Modplug mentioned in Computer Music Magazine

[maleek]

The last September issue, with Guru CM bundled. It is a column more or less, but still worthwhile as it is not purely historical: but also mentions Open MPT and the continous development by the folks over here.

I cannot help but to think that it is a bit exiting.

[Saga Musix]

Yes, one of their writers (known as Rhino in the scene) is actually an avid tracker user. Be sure to also get the October special on freeware audio software, as it will be quite a cool issue, I can already tell you that...

[maleek]

I'll do that. They do have their returning tracker column, I'm glad it's just not all Renoise these days too.  :wink:

[psishock]

Renoise is not a "pain tracker", it has evolved from that some time ago. It almost become a fully features professional modern DAW now.

OMPT is the (only) one that tries to embrace all the legacy formats and be a software that plays and edit them accurately, without glitches and bugs.

That is why Renoise and OMPT is not directly comparable, and each of them has its place on the net.

[Saga Musix]

Renoise is not a "pain tracker", it has evolved from that some time ago. It almost did become a fully features professional modern DAW now.

No matter how you see it, it doesn't justify just mentioning Renoise over and over again and nothing else.

[psishock]

It does, let me explain. First, as i've said, they both have their place.

Mentioning Renoise over and over perhaps means that people are globally looking for modern and easier (sequencer like) solutions in music making, like FL studio and Ableton Live (which are hugely more popular anyway, than any tracker based solutions), than the limited legacy (we can say un-evolving) technology.

Renoise drops the compatibility and legacy support, but keeps the tracker like interface, composing flow, and have all the modern features that the new musicians would demand and find appealing. It can easily be interesting to the new people who are looking for different composing logic, and to the old, tracker loving ones also, who dont want to use sequencers, but demand modern, constantly evolving features.

You must understand that OMPT doesnt really evolve, and it have different, mostly legacy compatibility based development logic, so it will have a fairly limited based of users and attention.

[Saga Musix]

I wouldn't say that the legacy compatiblity is the reason for OMPT stalled evolution, though. Pattern automation and tuning are just two recent examples that this is not the case. It's rather lack of resources and developers that don't permit us to go further.

[psishock]

Yea, i know about the whole story (been in touch with several trackers for many years now, as you most likely know )

I think we can say first of all, that piracy and commercial programs "killed" OMPT. People who are looking for music making programs can totally easy pirate any kind of desired ones, even the very complex, high cost ones. This way they dont really care about the free, open source ones, nor demand them. On the other hand, the open source developers dont really care about joining to these projects, cause of the strongly limited interest of user base.

A vicious circle.

The second nail was the rapid hardware development. Processing power increased hugely in the past years, so people could use "proper" sequencers for their music hobby, and forget the geeky, hexadecimal and text code based tracker systems, that were basically designed to outcome the very limited hardware with crafty sampling technology. It looks more like "programming", than music composing to non geeky people, so newcomers will naturally look for sequencers, that are basically the "emulation" of real life electronic music hardwares. You just couldnt use software synthesizers and software sequencers on amiga/c64/early pc devices, so the tracking was a lifesaving solution to bedroom composers and musicians, but nowdaws a lot has changed, on software and hardware field also.

[Dictator]

I have to say I don't know that much about the composing/music publishing scene, but I'd like to add a viewpoint to the "trackers vs. professional sequencers" and "OMPT vs. Renoise/Live/FL/whatever" discussions here.

psishock estimates that most people looking for music making software will either buy (those who can afford it) or pirate it. I have to say, though, that if I were to publish music, I wouldn't use pirated software for making the music. This is not only a principle, but also an act of caution. Most of the time, you won't get caught if you pirate and use software personally, but if you use it in public, i.e. publish music using it, you are putting yourself in a greater danger of being caught for copyright infringement.

I would think there were other music hobbyists with this principle in addition to me, but as I said, I'm not acquaintanced with the circles. Nor am I sure if public use of pirated software puts one in any risk, since no one will know whether you bought the software or not.

Now, let me elaborate the situation from the viewpoint of a hobbyist musician with little income (student, for example). I don't want to pay for 300+ euro software (including Live and other industry-standard professional sequencers). That leaves me, from the sequencer side, with the free and open-source LMMS (Linux MultiMedia Studio). The thing that blocks me from using it is the lack of complete VST support. Yes, it exists, but for example I cannot automate the VSTi parameters with the automation track feature. I can only do so with the built-in plugins.

On the tracker side, there's Renoise, which is not free, not as in freedom and not as in beer (that is, it is not open source and costs 58 euros). The price, while not unreasonable, rules it out, because of a) the principle of using only free software and b) the financial situation of the student.

This leaves me, surprise surprise, with OMPT and various (semi)freeware midi sequencers. The latter are mostly useless for me since they lack VST and sample support. So, I'm left with OMPT, which is:
- free as in freedom (open source, no nag screens etc.)
- free as in beer (I don't have to pay for it)
- has sample AND VST(i) support WITH automation and with built-in plugin chaining

It's not perfect but it is still great and the only reasonable alternative for people in my situation. Thank you, developers!

EDIT: removed a useless disclaimer.

[Saga Musix]

I would think there were other music hobbyists with this principle in addition to me, but as I said, I'm not acquaintanced with the circles. Nor am I sure if public use of pirated software puts one in any risk, since no one will know whether you bought the software or not.

I've heard (no sources here, but they might be easy to find) that Steinberg does visit studios and check if they use genuine Steinberg software.

[psishock]

Sure, i wasn't talking about "professional" composers, because they could most likely buy, more or less any desired DAWs for their needs with ease. To this group of people, OMPT will most likely fall out of interest, because they tend to cooperate with other people and technicians in the in the field, so they need features and perfect compatibility with modern technology. They most likely wouldn't risk their good name, carrier and similar given stuffs, to a small necessity, as a price of the sequencer/tracker.

We're talking about the bedroom producers, hobbyist and potential upcoming musicians, who are just about to learn their first steps with music and related programs. They wont get chased or threatened by any specific corporation, basically they "don't matter" nor have any worth to them. Dont get mistaken, for example pirate (assuming with very high probability) FL studio users, who label their music "MY FIRST SONG!!" and put a few tunes to youtube are really safe from any attack or identity check. So these hobbyist people can use an "endless wide pool" of music programs, practice and learn them, and get away with it easily, without the fear of any attention or trouble from the authority. These people will naturally look for the most suitable, most appealing (and usually most popular, 'cause of the amount of tutorials and helpful cooperating user base) programs for themselves. So OMPT somewhat falls out of the interest for them also, because it mainly serves a certain task(s) with the overall interface and legacy based features, and does not try to appeal to "general public". The usual habit is, if a person starts to use and like a program, will stay with it for a quite long time. So there are better chance to see a person saving up from his income to buy the loved and experienced software if planning to go out to public with his works, than learning a completely new one, possibly much more limited, but totally free one.

Its kinda the same logic as Microsoft have with Windows. His not "forcing people that much" to use original Win, and with it potentially chasing a large number of user base to other (free) operating systems if they cant afford commercial ones, but letting them get away with pirated versions, having in mind, that when they'll start to work or look for incomes (when people start to have "value"), they will most likely demand habitual windows based applications and systems too.

[Saga Musix]

We're talking about the bedroom producers, hobbyist and potential upcoming musicians, who are just about to learn their first steps with music and related programs. They wont get chased or threatened by any specific corporation, basically they "don't matter" nor have any worth to them.

I would actually say that it's the contrary, simply because there are far more bedroom musicians than famous musicians out there. Especially programs like FL Studio long for for more bedroom producers.

Its kinda the same logic as Microsoft have with Windows.

Though Microsoft doesn't even copyprotect their software properly, unlike today's DAW producers which invent a new crazy dongle protection with every new version of their products. That comparison fails.

[psishock]

I would actually say that it's the contrary, simply because there are far more bedroom musicians than famous musicians out there. Especially programs like FL Studio long for for more bedroom producers.

O that is totally true, there are naturally much much more bedroom producers than pros. Usually if a person can afford a producing program will naturally buy it, and with (semi?) pro softwares like the mentioned FL studio and Renoise for instance, the pricing is really focused to that particular user base. I am telling that the users, who cannot afford to spend any dollar to these, will get a pirated versions of the famous programs with much higher probability, than look for open source free (and less sophisticated) ones.

Though Microsoft doesn't even copyprotect their software properly, unlike today's DAW producers which invent a new crazy dongle protection with every new version of their products. That comparison fails.

well Microsoft does protects it, but it gets cracked quite fast anyway, because of the huuuuge global interest. Anyway, you can find a fully cracked and easily downloadable music softwares of any kind on the net (perhaps mayb not from all, but from popular ones for sure), no matter how tricky protection systems may they apply. If a pirate is looking for a software, he will find it.

[Rakib]

Looks like CM is really promoting trackers. Here is some links to articles about psycle.

https://sites.google.com/site/musicrhino/psycle_column_cm154.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/musicrhino/psycle_tutorial_cm148.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/musicrhino/psycle_tutorial_cm149.jpg
https://sites.google.com/site/musicrhino/psycle_tutorial_cm150.jpg

[Louigi Verona]

but if you use it in public, i.e. publish music using it, you are putting yourself in a greater danger of being caught for copyright infringement

I think this is fear far from truth. even if you are a popular musician, I doubt you are obliged to say what software you are using. how will this be found out?
and if you are not paul mccartney, I doubt anyone will care.