On Tue, 2016-12-27 at 17:15 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:29:08 +, David Sumbler wrote:
> >
> > I don't really see how an "artificial" pulse can sound more natural
> > than a human one
> In the context of using a sequencer with beats and bars, it sounds
> more
> natural,
On Tue, 27 Dec 2016 15:29:08 +, David Sumbler wrote:
>I don't really see how an "artificial" pulse can sound more natural
>than a human one
In the context of using a sequencer with beats and bars, it sounds more
natural, since it's nearly impossible to fit pulse played music into
the
On Mon, 2016-12-26 at 12:32 +, Pietro Bergamo wrote:
> Hi.
> In my (not so big) experience, "fluid" tempos and pulses are really
> hard to sync, as Ralf said.
> I recorded recently a song with many tempo/measure changes and I
> couldn't find any way to make organically. In the end, I kind of
On Mon, 26 Dec 2016 12:32:01 + (UTC), Pietro Bergamo wrote:
>An "artificial" tempo is, for me, always easier to predict, making the
>recording more precise and demanding less editing. In the end, I think
>it sounds more natural this way.
Full acknowledgement. The OP could either record
Hi.In my (not so big) experience, "fluid" tempos and pulses are really hard to
sync, as Ralf said.
I recorded recently a song with many tempo/measure changes and I couldn't find
any way to make organically. In the end, I kind of cheated. On a rallentando,
for instance, I split the measures in
Hi,
you need a sequencer that records a tempo map following you tapping a
key. This automatically would set the tempo, BPM in relation to the time
code position. This works very well to sync a sequencer to "averaged
normal music" played by real musicians. After or before doing this you
still need
This may well be a completely daft question, but if so, please tell me
nicely.
I want to record a track (using a midi keyboard and qtractor, probably)
as a control track for performing subsequent tracks. So this first
track would perhaps simply be a wood-block or cow bell voice marking
the beats
