Why we keep coming back to Modplug Tracker

[Rakib]

Rakib: so basically its the GUI issue? After playing with it, i've found that its much more flexible that OMPT gui, you can drag channels anywhere, extend effect and note columns, hide any elements what you don't need, and the most important, you dont have to switch to tabs while working, everything is shown on one screen. Even the mouse and the marking/copying/pasting features are a lot more extended. You can work very fast with it.

I'll maybe give it a try or two later. For now I prefer MPT, and learning a new program is a big hazzle.

[Rxn]

There are three stages in a music project creation:
[list=1]

• Composing
  
• Mixing
  
• Mastering[/list:o]
  
  Renoise tries two kill two birds with one stone attempting to attend to both 1 and 2 stages. One of the side effects of this is quite a heavy cluttered interface even on a relatively high screen resolution.
  
  The main problem with this approach is that when you want to do two jobs done at the same time you'll end up with two half-done, while ModPlug does not look beyond the first stage.
  
  That means that we have better chances to get both sequencing and mixing done right as they are distinct stages (especially when done by different people each of them is better than the other at what he does). The bad news is that with you doing mixing externally you'll have to use a multitrack for it and for a decent piece that would set you back at least as much as the cost of Renoise itself.

[Louigi Verona]

To me tracking was a wonder when I just started out because all the musicians I knew at the time were using stuff like Cakewalk which without a decent sound card sounded like a toy.

But the main problem with trackers for me was
1. non-visuality (all the processes are difficult to follow, them being columns of numbers)
2. too much typing work (it was so tedious doing simple things like fade in or fade out, echo, etc. reminded me of excel spreadsheets tbh)

and most importantly

3. there was no ability to make filtered bass lines.

At that time I was listening a lot of trance music, to stuff like Scooter and they all had superb bass lines and synths lines with beautiful filter work - something that is absolutely impossible in a tracker. I did use samples from MAZ which had squelching sounds of various frequency but it sounded lame. And I was also tired of the dry sound of the tracker with no ability to use effects. In other words - what I got in a tracker despite my best efforts sounded absolutely different from what I heard from my fav artists - and the gap was too large.

So my friend who worked in the studio brought me Fruity Loops 3.4
From that time on my life changed.

Since then I did try tracking but I return here more to communicate. I do not track anymore and while memories of tracking are sweet, I find a tracker to be a very inconvenient tool for the type of music I do.

[LPChip]

I actually do all the stages in OpenMPT for quite a while now.

I have done mixing/mastering in Acid Pro 4 long ago, but I found it quite tedious to render the channels to wave for post production, not alone the diskspace it takes.

I then searched for good mastering plugins that preferabelly are free. Together with Xlutop Chainer, I'm able to mix and even master my track before rendering. I do not really use the channel volumes nor the instrument volumes anymore due to this. Basically because its quite tedious to have all the volume sliders next to eachother and move the sliders to see all the effects directly.

[Rxn]

But the main problem with trackers for me was
1. non-visuality (all the processes are difficult to follow, them being columns of numbers)

It is purely a matter of habit.

2. too much typing work (it was so tedious doing simple things like fade in or fade out, echo, etc. reminded me of excel spreadsheets tbh)

True, when it comes to re-editing, for example, channel volume slides, that can be a ton of hassle. Although I have an idea how to help it by a lot, though I'd like to find a way to test it first. If it works, chances are tracking won't be the same tedious any more, yet remaining tracking.

3. there was no ability to make filtered bass lines.

There is now. While it is not a top notch quality it does its job for the composing stage. Proper filtering should be applied at the mixing stage.

That is the general point of separating the work in stages, effects and filtering could be much better done in the mixing stage in a multitrack, and my experience shows you get much cleaner results as well it saves hassle in the tracker where one worries about the writing of the song, not how it sounds.

[Saga Musix]

aaaaand of course, the best way to get filtered bass sounds is to actually buy a tb-303. I believe that was much easier back then.

[Louigi Verona]

Proper filtering should be applied at the mixing stage.

I do not agree. Actually, before you said it, I've never heard of such a way to do things - that is, apply filters at the mixing stage.

Actually, I cannot imagine making trance and applying "proper" filtering on the mixing stage, when trance IS about filtered bass lines and filtered synths. No musician will be able to do just some small things and then make most of the tune at some mixing stage. Mixing tools allow you to mix, not use sophisticated filters, most of which have to be tied to the tempo or some other events in the tune. Plus, why go into such complication when all you can do is just switch from a tracker to a sequencer and have all the possibilities in one application.

I do understand that for various reasons some people find the tracker interface simply more convenient for themselves, but there is a difference between personal preference and objective list of features and possibilities. I mean, one can write a novel on a text emulator in Game Boy, but the awkwardness of controls and the whole process is obviously not as convenient as a normal notepad on computer. It is even less great than the good old pencil and paper.

Trackers were fabulously fantastic when the only alternative were midi programs, which
1. were proprietary and thus had unreasonably high prices
2. using them and not having your tunes sound like children's toy meant getting a Turtlebeach pro soundcard.
So it was all about big money. And trackers not only were available for no fee whatsoever, they allowed to use actual sounds, not some abstract notes which required a bank of instruments from a soundcard - you could use wav files, which at that time brought on many holywars between midi and tracker people. Midi people were saying that tracker guys focused too much on sound thanks to the fact that they could have sound. Midi people only had notes and were very proud of it. It was a fun time.

But most importantly, trackers had a unique community existing around them which made everything very colorful and every moment of life worthy. Being part of that community was the greatest thing in the world and it was your world and you were completely in it, because it changed everything about your life. For one, it changed the music you listened to and in teenage years that's basically most of what makes you. And when your friends were getting the latest album of Guns n Roses, you were there hunting down the latest tune by Hunz or Vibrants. And secondly - you were a musician that could produce music, not just compose it on an old piano. You went to you home studio, which consisted of a computer in your bedroom and a cheap boom box, and then came back with a tape for your friends which had a recording of actual music - with beats, with sounds, with everything one could dream of. It was indescribably cool and I remember that me and my friend could make a stir even with the crappy tunes we did back then.

But one has also to remember that tracked music always sounded specific - nothing like what you heard on radio. Thanks to its unique algorithms and ways to work with sound, there was a list of things you could and couldn't do. So the resulting music always had a special flavor to it, not always making it sound in line with top of the pops.

And then times and technologies changed. The expensive midi software which by the old business model created a large price gap between a professional and amateur user, were no longer required - lots of the so-called software sequencers started appearing, offering nice interfaces, visual ways to do things, plugins that allow to automate things like delays and which add a whole heap of effects which before were possible only using expensive hardware.

Times changed for the tracking scene as well - it started slowly falling apart. Old sceners grew up, started families and jobs and the new generation was mostly into sequencers, not really knowing what it was like to be able to see how everyone does things by simply downloading a file and opening it in your tracker, what it was to create a delay effect by hand, etc.

Of course, sweet memories stay with many. Old habits which inspired for years sometimes will not go away. Some people simply like the interface. Some people value the skill you needed to have to do simple things.

But this is a usual story. If today's composers do not have to care about things which for the previous generation required skill, it doesn't mean anything. And if we are comparing results, in my opinion trying to reason that trackers offer the same functionality and quality as sequencers is hopeless. Because they do not. At least not OMPT.

Renoise is an example of a tracker that does offer serious quality. However, with it's features it is now questionable whether it can be considered a tracker at all. Because one can look at it as a sequencer with a horizontal piano roll. But to be fair, I still think it is a tracker, cause it has a table and notes - it is still not a piano roll. (And it is also proprietary software and in FAQ they inform you straight out that you can use their software only under a nasty condition - that if you buy a license, you cannot share tracker with a friend. So I wouldn't recommend a software like that to you guys - you of course do not want software that tries to control your friendships and limit your personal freedom.)

So anyway, in conclusion I would say that trackers have many cool stuff and in their time they were the Thing and using them was progressive and very-very cool, but today sequencers are objectively better, so arguing that trackers offer better functionality is a waste of time.

What is not a waste of time, though, is using a tracker because it makes you happy, inspired and because you love the software. So my argument is limited to technical side of things only, which is not always important and heavily depends on the kind of music you do.

Thx for the attention! Lots of letters came out of me this morning =))) I really miss the tracking scene. I really do. And I still desperately love scream Tracker 3, though never in my life managed to do a decent tune with it.

[psishock]

Interesting, but not necessary right point of view Louigi.
Every tracker with VST/midi support can produce the same "quality sound" as any sequencer, it's purely the matter of VSTI or hardware attached to it. Samples are out of the question in the first place (speaking about electronic sound, not live instruments), because the system is not flexible enough to modify and make variable every single aspect of the sound, and usually that's what is modern music all about. Renoise does not have any better sounding than OMPT for instance, and why should we ever call it a sequencer? Cause it has more pre-integrated tools and nice features? Nah, its still very much a tracker, but in a nice and modern robe. It does have a perfectly designed modular GUI, some integrated VSTs stuff for general needs, bypassing unused VSTi-s feature, multicore and additional (less or more important) features that are overall making me able to work a lot faster, and that is why i'm using it. But in the end, i could do the same stuff in OMPT, but with more effort+time. You've mentioned Trance music, well can challenge any commercial sequencers or artist, and produce the same quality stuff with mere tracker.
Piano roll or tracker grid? It's all about how you've used to work. I've tested a lot of software and never loved the piano roll, because i found it hard to work with. I could (and can) work a lot faster with keyboard, do the moving, editing, writing the notes, and most of the things with one device and using the mouse usually for turning the knobs and drawing the automation envelopes. I have a midi keyboard, and most musician are using similar devices, but i still found myself using the PC keyboard because it's still faster for me to enter the notes and do the editing, etc on one device, than moving my hands all the time from one hardware to another. (it's nicer to play on it however, because it have many octaves in a row, velocity sensors and no additional keys to disorient the user).

Long story short, nowdays trackers can make the same "quality songs" like sequencers, but with different approach. Commercial (and maybe free) sequencers have a tons of integrated VST, possible better designed GUI that will make your life easier, but that doesn't means that the composer automatically can do black magic on them, what couldn't have been done with tracker.

[Louigi Verona]

but that doesn't means that the composer automatically can do black magic on them, what couldn't have been done with tracker

Never was my point. Really.

[psishock]

Ok, mayb i've missed the point and read your whole post again. (don't look at it like sharp argument, opposite, i love to hear other people's options, chat with them. I am one of those types who is almost unable to get offended)
But you've talked about (sound) quality and overall software functionality right?
I've said that the sound quality shouldn't be and issue, they can be equal. About functionality, i can work faster with Renoise than any other sequencers that i've tried, and it's very very comfortable i can tell you, don't need to do any extra work or complex workarounds or something to get what i need. 99% don't need to open extra tabs for different functions, everything is on the same GUI. As it was invented for me , the learning procedure last about 1-2 weekend days, and i've covered the most of the functions, most of them were self explaining. Other trackers are maybe not that sophisticated for nowdays work because of the lack of development, but who are willing to do a little extra work can get the same effect anyway. I'm not sure about every free sequencers, they may not be so great too, same as "our" free choices of trackers.

[Louigi Verona]

Yeah, sure, I understand what you mean completely. I am just saying that back in the days when there was no Renoise and I wanted to do trance stuff, it couldn't be done at all. Trackers simply lacked this functionality completely. What you could do were workarounds - like one shot samples with different squeaking or offset function when you would play different parts of a pad to produce varying filtering effect.

As for Renoise, I can see it is pretty sophisticated - but yet again - it is the latest generation tracker and in my speech I was referring to usual oldschool trackers, more from the perspective of history. Renoise certainly is a competitive product today - no doubt about it. If it can use vst effects properly, it means it can use filters and any effect one would want. So yeah - Renoise pretty much changed what trackers can do. I would be happy to explore it myself but the fact it is proprietary. A very nasty thing to do, it is a pity developers chose to do that. I would've loved to pay for my copy but I will not give up my freedom and relationships with friends, no.

[psishock]

A very nasty thing to do, it is a pity developers chose to do that.

Blame the monetary system, not the developers LV. Look at most of the open source trackers for instance, they are barely developing, because there is almost no interest on it. People only do something without any financial support if their time after real life work allows it.

[Louigi Verona]

psishock, it is a long argument. there are lots of other ways to fund your work - real, non-utopian methods - which do not involve asking people to betray their friends. if you want, you can go to gnu.org and read about it. or just think what would you do.

[psishock]

Alright, let's leave that aside.
You've used multiple times now the words "betraying friends". Why do you think that sharing your work on streamable media is any sort of evil? I don't feel that LP, Sam, Uncloned, Barry, Jojo, even You or any of the people here (or on the other forums) betrayed me because i couldn't check the source. If any commercial software was used, or live instruments for instance, hardware, etc that is all fine for me. To be honest, i don't even care how were things made most of the time ("regular" listeners are not for sure, and most of the composers think the same), only care about the "product". If any special part was digging my curiosity, i've always asked and got an answer, so is anyone. Also just merely seeing every source and trying to imitate them won't make you a good musician at all. It's the best that one learns to think for himself, invent his own methods. If complete examples are needed to be shown for newbie trackers, the Net is already full of tracked sources anyway, they can dig as deep as they want.

[Sam_Zen]

I like to stay on the 'sequencer' issue for another moment. A discussion which has passed more here.
To me, Rebirth or Reason are sequencers. They're built to make sequences like a drum pattern.
So they are dedicated tools. To make trance or whatever style.

Trackers like OMPT are not dedicated sequencers. One can use it for that purpose, but also for other sound-constructions.
So, for a composer of electronic music, a tracker is much more free and versatile to work with.

If I want to make an 'environment' (ambiance, not ambient), like with "The fourth Seas", it's possible.
Then the tracker is not a sequencer at all, but a, let's say, serial sound generator.

And if a piano roll means a horizontal score, like on paper, I certainly prefer the vertical scrolling pattern grid.
It's a more logical way when using a screen, and reading what happens simultaneously is easier.