10. Musical things about Linux

I love Linux. I Love it for its liberties, the spirit and most: Raw performance!
It is just a pity that there is not more commercial software available for it, because it usually offers the best designed workflows.
Here is a list of 10 reasons that spring to my mind why one would like to run Linux. This is not an attempt to persuade anyone to ditch their current setup and go full on Linux. But an attempt to show that it has its place in media production outside of 3D Graphics and storage but also in Audio.

1. Realtime Kernel allows for ultra low latency, unmatched by any other OS!

2. The trinity of Jack Audio and ALSA, held together by Pulse allows you to route any audio or midi signal to any software inside your computer and over the network.

3. Linux can run on very old computers, this helps you reactivate unused boxes. I use a 10 year old laptop as additional synth!

4. DIN is noise, a fantastical and unique digital instrument.
http://dinisnoise.org/

5. FreqTweak
http://freqtweak.sourceforge.net/screenshots.html

6. Harrisson Mixbus
http://www.harrisonconsoles.com/

7. Bristol
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_(software)

8. Korg Kronos. Yes, its all linux under the hood
http://korg.com/kronos

9. Muse research Receptor. Again, a music dedicated Linux box to run your windows vsts on a lighting fast OS.

10. Graphical package managers. You think the appstore concept is new? Think again, in Linux this is ages old. Search, click install, thats it. You just never had to pay for packages.

There is a lot more to discover, just check out this wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_audio_software

Or just dive in and download a complete multimedia production suite FOR FREE!
Check these out:
Ubuntu Studio
Studio 64
Planet CCRMA

Typewriting Music

This is an attempt to explain what I find so fascinating about music trackers.

Trackers are widely known to make music look as exiting as an excel spreadsheet. Behind the mask they offer a unique workflow and creation process to digital audio creation. But this process is hard to describe to someone who never gathered any experience with trackers.

The tracker workflow is kinda between two different approaches. Most people know the direct approach: you hit record and play your instrument. You do this by leveraging your muscle memory, trained by practice. The advantage is the possibility of spontaneous improvisation and expression. A disadvantage is the danger of repetition because you always start playing what you have learned.
The other extreme is composing on a paper, or using your mouse on a piano roll or score editor. The advantage is that you think about what you create or want to create.
Trackers are in between because most of them can be controlled completely by computer keyboards. This way you can use muscle memory to move through your project and create events like notes. Most users don't do this in realtime, but more like a composer as described in the second example. This enables for a reflected workflow without thinking too much about the individual steps to get where you want to go. Tracker users describe this as being "in the flow".

I always dream of a DAW with the usual interface stuff we have today AND a tracker style interface... fortunately though there is rewire or AIC bus to connect trackers like Renoise to other DAW software :)

Just boasting

Just passed my Logic Professional lvl 2 exam :)

Sound Design VS Instrument Design

Back in the 90s people spent thousands in order to get a few presets on a hardware. Devices like the EMU Proteus 2000 where basically nothing else but a ROM chip full of samples and some subtractive synthesis modules (cool filters) and an FX chip. Today is not much different, but you usually get Kontakt player or something similar instead. Both times have something in common though: the buyers usually use the presets as given and only modify them with the pre mapped controllers. My point is that there is more to sound design then just engineering or recording the audio material, but a good sound designer programs a complete instrument. Something that allows, or even better, inspires a good performance. Back in the days people shelled out a grand in order to get the "Virus" or "Supernova" sounds. But you always got an inspiring interface along. Today all the mapping is often up to the musician... no wonder everyone is drawing automation instead of performing it.

Sound collections should be delivered with mappings for popular controllers,  touchscreen devices have made it extremely simple to create custom and inspiring interfaces wich could be bundled with any digitally distributed sound set. And even dedicated hardware controllers have become very cheap, such as the Novation remote SL series providing xy pads, Pitch mod sticks and after touch (not polyphonic though) close enough together to control all of them with two hands (I think the Impulse with mod/pitch wheel is a step back).

The importance of a good controller mapping is very well illustrated by this video showing the use of an Haken Audio controller to control the sounds recorded earlier:

Amon Tobin's Making of ISAM sounds

It is not the sounds alone that make the magic happen, but the performance manipulating them afterwards.
This is the reason why I am looking forward to the future, at things like the Linnstrument. Or maybe we might even get a velocity and touch sensitive smartphone/tablet computer one day? Who knows, but today a simple mapping could lead to more interesting songs and productions. I think people who purchase sounds want to perform, not map or worse spend their time programming controller modulation behavior  I hope someone creating a sound set right now finds this inspiring :)