Workstation or PC?

[Vin Trouble]

Hi all,

 

Quick question - I use backing tracks with my duo/trio, usually multitrack backing tracks from Song Galaxy Karaoke Versions etc, and I quite fancy writing my own tracks for live use. I'm wondering what's best/easiest - either a PC-based setup with something like Sonar, or would buying something like a Roland Fantom or similar workstation be better? I'm a guitarist, not a keyboard player, so not keyboard savvy, although I use Roland guitar synth stuff.

Cheers.

[Doug Siddons]

The question is are you going to use the sounds on your guitar synth as your sounds for the backing tracks or do you need an extra bank of sounds? If the guitar synth has what you want on board then I would recommend the pc route. If you want extra sounds and an alternative input device then go for the Roland. In my experience you will still end up doing editing on the computer it is much easier than doing it on a standalone keyboard.

[Jack B Drury]

Hello!

 

How complicated were you thinking of making these tracks? Are we talking just one guitar track or multiple tracks?

Will you be using microphones or going through an audio interface?

And what sort of PC will you be loading this onto?

 

I don't have any experience with the Roland Fantom, however I have produced backing tracks for various things over the last couple of years. My personal point of view is that going for a keyboard workstation can limit you. Getting a decent DAW workstation and a MIDI controller can give you a lot more freedom. However, I would stress this is just my point of view, others will tell you differently!

 

When I first started, I used audacity which served me quite adequately, providing you weren't asking it to do anything too complicated. I then started my Music Production HNC which moved me onto logic and have been there ever since, but I still maintain that the best tracks are the simple ones.

 

 

Cheers!

 

JD

[paulears]

a computer and sequencer every time. I've even got a Korg Triton with inbuilt sampler and sequencer, and I drive it from Cubase. Everything is better - mouse and onscreen editing. I can't think of one reason NOT to use a computer.

[Vin Trouble]

Thanks for the replies, guys,

I only mentioned the VG-99 guitar synth as it's as close as I normally come to workstation menues, etc - I'm not planning on using it for anything other than live performance. I had a pc a couple of years ago with Sonar 8 on it, and I used it for some basic editing of the multi-track backing tracks I bought ie cutting out some parts, chopping intros etc, but had no idea how to start a track from scratch. My old gigging buddy used to write amazing backing tracks by basically loading an original version of the song onto Sonar and "copying" it by putting drums, bass and anything else in the song onto separate tracks then deleting the original song. He was an absolute expert. Don't have access to him now, and as I have already had a wee look at a Sonar manual it looks like a foreign language to me! Where do you learn this stuff? Is it hit and miss, or is there somewhere or someone that teaches this? That's why I mentioned the Fantom, as it looks a bit more "hands on".

[peza2010]

The easiest starting point is to download the midi track from the internet. Most reasonable daws can split it up and then its just a case of putting the correct vst instrument on the right midi track.

 

At that point you will have a slightly nicer sounding midi track to work with, at which point you start smoothimg stuff out and making it sound less midi and more musical.

[dbuckley]

At that point you will have a slightly nicer sounding midi track to work with

 

+1 to that

 

Just re-instrumenting a track intended for GM playback with a bit of care and attention can make a huge difference.

 

Edited to add, as an afterthought: I sometimes wonder about the legal status of these MIDI tracks. When I use them, the work itself is used in an appropriately licenced context, but the creator of the MIDI track itself gets no recompense, and frankly, his creative endeavors (ie making a MIDI track for fun and fame) are, I reckon, not in a legal context in the first place.

[Vin Trouble]

Sooo... The general concensus is PC as opposed to workstation. I've just bought a copy of Sonar x1, and will update my crappy Vista PC with something a bit better - I think Microsoft has stopped support for XP now? So is Windows 7 pretty stable, as my experiences with Vista are rotten with the basic player for Song Galaxy - I've an old Tascam US-122 that jumps as it plays on the Vista PC.

[david.elsbury]

W7 is pretty reasonable, you are correct in saying that Win XP is no longer supported.

Vista was horrible...

 

Stay well clear from W8, you will be frustrated and disappointed... :)

[paulears]

There are lots of misconceptions here. The very common statement "making it sound less MIDI' - does tend to confuse. It's a bit like blaming DMX for bad lighting!

 

 

The problem is that some people produce and publish on the net simply dreadful versions of popular songs, and this leads to the system being blamed when it's the individual. Plenty of people start with the sheet music and put the notes in one by one to a sequencer, and if they do this it sounds wrong simply because there's no musical input, just mechanical. The sequencers that are built into workstations tend to work in this step time manner. Great for mega rigid techno rhythms but useless for something meant to be live.

 

Most music producers use two tools or or more. A sequencer, usually now with virtual instruments, effects and even guitar processors - and then, if they need to produce sheet music, a separate piece of software to do that. Very few people use one package to do the entire thing. Cubase - which I have been using since Atari 520 days in black and white is a great sequencer and recorder, but still pretty limited with scores. It does them, but Sibelius does it better. Equally Sibelius can playback the dots on the page - but it always sounds less convincing than a proper sequencer. Just how it is.

 

A cut down version of Cubase is still complicated to use - but only when you don't take it seriously. An in-built sequencer that can record, replay and fast forward/rewind is simple, BUT can it actually let you edit out just one note you got wrong? Not all can. Musical people brought up with real music can use Cubase, but so can drum n bass merchants - they use different screens, and won't touch a score page, because for them it's not needed.

 

There are plenty of beginner programmes too - Garage Band and others are popular, but Logic, Cubase, Sonar and a few others are still what the majority use. You DO have a steep learning curve, but if a programme is easy - you will run out of facilities very quickly!

 

If you can play keyboards, even to a modest degree, then a proper computer sequencer will work for you.

 

As for copyright on midi files, I suspect the vast majority are not an issue because their similarity to the real songs is vague, at least. The better ones come from the big boys and used as they are downloaded (if paid for) are likely to be legit. If you download them and strip out a few tracks to save time, then add your own, you're in new territory, possibly infringing the copyright on the performance, but it's a mess. If you find a good midi file, you'll find it hosted by dozens of sites. Geocities a few years ago deleted all their midi hosting customer's web sites - but I have not seen much action since.

 

I'd suggest for the cost of downloading good ones it's hardly worth the effort of repairing duff ones. When I was doing a show a few years ago, I produced midi versions to use for rehearsals, and as I couldn't find them anywhere, posted them onto one of my web sites. A year later, they were everywhere - and they all still had the one wrong note I'd meant to fix.

 

As your sequencer can do so much work on them, if you turn a rubbish track into a good one - I can't see anybody coming after you, especially as the original producer's comments and details are usually edited out. Put a MIDI file on the net and in reality it's gone. Of course when you perform any song in public, you make sure you clear the copyright - so you're still doing your bit. The person who produced it is impossible to even contact - they could be anywhere in the world!

 

You do need to be aware that the big producers hide fingerprints in their products that often remain when you edit them. When I was the Principal Examiner for Music Technology A Level, I rather enjoyed the investigations into student work that appeared to the examiner to be stolen from the internet and edited, rather than produced from scratch. One big producer of midi tracks popped up quite often, and it was very simple to compare the continuous data in something like a pitch bend, or even very subtle modulation in tracks that didn't need it - where they'd put in an unused continuous controller into a drum track at a particular value, like cc83 @ 27. Many students never even looked at the midi event list, and left these in - proof they'd nicked the midi file from the net and wasn't therefore their own work! Mind you, loads didn't even edit out the "copyright Heavenly Music 1994" that appeared on the screen if you loaded it into Cubase.

 

For a live performance, I doubt that the copyright issues are really much different from playing the track. Backing tracks don't seem a particularly important area of work to the record companies and composers - especially as so many are simply dreadful.

[Vin Trouble]

Thanks paulears and all posters for taking the time to help me out. I'll let you know how I get on.