'm still inspired by the original sound's vibe.

- and yes, he and his band can play well, but it totally turned my head on it's side to see him working so free-form like that. Just multiple take after take to get a section down correct.
And his stuff sounds fantastic. In fact, last time i saw him he had mic'd up a hammond organ and played 4/5 different chords and was copying those chords in as he needed them on the timeline - as he's a guitarist he can't play it live. But you'd never know hearing back.
That's pretty amazing. I'm not a strong keyboard player so I do have a tendency to "build" things rather than just play things in - which is another reason I only use the audio tracks either for sketch pad work, or as a mix down of an already "perfected" MIDI track.
Skijumptoes
Posts: 681
Joined: 11:08, 21 June 2010

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by Skijumptoes »

Psychological issue. I have a number of books I never finished because I don't want them to be over. I've got TV series I've binge watched to all but the last 1 or 2 episodes, and then never finish them. Maybe it's a fear thing.
Holy smoke! The number of people i've said this to in the past and they've thought i'm mad... Honestly, i'm 'exactly' like you in that regard and i've never met anyone who agrees with me, let alone have brought it up by their own accord!! Incredible... well, maybe you've met people who're like this to, but i have never!

I wonder what it all means, i've always put it down to being a very optimistic person, and somehow i view the 'end' as a negative. But for a lot of people it's the crescendo, the finale! And very much a positive ...you know, where a book is heading for, film/tv series etc.

Whereas i like the journey more, at least i think that's what it is. I like that feeling of being in the middle and very much alive! :)

This is pretty messed up but certain films, if i watch to the end and am disappointed or unhappy with the end, i then have to watch 10 minutes of the start again and then turn it off.

I remember the first time i done this was watching the Anime 'Akira' as a teen, i had borrowed it from a mate as a 'MUST WATCH' film, i was so devasted by the end that i had to watch the start again where they're chilling on their bikes and having fun... And then switch it off. lol, i do this overtime i watch it, even to this day if i put it on.

So yeah, that's really interesting to see you say that, and it's something i've always battled with in music... Hence why i've done what i can to record 'live' and very much in the moment. I still cannot finish a song for myself though, yet i've done professional work in the past and not a problem getting that done. It's all very odd.

However, i love my music, i love new creations and if that's what works and i'm getting that buzz then i have no complaints, many people don't even get to experience the enjoyment of *anything* creative.
But it's also partly the perfectionist thing - so combined with the fear thing, it's like if I "finish" a piece, I also am afraid I won't like it and will want to go back and "fix" it. If I don't finish it, I spend lots of time "fixing" it. Sometimes I almost feel like I'm "procrastinating"
There's a guy called Joe Gilder, and he runs courses (As home studio corner) on how to record/mix/produce etc. and he forced himself to walk through walls to finish x amount of songs in a month, then he took from that pool of songs a select few that form the basis of an album. He ended up doing some of his best music to date.

I think the truth is that you don't have to be in the 'moment', if you push your way through, it awakens this drive and energy that focuses your creative side and therefore lessens the procrastination side.

That's where i'm heading, but there's *Always* something in the way... for example, right now, i'm re-wiring my studio area, and getting new racking in. After that, their will be something else, some piece of gear that i'm lusting over and will sit on ebay/gumtree instead of spending time doing music etc. Or, i've got some balanced audio cables coming today, i'll probably spend hours trying those out on different bits of equipment.

Two nights ago i sat down to do music, 1 hour later, i kid you not, i had calibrated my monitors over and over again, because i noticed the whites where different!! lol, i then found out one was LCD and the other LED, and just concluded that i'm never going to get them looking the same... And does it really matter?! :)

Tell you what, sod it, i'm setting myself the task now, i'm going to COMPLETE one song per week starting today, come join me in this and we'll share next Thursday, and if you don't you're a big turkey!!!! lol. ;)

I've not completed a song in about 6 months.
One thing that happens to me, and why I don't usually work that way is, I'll pick a sound, and the sound will inspire me to create a certain musical passage - then the inspiration builds and I start getting all the "ooh this would be cool" and many times things sort of "write themselves" in that way - but - usually the sounds I pick at that point are just "roughed in" - I think, "ok, I need a "bell-like sound here" and I just grab one and continue to compose/write while the inspiration is hot. But later I'll go back and start to fine tune things, saying "I'd like the bell to be more airy" and things like that. So rather than spend 2 hours picking the perfect sound and losing inspiration, I just go with a "place holder" sound while I'm still inspired by the original sound's vibe.
Yeah, i get that with synths all the time, guitar not so much as it's more about tone than 'sound' i guess, in fact i FAR prefer to listen to more guitar inspired music, yet i routinely record synth/electronic based music - and that's something i need to address.
stevel
Posts: 520
Joined: 07:08, 17 May 2015

Re: FA 16 digital out? Recording Stereo vs. Mono, Mixdown ?s

Post by stevel »

Skijumptoes wrote:
Holy smoke! The number of people i've said this to in the past and they've thought i'm mad... Honestly, i'm 'exactly' like you in that regard and i've never met anyone who agrees with me, let alone have brought it up by their own accord!! Incredible... well, maybe you've met people who're like this to, but i have never!
i"ve not ever heard anyone express it. I can see why many would be reluctant to do so, but it might also either be hard for them to put into words or they just don't want to put it out there.
Two nights ago i sat down to do music, 1 hour later, i kid you not, i had calibrated my monitors over and over again, because i noticed the whites where different!! lol, i then found out one was LCD and the other LED, and just concluded that i'm never going to get them looking the same... And does it really matter?! :)
I think that's OCD, ADD, or some combination thereof :-)
Tell you what, sod it, i'm setting myself the task now, i'm going to COMPLETE one song per week starting today, come join me in this and we'll share next Thursday, and if you don't you're a big turkey!!!! lol. ;)
Good luck. I've tried setting goals like this for myself in the past and while sometimes I've actually completed the goals, the output really wasn't worth it.

I *know* as a composer (I have a composition degree) that the "real work" of writing music is a skill and the hard part - inspiration can give you a couple of measures, but it's the "working out" of that inspiration that takes the real skill and "sticktuitivness" and really on one level that's what separates the greats from the not-so-greats.

I might have to be a big turkey though. I've got some ideas I've been toying with, and I'm getting "in the mood" to make something (if I don't get distracted or life doesn't distract me). If anything, it would just be a synth "soundscape" experiment but maybe I can rise to the challenge and get something done. We'll see.

Best,
Steve
Post Reply