A sort of general/personal observation: As somebody who has come to what we might call 'generative' techniques for music making from a more traditional approach that entails writing down or reading notes on a manuscript and playing them on a mechanical (rather than digital) instrument - and let's just say traditional piano pedagogy qualifies as an example of the latter - it seems to me that it's perfectly fine and useful to wrap one's mind around the possibility that these two approaches are not "either/or" nor competitive. What I mean by this, is that, let's say I emulate Andrew's latest video by setting up Riffer in AUM to play a randomizing sequence of quarter notes in D minor, and then I set up the AUM MIDI routing to send that information to Chordjammer to generate randomized chord sequences (in D minor again, of course) and then send all of that to a virtual instrument, maybe Lekko on my Ableton instance. Well, the traditional music theory nerd voice in my head might otherwise want to say "Well, wait a minute, you're not actually composing anything, you're outsourcing that to iOS". But I think I've more recently resolved that argument in my head, with the more tech savvy persona saying in response "Who cares if I didn't write the sequence down on a manuscript pad, the chord progressions are logical, they're pleasing to the ear and don't violate any rules of harmony, and besides, I would be fooling myself to think that I can spontaneously generate all possible voicings in real time by simply sitting down at a piano to do it manually". I still do some composing the "old fashioned way", but by starting to leverage the wonderful tools like the ones Andrew demonstrates, I feel like I'm really broadening my horizons quite a bit, both as a musician and a composer. Plus, no reason I can think of why the two approaches couldn't possibly be combined - one part generative and another part through-composed. I don't know if such thoughts have ever occurred to others in the same boat.
I love this way of thinking you’ve arrived at, and I have to say that as someone coming from a moderately fluent background in “traditional” western music performance and composing (my earliest musical forays were as a trombonist in school honor bands), my journey to less...structured? Rules-based?...ways of music-making feels so much more rewarding than I expected. I was never truly exceptional at music theory, but I do appreciate the knowledge it gave me to at least understand the general basis of what’s happening when I choose to augment my playing with technology (or rely on it entirely).
I did go through a bout of serious imposter syndrome to arrive at this point. But these days I just don’t worry about trying to justify myself any more. There are so many ways to make music now that it’s just not worth the time and self-doubt. I am so much more interested in the textures, raw sounds, and sound design involved in creating a piece that I hardly think of proper music terminology and structure anymore, unless I’m forced to describe what I’m doing to a collaborator or band mate so they can follow along.
I like that. And the other thing I think, in terms of the whole "tradition vs. technology" dichotomy, is that the sounds that can be realized from digital tools and workflows just cannot be replicated by traditional approaches. And these sounds and textures take me to places, as a listener, that are very different from what was possible in the past. A more personal and introspective and abstract place, which I really like.
As usual: Mind....blown! Andrew, I cannot thank and applaud you enough for these tutorials; they are massively valuable, and though there are Youtubers aplenty cranking out boatloads of 'apps videos', IMHO none of them comes close to matching your presentations in terms of professionalism, detail, and practical usefulness. Your format of starting with a masterful performance (that's worth listening and watching to in its own right), followed by a blow-by-blow explanation of all the tools you're using and why, is just such a revelation for me. Thanks so much for this!
Here's an idea/suggestion: You seem to have a special mastery with Samplr and half the time I don't totally understand your moves with it. If you happened to be inclined to considering a Samplr tutorial as a topic for a future posting here, I for one would be massively grateful.
Thanks so much, Frank. I really appreciate the kind words and the support. I'm so glad you're enjoying all of it - hearing that makes the time and effort worth it!
RE: Samplr, that's a great idea. I'd love to devote some time and space to it in a future writeup.
This is a wonderful and generous sharing, thank you Andrew.
Thanks as always for reading and supporting, Ando!
You're most welcome Andrew. I appreciate the content and music that you share.
So much to dive into here Andrew, thanks so much for sharing!
Cheers Chris. Thanks for reading and supporting!
Brilliant breakdown! There are many apps here that I’m a huge fan of, AUM being one of the stars.
Thanks nick! So glad you enjoyed it. The iPad ecosystem is really incredible. Could’ve written a book about all the great apps out there.
I think that’s a great idea, we could do with a guide but I tend to follow Gavinskis Tutorials and good old Sound Test Room amongst many.
A sort of general/personal observation: As somebody who has come to what we might call 'generative' techniques for music making from a more traditional approach that entails writing down or reading notes on a manuscript and playing them on a mechanical (rather than digital) instrument - and let's just say traditional piano pedagogy qualifies as an example of the latter - it seems to me that it's perfectly fine and useful to wrap one's mind around the possibility that these two approaches are not "either/or" nor competitive. What I mean by this, is that, let's say I emulate Andrew's latest video by setting up Riffer in AUM to play a randomizing sequence of quarter notes in D minor, and then I set up the AUM MIDI routing to send that information to Chordjammer to generate randomized chord sequences (in D minor again, of course) and then send all of that to a virtual instrument, maybe Lekko on my Ableton instance. Well, the traditional music theory nerd voice in my head might otherwise want to say "Well, wait a minute, you're not actually composing anything, you're outsourcing that to iOS". But I think I've more recently resolved that argument in my head, with the more tech savvy persona saying in response "Who cares if I didn't write the sequence down on a manuscript pad, the chord progressions are logical, they're pleasing to the ear and don't violate any rules of harmony, and besides, I would be fooling myself to think that I can spontaneously generate all possible voicings in real time by simply sitting down at a piano to do it manually". I still do some composing the "old fashioned way", but by starting to leverage the wonderful tools like the ones Andrew demonstrates, I feel like I'm really broadening my horizons quite a bit, both as a musician and a composer. Plus, no reason I can think of why the two approaches couldn't possibly be combined - one part generative and another part through-composed. I don't know if such thoughts have ever occurred to others in the same boat.
I love this way of thinking you’ve arrived at, and I have to say that as someone coming from a moderately fluent background in “traditional” western music performance and composing (my earliest musical forays were as a trombonist in school honor bands), my journey to less...structured? Rules-based?...ways of music-making feels so much more rewarding than I expected. I was never truly exceptional at music theory, but I do appreciate the knowledge it gave me to at least understand the general basis of what’s happening when I choose to augment my playing with technology (or rely on it entirely).
I did go through a bout of serious imposter syndrome to arrive at this point. But these days I just don’t worry about trying to justify myself any more. There are so many ways to make music now that it’s just not worth the time and self-doubt. I am so much more interested in the textures, raw sounds, and sound design involved in creating a piece that I hardly think of proper music terminology and structure anymore, unless I’m forced to describe what I’m doing to a collaborator or band mate so they can follow along.
I like that. And the other thing I think, in terms of the whole "tradition vs. technology" dichotomy, is that the sounds that can be realized from digital tools and workflows just cannot be replicated by traditional approaches. And these sounds and textures take me to places, as a listener, that are very different from what was possible in the past. A more personal and introspective and abstract place, which I really like.
That was excellent - thank you!
Thank you, Lars! I deeply appreciate your subscription and support, as well!
-Andrew
As usual: Mind....blown! Andrew, I cannot thank and applaud you enough for these tutorials; they are massively valuable, and though there are Youtubers aplenty cranking out boatloads of 'apps videos', IMHO none of them comes close to matching your presentations in terms of professionalism, detail, and practical usefulness. Your format of starting with a masterful performance (that's worth listening and watching to in its own right), followed by a blow-by-blow explanation of all the tools you're using and why, is just such a revelation for me. Thanks so much for this!
Here's an idea/suggestion: You seem to have a special mastery with Samplr and half the time I don't totally understand your moves with it. If you happened to be inclined to considering a Samplr tutorial as a topic for a future posting here, I for one would be massively grateful.
Cheers
Frank Paul
Thanks so much, Frank. I really appreciate the kind words and the support. I'm so glad you're enjoying all of it - hearing that makes the time and effort worth it!
RE: Samplr, that's a great idea. I'd love to devote some time and space to it in a future writeup.
Cheers!
-AT