| >> | No.53575746
>>53575613
Nigger, we are on the internet right now which is loaded with tutorials for just about everything and it's not like a DAW doesn't come with a manual, a wiki and a forum. Fuck, I only use a one as a 4track and it's still a million times easier to work with.
>>53575685
Sort files, write things, make notes, pull out the typewriter and set it up to type a document, copy, paste, store pornography, all the things a desktop does but in a completely different and often superior way that makes learning how to use an actual desk worthless.
|
| >> | No.53575976
>>53575554
Rofl, abstractions? DAWs are 100% direct products of evolution in sound recording. Replace magnetic tapes with magnetic harddrives, and there you go. I'm just saying "abstractions" is the completely opposite word. If it means anything, the "abstraction" is moving backwards toward simplistic recording from working digitally and making it seem as if you're doing some sacred Zen-like move toward simplicity. Even Phil Elverum uses GarageBand.
Take this from a guy who would spend hours recording parts, bouncing tracks on my even more basic Tascam 4 track than yours: just write music while you save up for a new laptop, OP. The 4 track isn't an "instrument" the way the recording studio became one in the 60s. The 4 track is seriously a huge pain in the ass for recording anything beyond 6 tracks. If you're in a band, micing up the bassist vocals drums to each track makes sense. That's a great way of getting out a band demo. But just doing 4 tracks, like, a bass, guitar, second guitar, and vocals? It's super annoying. But IMO, it's a shitty thing to experiment with, but I think all guys who record should have experience with a 4 track.
|
| >> | No.53576090
File: 39 KB, 250x250, 1211234.jpg [Show reposts] Image reverse search: [iqdb] [google]
 >>53575961
>"do what I do to make a song this specific way"
Which is a perfectly valid way to start producing music.
You see, unless you are a wunderkind or borderline autistic, your first songs will be shit. Instead of wasting time re-inventing the wheel, producers will often start out by replicating/making a bland copy of whatever genre they're producing (or another producer), and once they learn the ropes, they move on to their "own sound", which is actually the hard part that often takes years and years of hard work.
You of course have no fucking idea what you're talking about ("AFX, Boards of Canada, the list could go on) and you believe in some romantic fantasy of le autistic wizard producer just "punching buttons until music comes out". Reality is a lot less exiting than that. And if you look at the discographies of plenty of respected producers, their first releases will often have "homages" and borrowed elements from the time the music was produced, or as I said again, producers that were famous at the time.
Keep pretending you know about music production though
|
| >> | No.53576297
>>53576104
See, I knew the question was more simple than the OMG 4 TRACK ZEN BUDDHISM freaks made it seem.
I would say go for it. Get a cheap mixer, like a Behringer for $60 bucks, run your instruments into the mixer, run the mixer output into the 4 track, probably split the mixer output to send into your amp and into the 4 track, start recording a loop while you're playing. Here's the problem.
The tape needs to physically rewind in order for the loop to begin again, for it to even "loop." That's what makes digital so nice. That could sound cool if you like the sound of the rewinding noise, or if you want to record maybe a 30-40 second loop, hell make it two minutes long, then start the tape loop while you do something new on the instrument. Switch back forth. Fuck Buttons might do something similar. It's a lot of work to mute the tracks you need to mute, to switch back and forth. IT'll make you appreciate digital sampling.
|