On Mon, 04 Jul, 2005 at 11:35AM +0200, Thorsten Wilms spake thus: > On Mon, Jul 04, 2005 at 09:02:38AM +0100, james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > I've never been able to work like that. I know that's the way it > > should be done, with steps and definable phases, but I just have to do > > everything at once. > > Who says it should be done with steps and definable phases? > A methodology is a tool, not a dogma. We industrial design students > are taught that a project starts with a briefing, followed by > reserach, conception, design, visualization/modeling/simulation ... > But often you will have to rethink the briefing after the research or > do additional research based on your conception. > There's rarely a clear line between conception and design. And when > the outcome after a step doesn't meet the expectations, you might have > to iterate through the whole process. > > With music, composition, arrangement and production can be clear steps > or it can all be one more or less chaotic process. Whatever works. > > Sounds you choose while you're playing to find a nice harmony or > melody will influence the outcome. > > A drum pattern's feel/groove depends much on the sounds, so creating > /editing it and choosing/tweaking sounds got to be interconnected. > > When more of the final piece is in place, you might need to readjust > some details. I agree totally. I didn't mean that there was a rule about following the phases, just that that's always how it's presented, and rarely how it works for me. > > To avoid getting lost in details upfront, one can create a draft > version first, without caring for exact levels, optimal patch > selection/tweaked sounds, effects for the most part. This is where I find it difficult. It's all or nothing for me. > > Thorsten Wilms > -- "I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." (By Vance Petree, Virginia Power)
