TubularCorporation

Check out the Malcolm Mooney period Can, my personal favorite stuff they did. B side of Monster Movie, everything on Delay 1968. First 2 Kraftwerk albums and Ralf & Florian, too. Also Brianticket. But for some reason arguably the most ahead of its time album of that era, that still sounds ahead of its time today in a lot of ways, came out of Connecticut.

A week? I did that for most of the 2000s.

I haven't used either of them myself but Reaper does also have an auto-split tool built in, and AFAIK you can automatically add markers at transients in the same "split transients" menu for one item at a time, but not all items at once. It's somethng I've always done manually to get more control, so I can't really say in detail what steps you'd use to do it automatically. Also I'd forgotten that at some point they added "all project markers" as an option for the render bounds, so my last post is actually way more complicated. To do it manually: TAB to jump to the next transient, M to drop a marker, and you're done. Once all your markers are dropped you can render all your clips. So really like 2-3 seconds per clip total, plus render time. You can also use stretch markers to do ReCycle/Ableton style warping directly in the timeline.

In reaper: -TAB to skip to the next transient -S to split the clip Export your clips to files. There are a few ways, I'd probably set it to automatically select the item under the cursor, then just put the crrsor over an item, hit CTRL+G to glue the selected item (with only one selected, gluing is reall cropping and rendering to a new file), repeat for the next item, and then use the batch converter to automatically rename, move and convert them to your target format (Reaper renders glued items at 32 bit float so you'll need to batch convert them anyhow). I think for rendering a lot of clips that would be faster than dropping markers at the transients, going back and manually creating regions between them, and then rendering all the regions as separate files. TAB, S, mouseover, CTRL+G, done. Should take 3-5 seconds per clip, plus a second or two per clip for the glue action to render and whatever time you spend listening nd fine tuning each split point as you go.

All this time I thought he used CSound for most of that stuff.

Honestly, if you aren't going to use the wah or volume part of it I'd go with the Behringer, they're perfectly decent quality and work well. EDIT: NM I misremembered, the weird EHX accelerometer-based Next Step pedals don't actually have expression output. Also they're kind of awful to use even though they're really well made and sensitive.

That's what every home studio looks like to most people.

Book 1: Tom Bombadil Book 2: wizard stuff Book 3: Mostly detailed ancestry of some of the characters in list form, otherwise not much happens. The movies are pretty true to the books and did a really good job capturing the atmosphere of tolkein's writing and illustration, except they replaced all the good parts with CGI and completely ruined all of it (except the animatronic Gandalf is cool) so don't even bother. EDIT: All jokes aside, I wasn't really a fan of the way the movies changed a sort of pseudo-mystical discipline into a technological macguffin. The Weirding module is a cool sci-fi weapon and all but you'd think a director like Peter Jackson, with his interest in TM an stuff like that, would have been more interested in epanding on Tolkein's metaphysics. Plus I feel like Wormtongue's casting ruins the immersion, maybe it's just me but I can't see him as anyone but Sting.

DOD FX-17 volume/wah can also work as a CV source. Old, but really solid and space efficient.

I IV V

If you define "best" as "most musically interesting" rather than "highest quality" then I'd say track down an old copy of Sound Forge 4.0 or 4.5. Not real-time, but you can get Paulstretch amounts of timestretch with a 90s Akai sampler type of sound if you tweak the parameters a little I definitely got a lot of mileage out of the LEGITIMATE BACKUP COPY I downloaded in high school, mostly stretching things like individual drum hits out to 5 or 6 minutes long and building entire tracks around the result. Very granular, late 90s 90s timestretch with clean, obvious grains and none of the more phasey artifacts you hear when you push newer/better timestretch algorithms. It's easier to find now than it was when it was current, too, and I can confirm that it installs and runs fine in Windows 10 x64, even though it's over 20 years old (EDIT: except the help files, but there are workarounds for that).

Sometimes if I'm in a rut I try to "work in a genre"nbut don't worry too much about actually sounding like that genre, I just limit myself to techniques that are associated with it. For me it works better if it's a genre that I'm either not that familiar with, or even one I actively dislike. I don't worry about actually sounding like that genre, but I limit myself pretty strictly to only using production techniques that would be appropriate for it. Maybe do something extreme like trying to make an album entirely with software released before the year 2000, or only using a stereo, destructive audio editor like Goldwave or Samplewrench, with no plugins or mixer or anything. I've been working on a project like that to break myself out of the rut that multitracking everyhting for the past few years put me in, and it has worked really well for that so far (regardless of the quality of the actual music). Plus, it still sounds like me even though it uses mostly different techniques and equipment, and has completely different goals and reference points, than anything else I've done. Making yourself do things you wouldn't normally choose to do and then discovering that the end result is still your music is definitely educational. Also, if you're anything like me you don't REALLY know how something you did sounds until you let it sit for a couple of years and then come abck to it after you don't remember how or why you made it sound the way it does.

No matter what you do, the music (or whatever else) you make will reflect the external and internal circumstances under which it was created. Developing a "sound" happens organically whether you try to or not (and if you try, the "sound" you end up with probably won't be the "sound" you were trying for - unless you're very unlucky, at any rate).

Everything Sonicware that I've tried has been really good.

This is a Blue Oyster Cult fan site, right?

At least it's only like 6 people.

So the most highly regarded vaporwave releases are all around a decade (or more) old, and we're getting close to the 10 year anniversary of when it really BROKE (such as it did). Just afew more years until it's officially "retro."

Does anyone else remember when Neo, 100% the actual Neo because the Matrix is totally real, started a Geocities site back in the early 2000s? Amazing coincidence, I had some friends over to play music last night but we ended up spending half the time watching scenes from UHF instead.

I'm disappointed that what I thought was a huge, novelty wine bottle is just forced perspective, though

I found this while I was collecting reference photos for building some replica 1960s AR speaker stands, and I really needed to share. It's in Florida, in case it wasn't obvious. https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/how-big-is-your-sweet-spot.795540/#post-20221619 My dude here really likes his Pepsi!

On the other hand, a pedantic, literal reading of "IDM" could include, I don't know, Spike Jones. He seemed pretty clever.

There's also an argument that since most of it is done with computers now (even with hardware getting popular recently) it's not even electronic music (unless all recorded music is electronic by merit of the recording and playback devices being electronic). I don't actually believe this/care, but I could absolutely make a good case just for the sake of being annoying. Not before breakfast, though.