[comp.music] Computer

abmg@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Aliasghar Babadi) (04/15/91)

Hi,

	I would like to know what is the best available computer and software 
for composing and editing music. I like to connect my keyboard to a computer
and play something and save the music and later look at the written form of
the music on the screen and edit some part and replay the whole or part of it.
record the voice of more than one instrument on top of each other. Thank you
for your help.

uge@athena.mit.edu (Eugene A Beidl) (04/18/91)

In article <1593@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu>, abmg@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Aliasghar Babadi) writes:
|> Hi,
|> 
|> 	I would like to know what is the best available computer and software 
|> for composing and editing music. I like to connect my keyboard to a computer
|> and play something and save the music and later look at the written form of
|> the music on the screen and edit some part and replay the whole or part of it.
|> record the voice of more than one instrument on top of each other. Thank you
|> for your help.


The proverbial "What's best?" question should really be "What's best for me?"
since budget contraints, space constraints and even time constraints limit
your choices.  In my opinion, the Mac series computers have the best software
support for musical applications and are readily adaptable for hardware stuff
also.  The graphical interface is superb.  The cost of the computer is enormous
since Apple has no like competition.  Performer is probably the best (again,
in my opinion) software sequencer for this machine.

The IBM world is good, but musical notation (i.e. little black dots) is
horribly lacking.  This will probably change within the next year since that
market is growing and the 386 machines are everywhere and quite fast.  Cakewalk
and Sequencer Plus Gold are the current best sequencers for this type, although
neither has notation yet.  

I've heard the Amiga is good but know little about it.

I have a friend with an Atari and, although you can't use it for much else,
it is well suited for music.  Notator is the best for this and I like it as the
BEST sequencer for ANY computer even if it is only available for the Atari.

--Eugene A. Beidl
--uge@athena.mit.edu

zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) (04/20/91)

In article <1593@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> abmg@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Aliasghar Babadi) writes:
>Hi,
>
>	I would like to know what is the best available computer and software 
>for composing and editing music. I like to connect my keyboard to a computer
>and play something and save the music and later look at the written form of
>the music on the screen and edit some part and replay the whole or part of it.
>record the voice of more than one instrument on top of each other. Thank you
>for your help.


The two best computers for music are the Mac and the Atari(ST).  The software
that exists for either are quite amazing and roughly on par with each other.  
I have been using and Atari ST for 5 years and Notator software for the past 3
years and I think it blows away most of what is out there.  

Cubase for the Atari or Mac is quite good too.  Vision and Performer for the
Mac are quite amazing too.  The Atari computer is a little better for music
software because of its flexible operating system.  More things can be
executed *while* the song is running without interuption.  In practice, this
feature proves to be absolutely invaluable.  The Atari also comes with built
in Midi ports and is a lot cheaper.

In America, however, the Mac gets way more support for anything that isn't
music related.  There is a lot more non-music software available and it
usually is more powerful than Atari stuff.  In Europe, the Atari is *the*
computer of choice.  The two big software packages (Notator and Cubase) are
made in Germany.  Note that Cubase for the Mac does not run quite as good as
Cubase for the Atari.

The Amiga does not have any very powerful sequencer programs available for it.
The IBM PC has some decent ones, but don't really live up to the Mac or Atari
ones.

     ferenc

olag@ifi.uio.no (Ola Fosheim Gr|stad) (04/27/91)

In article <1991Apr20.164220.3174@intacc.uucp>, zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) writes:

> usually is more powerful than Atari stuff.  In Europe, the Atari is *the*
> computer of choice.  The two big software packages (Notator and Cubase) are
> made in Germany.  Note that Cubase for the Mac does not run quite as good as
> Cubase for the Atari.

Haven't Atari Corp. dropped the ST?

> 
> The Amiga does not have any very powerful sequencer programs available for it.

We Amigians do have a lot of powerful midisoftware. Dr.T's Software do support
and port most of their programs to the Amiga.
  I think (and a lot of other musicians too) that KCS beats or equals most
other sequencers. 2 years ago your statement was true enough, but now we
have a lot of different sequencers available. Ranging from exciting programs
like "Bars & Pipes" and "M"  to  programs like "KCS", "music-X" and  some 
less known programs.

The Amiga's multitasking capabilities combined with several serialports make the Amiga a very effective environment for the average musician.
  With an Amiga you can download free software and patches from your local MIDI-BBS, record some nifty tracks, edit patches, play games, edit your lyrics and write a letter to your mum at the same time. So please don't tell us that Amiga isn't the number 1 ;->.
  Your objection might be that none of the Amiga sequencers have it all. All I can say is that Music-X has most of the features a musican wants, but even if it doesn't, it won't matter because the beauty of a multitasking environment is that you can select the programs you like best without worrying about the name of the software company.
  
-- 
Ola Fosheim Groestad (Midi-freak & Amiga programmer??)

whitcomb@aurs01.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) (04/30/91)

In article <1991Apr27.131320.19767@ifi.uio.no> olag@ifi.uio.no (Ola Fosheim Gr|stad) writes:
-
+In article <1991Apr20.164220.3174@intacc.uucp>, zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) writes:
+
+usually is more powerful than Atari stuff.  In Europe, the Atari is *the*
+computer of choice.  The two big software packages (Notator and Cubase) are
+made in Germany.  Note that Cubase for the Mac does not run quite as good as
+Cubase for the Atari.
-
-Haven't Atari Corp. dropped the ST?

Oh my, NO!  This is the stuff that holy wars are made of!  8^B

In fact, Atari has released 3 new computers in the ST line in the last year.
They are the 1040 STE (updated operating system, enhanced color and sound,
SIMM upgradable memory), the Mega STE (16 MHz 68000 processor, internal
hard drive, new desktop, improved internal and external busses) and the
TT (32 MHz 68030 workstation).  And all of them have MIDI ports built in.
 
+The Amiga does not have any very powerful sequencer programs available for it.

-We Amigians do have a lot of powerful midisoftware. Dr.T's Software do support
-and port most of their programs to the Amiga.

...eventually.

-I think (and a lot of other musicians too) that KCS beats or equals most
-other sequencers. 2 years ago your statement was true enough, but now we
-have a lot of different sequencers available. Ranging from exciting programs
-like "Bars & Pipes" and "M"  to  programs like "KCS", "music-X" and  some 
-less known programs.

I love KCS, but the Atari ST version (Omega) is newer, has more features 
and is more powerful than the latest Amiga version (3.5 I think).  
Emile (Dr.T) does the coding on an ST, and then ports to the Amiga.  
As noted in the current Electronic Musician, Dr.T's is the only
music software company that provides a full line of professional quality
products for the Amiga.  They go on to point out that the Atari, Mac and
PC are all supported by several different music software companies, and
that all three are considerably more common amoung musicians (according to
their reader's survey).

-The Amiga's multitasking capabilities combined with several serialports 
-make the Amiga a very effective environment for the average musician.
-With an Amiga you can download free software and patches from your local 
-MIDI-BBS, record some nifty tracks, edit patches, play games, edit your 
-lyrics and write a letter to your mum at the same time. So please don't 
-tell us that Amiga isn't the number 1 ;->.

It's great to be able to multitask while running Midi softare... I do it on 
my Atari all the time under Dr.T's Multi Program Environment.  And in fact,
the Amiga is not number 1 in Midi, but rather a distant 4th (again 
according to this month's EM).

-Your objection might be that none of the Amiga sequencers have it all. 
-All I can say is that Music-X has most of the features a musican wants, 
-but even if it doesn't, it won't matter because the beauty of a 
-multitasking environment is that you can select the programs you like 
-best without worrying about the name of the software company.

I disagree.  If you have several different programs by different 
manufacturers you will be less efficient because:
  1. The programs will not be able to share data. 
  2. There will be feature overlap and redundancy.
  3. You will have to learn several different types of interfaces.
As a result, you will waste memory on redundant features, time on
learning different interfaces, and money on more software than you
really need.

The Amiga is a nice machine for many applications, and you can certainly
make great music with it.  You will have far more music software to choose
from (and many more music stores that carry compatible software) however, 
if you go with the Atari, Mac or PC.  And you will spend less money for a 
Midi system with power equal to or greater than any of the others if you 
go with the Atari ST.

Of course, if you plan to use your coumputer for other applications as
well, you will have many other factors to consider... factors that need
not be discussed in comp.music.

-Ola Fosheim Groestad (Midi-freak & Amiga programmer??)
**********************************************************************
Jonathan Whitcomb                    UUCP: <whitcomb%aurgate@mcnc.org>
Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, NC                    Delphi: JBWHIT
                       

kevin@cbmvax.commodore.com (Kevin Klop) (04/30/91)

In article <1991Apr20.164220.3174@intacc.uucp> zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) writes:
>In article <1593@babcock.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu> abmg@cathedral.cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu (Aliasghar Babadi) writes:
>>Hi,
>>
>>	I would like to know what is the best available computer and software 
>>for composing and editing music. I like to connect my keyboard to a computer
>>and play something and save the music and later look at the written form of
>>the music on the screen and edit some part and replay the whole or part of it.
>>record the voice of more than one instrument on top of each other. Thank you
>>for your help.
>
>
>The two best computers for music are the Mac and the Atari(ST).  The software

>I have been using and Atari ST for 5 years and Notator software for the past 3
>years and I think it blows away most of what is out there.  
>
>Cubase for the Atari or Mac is quite good too.  Vision and Performer for the
>Mac are quite amazing too.  The Atari computer is a little better for music

	[ Suggestions and opinions about Mac and Atari programs deleted ]

>ones.
>
>     ferenc



I feel I must take exception to some of the statements mentioned above,
especially the two statements:

	1) The two best computers for music are the mac and the Atari(ST)

				and

	2) The Amiga does not have any very powerful sequencer programs
	   available for it.

While the first is an opinion (although it's stated as a fact), I find I must
strongly disagree.  Later in his posting, ferenc states:

    > More things can be executed *while* the song is running without
    > interuption.  In practice, this feature proves to be absolutely
    > invaluable.

which I strongly agree with.  However, the Amiga _inherently_ provides this
ability.  for example, I generally run my sequencer (Dr. T's KCS), notation
editor (Copyist), and three editor/librarians (D-50, M1, and my own custom
written librarian) simultaneously.  Note that I didn't have to get a program
that had this ability specially programmed into it, but rather could pick
and choose those programs that did what I want.  sort of a "component stereo
approach" to picking my composition environment.

The second statement, that the Amiga does not have very powerfule sequencer
programs, is (I choose to believe) a product of ignorance.  Dr. T's KCS
is available (and IMHO one of the most powerful sequencers anywhere), Music-X
is present in two different forms (Music-X and Music-X junior), Bars and Pipes
Professional, MasterTracks Pro; these are all available and are very good to
top-notch sequencers - and I'm sure that I've missed some.

While people were willing to _give_ me macintoshes and Atari's, I chose to
BUY an Amiga for composing long before I ever worked for Commodore-Amiga.
I've never regretted that choice.

				-- Kevin --