MadTracker - Forum - About trackers and composition

Color scheme

Profile

FAQ

Forum

General discussion

About trackers and composition

Reply to topic

Post new topic

numbsong
User

Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Posted: Sun Oct 23 2005 07:02 About trackers and composition
Hello people. I am a keyboardist/composer in a rock/metal band (http://www.sigil.tk) and I´m fairly experienced in composing and recording my music by using traditional sequencers (such as Sonar), VSTi´s and general midi. Until a while ago I had never heard of trackers. I became aware of this tool as my interest in chiptunes grew and I discovered the huge scene that exists behind them. Since then, I´ve been doing some research on the avaiable modern trackers (MT, Renoise, Skale and such) and I became impressed with the quality of the music you tracker-users are producing nowadays (not to mention that I already find the old school chiptunes amazing). I intend to start composing some electronica and chiptune songs and I somehow feel that using Mad Tracker would be a good aproach for it. I just don´t know why!! So, I ask you: Why should one adopt a tracker as a music composition tool (considering that the learning curve for producing professional stuff can be steep)? What are the advantages of tracking over traditional sequencing? I anxiously await for answers! Needless to say, I´m already beggining to play with MT... cheerz! ps.: The main reason why I decided to try MT over Renoise, for example, is because I felt this is a great community by reading some of this forum´s threads. I´m hoping to learn a lot from you

Elijah
Registered User

Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Eh?

Posted: Sun Oct 23 2005 07:10
Re: About trackers and composition

numbsong wrote:

So, I ask you: Why should one adopt a tracker as a music composition tool (considering that the learning curve for producing professional stuff can be steep)? What are the advantages of tracking over traditional sequencing?

because.... ? Rolling Eyes

- Elijah

Franklin van Uden
Registered User

Joined: 26 Apr 2005
Location: The Netherlands

Posted: Tue Oct 25 2005 12:26
Re: About trackers and composition

numbsong wrote:

I think ,correct me if i am wrong, most of the people in the tracker scene are oldschool track composers (noisetracker (Amiga), modplug etc.) and like the look and feel of the tracker based compsition programs such as MT, wich is still quite simulair to the oldschool trackers (only a lot better in quality and features)
if i speak in my own opinion, i've worked with Cubase, Fruity loops and all that, but i really don't like the look and feel of those sequencers, that learning curve was in my case much to steep (i hate those pianorolls Wink

). The look and feel of MT (or other trackers) are more appealing to me. I'm not sure the learning curve is steeper , i think once getting used to the tracker based look and feel it would be a lot steeper when changing to a sequencer, or the other way around, IMO.
In short, it is more the question which method did you start with and wich method are you used to ?(like Word and Wordperfect Wink

)...

Franklin

Music ... is endless ... Work in progress ...

Inge
Man-At-Arms

Joined: 04 May 2003
Location: Nieuw Lekkerland @ Holland

Posted: Tue Oct 25 2005 12:46
There's more to it, I think. In my perception, the tracker interface gives you a smaller distance betweeen the programmed event and the sound. You're 'closer' on the sound you're making, so to speak. Second, this same interface allows easier entering and editing of notes, therefore resulting in a smaller path between what is in your head and what comes out of your speaker. Yannick and I consider these two very valueable: MadTracker offers you an environment in which you can easily, quickly and efficiently transform imagination and creativity into actual music. Third, trackers (especially back in the days that softsynths weren't common good) work straight out of the box, whereas Cubase and Sonar place higher demands on the starting capital concerning synths you have. Fourth, trackers (atleast FastTracker and MadTracker) are much lighter and less bloated than this same Sonar and Cubase. And fifth, it's way cheaper than Sonar or Cubase
Care for a game of Monopoly?

numbsong
User

Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Posted: Tue Oct 25 2005 18:11
Franklin: Yes, I noticed that most of the people who use trackers have been using them since the Amiga days. In my case, I´m used to sequencers, but I´ve always used them to record mostly rock and metal compositions (and yes, I use piano rolls a lot! ). As I said, I´m willing to compose electronic music now and somehow I feel that a pattern based tool such as MT would be more suitable for me to "think electronic", know what I mean? My main goal is to be a versatile composer. That´s why I´m willing to break the barrier between Word and Wordperfect! Inge: As I become more used to the tracker interface, I think I´ll be able to perceive the advantages that you mentioned. For now, it feels kinda strange to input notes and then the track moves to the next avaiable slot... Not to mention not being able to pause playback (or at least I haven´t found out how to do it). Btw, speaking of MT being lighter than Cubase, do you think I ´ll be able to run it in a Pentium II 266, 64MB, 10GB HD? I have an old laptop and I think it´d would be cool to ressucitate it for tracker use. I´ve posted this question in CTG Music and people recommended me to use Modplug and FT... Anyways, thanks for your replies! I look forward to post my first .mt2 here...

aRGee
Registered User

Joined: 24 May 2003
Location: Holland

Posted: Tue Oct 25 2005 19:41

numbsong wrote:

speaking of MT being lighter than Cubase, do you think I ´ll be able to run it in a Pentium II 266, 64MB, 10GB HD? I have an old laptop and I think it´d would be cool to ressucitate it for tracker use. I´ve posted this question in CTG Music and people recommended me to use Modplug and FT...

It depends a lot on what you´re planning to do with madtracker. If you only want to use samples without using effects, then a PII 266 might be sufficient (better use an older version of Madtracker). I you also want to use madtracker-effects like reverb and filters (not to mention vst(i)´s), then you probably need a better computer.

QBical
Registered User

Joined: 04 May 2003
Location: Utrecht , The Netherlands

Posted: Tue Oct 25 2005 23:02
The great thing is, that if you find things you like better in madtracker then in Cubase for example you can just combine the two using rewire! yeay! But anywayz, I use madtracker as my main composition tool, I also work with ableton Live on the mac wich is great but despite it's clean interface it doesn't let me compose as fast as in madtracker. And for mixing stuff I just export individual tracks from madtracker into pro-tools and get jiggy with them So I'm not using madtracker exclusivly, I feel that the modern musicians/composers need to use different software and combine them to create a succesfull way of producing music. So why not run madtracker as an composition tool on the go on your laptop, workout 'inspiration-burst' on it, export it to midi and import it into sonar or cubase for futher editing/mixing. Grtz Raymond
PC: P4 HT 3ghz, 1gb ram, 500GB+ Storage, plextor DVD-rw, M-audo Audiophile 2496 Laptop: Apple Powerbook G4 15inch Other Stuff: Phonic MU802 mixer, Alesis M1 Active Mk2 Monitors, Ipod 2nd gen. 20GB, maxtor firewire HD 80GB

numbsong
User

Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Posted: Wed Oct 26 2005 00:45

QBical wrote:

So why not run madtracker as an composition tool on the go on your laptop, workout 'inspiration-burst' on it, export it to midi and import it into sonar or cubase for futher editing/mixing.

Grtz
Raymond

Yeah, that´s exactly what I plan to do. And I agree with you on the modern musician´s composers thought. I believe in the theory that the Internet is promoting a new renaissance, and versatile composers are a result of that. Combining different aproaches is the way to build an original sound.

Inge
Man-At-Arms

Joined: 04 May 2003
Location: Nieuw Lekkerland @ Holland

Posted: Wed Oct 26 2005 07:24
Using one program only is soo 1994 But really, it wouldn't make sense to restrict yourself to one and one only. Every program has its weaknesses and advantages. Even back in the days of FT2, I used MPT too because it supported filters. I filtered sequences there, exported them, and then used them inside my ft2-track. Nowadays, dozens of programs offer dozens of possibilities. Your task, so to speak, is to find the proper combination and balance between them to achieve your musical goals. /me returns to his cave of philosophy to think the world over again
Care for a game of Monopoly?

XnmE
Registered User

Joined: 04 May 2003
Location: Warsaw, Poland

Posted: Wed Oct 26 2005 13:06
Re: About trackers and composition

numbsong wrote:

What are the advantages of tracking over traditional sequencing?

Tracking is traditional Smile

Music Is ThE GatE
---------------------

numbsong
User

Joined: 22 Oct 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Posted: Wed Oct 26 2005 20:47
Re: About trackers and composition

XnmE wrote:

Tracking is traditional Smile

Perhaps I should have said "mainstream sequencers"? Wink

Reply to topic

Post new topic

Page 1 of 1

All times are GMT + 1 Hour