well... i'm not familiar with wintel/mac tracking software, but the one
i have used gives really glitchy results because of the interface. when
you hit a 'note' (pitch sample) in edit mode, it will put the note on
the closest tracker channel mark. imagine using a controller/sequencer
with hard quantize set to the value of your pattern length. so, it's
good for eye de emm 'cause 20% of the time, the notes go where you want
them to go. 80% of the time, the notes go where ever they go, but they
will be quantized so beacoup 'accidents'
i'm using SoundTracker on linux, and it's a little buggy, but works
pretty cool. nicest feature? auto conversion of any data to audio -
ie, in the sample loader, i select a binary file, or a freinds email, or
a pgp hash, etc and it pops up a dialog asking me whether the new file
should be 8-16 bit, stereo or mono, little or big endian. while still
playing the pattern/song in the back ground.
so - trackers make it easy to make music. make's it a little harder to
do it on purpose, tho :)
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 12:11, Max Lansing wrote:
quoted 18 lines been following this thread with some interest and I'm a little bit> been following this thread with some interest and I'm a little bit
> curious. in what ways is a tracker better for producing music of
> idm-ish styles? in other words, how is it superior to loading up a
> bunch of samples into a plugin and doing it with a step sequencer?
>
> all this talk has got me about ready to explore the possibilities but
> in the mean time if somebody wants to clarify this point I'd love to
> hear the answer.
>
> cheers,
> max
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: idm-unsubscribe@hyperreal.org
For additional commands, e-mail: idm-help@hyperreal.org