
Get started making music - bbgm
https://learningmusic.ableton.com/
======
hxta98596
Anecdotal: there's a few different approaches to learning songwriting that
seem to click for beginners. The "build up" approach is the most common and is
what this link offers: It first teaches beats, then chords, then melodies and
then, in theory, vocals etc. These lessons in this order make sense to many
people, but not everyone.

If you're interested in learning to make music and the lessons in the link are
confusing or overwhelming or boring, some students find a "peel back" approach
to learning songwriting easier to grasp at first. A peel back approach just
involves finding a song then teaching by stripping away each layer: start with
stripping away vocals, then learn melodies, then chords, then finally learn
about the drum beat underneath it all. A benefit of the peel back approach to
learning is melodies and vocals are the memorable parts of a song and easiest
to pick out when listening to the radio so a student can learn using songs
they know and like. Either way, songwriting is hard and fun. Best of luck.

P.S. I think Ableton makes good software and I use it along with FL and Logic.
They did a solid job with these intro lessons. But worth mentioning, there is
free software out there (this includes Apple's Garageband) that offers key
features a beginner just learning songwriting can practice on and mess around
on before purchasing a more powerful DAW software like Ableton.

~~~
_pergosausage
What you said about learning melodies and beats and chords kind of confused
me. Do people actually learn how to make up music? I always thought it was
just some natural ability that people have. For as long I can remember if
somebody told me to write a song I would just spit it out after a while. Am I
unuiqe in this respect?

~~~
richardjdare
What I find difficult is that by the time I've got my DAW going and found some
synths I like, the tune in my head has evaporated. Do all people find musical
thoughts so insubstantial, or is it just me? If I imagine a picture or a
paragraph of text, it'll stick around and I can remember it more or less
indefinitely. I still recall snatches of crap poetry I thought up when I was a
teenager, but any music I imagine just disappears before I can get it down.

The most successful tunes I made were more or less "discovered" from
incrementally experimenting in the DAW, and not from any kind of original plan
or idea. Maybe I'm just not a musician! (I'm an indie game dev who started
making my own tunes for my games)

~~~
tetraodonpuffer
you could consciously decide NOT to use synths to lay down the bones, always
use a piano to begin with, once you have the tune idea down then you can move
onto orchestration and picking synths and so on. Always keep the piano track
as a guide and start adding tracks for all the other components until you have
what you need.

From a remembering the tune perspective, I have the same issues, but I think
it's more related to not applying musical lexicon and hearing skills the same
way: you remember poetry or a paragraph of text because you remember the ideas
and how to go from one to the other, if you are a musician and have something
in your head and start thinking along the lines of "this is using a lydian
mode, the progression is ii IV V I then it modulates to the relative minor and
switches to dorian, also the theme is going down in thirds for two bars, then
it will stay on the chord root for one and move to the dominant 7th" you are
going to remember it a lot more easily than just by remembering the melody
itself

It would be like comparing how easily you can remember poetry in English vs
poetry in, say, Russian, where you only have the "sounds of the words" in your
head to remember, but you don't have the syntax or the meanings to help you as
well.

~~~
bbgm
For me one of two ways works. Most often I start designing a patch on one of
my synths and that ends up becoming a full song. Other times I start by
noodling on the piano or organ and ending up with something I like. I suspect
the more musically gifted do the latter more often, while the more technical
ones like the process of patch creation, etc.

~~~
ssharp
I evolved this way, though I'm far from gifted. Starting out, anything I made
was driven by whatever sounds I was noodling with. Now, I almost start on the
piano, compose the outline, and then pick the sounds that I think fit it.

The first approach has a sense of creative wonder to it, where your being
guided by an outsider. As much fun as that is, it is very limiting and I
suspect most people abandon that approach as their skill improves.

------
djm_
For those wondering, this is made with Elm lang, Web Audio & Tone.js [1]

[1]
[https://twitter.com/AbletonDev/status/861580662620508160](https://twitter.com/AbletonDev/status/861580662620508160)

------
JasonSage
This is some good coverage of the music theory behind songwriting, which is
important in making songs that sound good.

However, there's another part of making music which is not covered at all
here, which is the actual engineering of sounds. Think of a sound in your head
and recreate it digitally—it'll involve sampling and synthesizing, there's
tons of filters and sound manipulation to go through, they all go by different
names and have different purposes—it's a staggering amount of arcane
knowledge.

Where is the learning material on how to do this without experimenting
endlessly or looking up everything you see? I want a reverse dictionary of
sorts, where I hear a transformation of a sound and I learn what processing it
took to get there in a DAW. This would be incredibly useful to learn from.

~~~
fb03
This is something I struggle as a weekend hobbyist musician: There is some
kind of black art involved in making music, in how to get _that_ sound you
enjoy on the music you like (which is probably the music that inspires you to
make music, at least in my case).

What I found was that as your music making experience unfolds, you start
amassing these little tricks here and there and they're only yours, usually
tied to your stack of tools and the way you think. That is extremely hard to
replicate and also very personal, imho that's why it's so difficult to
actually pass that sound-sculpting knowledge to others, and that's why
(besides the odd youtube tutorial on how to make a specific sound -- usually
targeted at a specific vst, explaining which knobs to turn), we won't find
many general sound sculpting learning material online. Even tho it is
available if you gather around from forums and etc, it is still pretty much a
personal experience.

Answering your question: As the time passed, the endless experimenting
diminished and I got a proper sense of what does what, and after 5 years
making music I'm more able to pinpoint what I need to fiddle to transform the
sound the way I want/imagine in my head.

I'm still not quite there yet but if I can offer one piece of advice, that is:
Don't shun the 'endlessly experimenting to find a sound'-thingy, because
that's the best way you can grasp the tools. Over time you'll be able to get
there faster but it's a necessity..

This is how much I evolved, without even noticing, only making tracks after
tracks:

Sep 07 / 2012
[http://codegrub.org/flipbit/musicmaking/equal02.mp3](http://codegrub.org/flipbit/musicmaking/equal02.mp3)
_cringe_

Mar 25 / 2017
[http://codegrub.org/flipbit/tracks/flipbit03%20-%20Twothousa...](http://codegrub.org/flipbit/tracks/flipbit03%20-%20Twothousandseventeen%20%28feat.%20Marcix%29.mp3)

cya o/

~~~
louthy
Picking up an analogue synth with all the knobs on the front is a good way to
get your head around sound design, and very quickly discovering what does what
(sound-wise). An oscilloscope on the output also allows you to see what is
physically happening. VSTs tend to 'get in the way' because of the interface,
but obviously you could get something like Diva and experiment in the same
way. I think reading up on the physics of oscillators, filters, envelopes etc.
can be a real help getting that picture in your mind of how to make the sound
you want as well.

I've been building up bit of an epic studio [1] over the past few years after
being in-the-box for years. And the hands on nature of real synths is so much
more intuitive that VSTs imho.

[1] [https://tinyurl.com/kzl97vl](https://tinyurl.com/kzl97vl)

~~~
fb03
> a bit of an epic studio

sir, you have already reached it: it is fucking epic, wow! Congratulations, it
must be really fun being on that room, and it must be difficult getting out of
it hehehe.

I want to get more into the hardware side of music making but being cost
efficient is paramount to getting up and running in the cheapest way possible,
specially (in my case) this is a hobby I consider myself 'just starting out'.
If I have some cash to invest in it, I go to what will give me the most return
(what will enable me to study the most). In my experience that meant DAW
Software (Renoise), MIDI KEYS (Axiom 25), interface (Yamaha AG06) and a pair
of monitors (Yamaha HS8's). Now that I've the basic kit 'sorted out' it is
time to get some hardware.

What would you suggest? I've been eyeballing a KORG MS-20 mini but I don't
know...

~~~
louthy
> Congratulations, it must be really fun being on that room, and it must be
> difficult getting out of it hehehe.

Indeed it is!

Monitoring and room acoustics are definitely the very first thing to focus on.
It was something I neglected for far too long. If you can't hear what's going
on it doesn't matter how much gear you've got.

My favourite hands-on synth is the Roland Juno 106 [1], it's so god damn
simple to use, everything is there, and so tweakable. They seem to have gone
back up in price, but I picked up a pristine version for £600 off ebay.
Obviously you need to be careful with older gear, and definitely try before
you buy to make sure the thing isn't falling apart.

For mono synths my favourite is the Moog Sub 37 [2], it's knob central and
sounds amazing, as all Moogs do. Although I was considering replacing it with
the simpler (but more classic sounding) Model D which has just been re-issued.

The best modern analogue synth I have is the DSI OB-6 [3]. Although we're
getting into the expensive end of the market here, I reckon it's a future
classic. These things will hold their value very well. It's also got all the
knobs and controls you'll need, but with slightly different filters to most
other synth manufacturers, which is good for the contrast.

The Korg MS-20 would definitely be a good place to start (I haven't got one
myself, but many friends have, and rate them highly), the fact that it has all
the knobs on the front for every component of the synth and has the patchbay
is perfect for experimentation.

You'll never regret getting an analogue synth, the sound just dwarfs what VSTs
do imho. They're _alive_ in a way that you just don't hear from VSTs.

It's also interesting how different analogue compressors and EQs sound
compared to VSTs. There's a rawness and sexiness that I have yet to achieve
in-the-box (not saying it's impossible, just I'm too lazy to spend ages trying
to achieve the sound I can get from hardware by simply switching it on).

> making but being cost efficient is paramount to getting up and running in
> the cheapest way possible

I have the Chandler Curve Bender EQ [4] which is based on the EMI Abbey Road
desk that was used to record Beatles and Pink Floyd albums. It is super
expensive (£5000+), but as soon as I heard what it could do I just needed it
in my life. I call the on/off switch on the front of it the "it's just better
switch" because as soon as I press it the sound in my studio turns 3D and
everything is good in the world. I have the plugin version of it (UAD), which
is very good, probably the best VST EQ I've heard - but it's not a patch on
the gear and doesn't invoke that emotional feeling.

The reason I'm saying this is that yeah this stuff is expensive, some of it
super expensive, but if you pick up one piece of gear a year and learn it
inside out you'll be in a great place - creating awesome sounds quicker than
you ever could before in-the-box. Most people I know with killer studios took
a decade to get there.

[1]
[http://www.vintagesynth.com/roland/juno106.php](http://www.vintagesynth.com/roland/juno106.php)

[2]
[https://www.moogmusic.com/products/phattys/sub-37](https://www.moogmusic.com/products/phattys/sub-37)

[3] [http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/dave-smith-
instruments-o...](http://www.soundonsound.com/reviews/dave-smith-instruments-
ob6)

[4]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUv9GtMlUwA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUv9GtMlUwA)

~~~
fb03
Thank you for your tips, my friend! You are totally right: go slow, pick your
gear one at a time and after some time I will have a great little home studio
to play with :-)

------
tannhaeuser
I always wondered why musicians keep up with the conventional musical notation
system, and haven't come up with something better (maybe a job for a HNer?).

I mean the conventional music notation represents tones in five lines, each
capable of holding a "note" (is that the right word?) on a line, as well as in
between lines, possibly pitched down and up, resp., by B's and sharps
(depending on the tune etc.).

Since western music has 12 half-tone steps per octave (octave = an interval
wherein the frequency is doubled, which is a logarithmic scale so compromises
have to made when tuning individual notes across octaves) this gives a basic
mismatch between the notation and eg. the conventional use of chords. A
consequence is that, for example, with treble clef, you find C' in the top but
one position _between_ lines, and thus at a very different place than C (one
octave below) visually, which is _on_ , rather than between, an additional
line below the bottom-most regular line.

I for one know that my dyslexia when it comes to musical notation (eg. not
recognizing notes fast enough to play by the sheet) has kept me from becoming
proficient on the piano (well, that, and my lazyness).

~~~
dahart
> I always wondered why musicians keep up with the conventional musical
> notation system, and haven't come up with something better (maybe a job for
> a HNer?).

You're not alone, this is a common reaction to music notation by engineers; a
lot of people have wondered the same thing, even here on HN. For example
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528144](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12528144)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12085844](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12085844)

I see some great responses, but I wanted to add that you have to keep in mind
that tons of people have actually tried to make a better system, and nobody
has succeeded. That should give you enough pause to ask why and consider the
possibility that the system we have is really good in a way that you haven't
recognized yet.

I think the problem is that difficult to learn and bad are easily confused. It
is difficult to learn.

Also keep in mind that music notation has undergone many iterations, and it
represents developments over hundreds and hundreds of years and covers every
instrument under the sun - the breadth of what it has done throughout history
and what can do might be hard to see.

~~~
BookmarkSaver
>I see some great responses, but I wanted to add that you have to keep in mind
that tons of people have actually tried to make a better system, and nobody
has succeeded. That should give you enough pause to ask why and consider the
possibility that the system we have is really good in a way that you haven't
recognized yet.

I think that this is the incorrect way of looking at it. I suspect it is less
that the traditional notation system is highly evolved and effective, and more
that getting a critical mass of musicians to
transition/relearn/teach/translate into a newer system is incredibly
difficult.

For instance, while Imperial units aren't without some advantage, they are
pretty generally inferior to the Metric system. But the US hasn't really
switched because it requires a significant level of coordination and control
that simply isn't easy to access. And getting musicians to learn and teach a
brand new, objectively better system would be much much harder.

~~~
ipqk
_For instance, while Imperial units aren 't without some advantage, they are
pretty generally inferior to the Metric system._

You say this pretty matter of factly, but I actually vehemently disagree. Many
imperial measurements are better than their metric counterparts for day-to-day
lay usage.

\- Fahrenheit is a better scale than Celsius \- Inches, Feet, & Miles are very
practical units. Centimeters, and Meters much less so. \- Pounds are smaller
and offer better delineation than Kilograms. \- Liters are pretty similar to
quarts, though I admit the various Imperial sub-units are annoying.

Sure, it's easier to convert between metric scales, but the number of times I
actually do that?: approximately zero.

~~~
laurentoget
Inches, Feet, & Miles are very practical units. Centimeters, and Meters much
less so.

Really? Do you know how much easier it is to compute surfaces and volumes in
metric systems compared to imperial? Concrete example. Figure how much soil
you need to buy to fill a box knowing L, W and H. In metric it is a 10s
process. In imperial i do not even know how you are supposed to do it. Does
anybody even know how many quart are in a cubic foot?

~~~
ipqk
No, I don't know the number of quarts in a cubic foot, but no one does because
they're two different measurements for two completely different uses.

~~~
TuringTest
No wonder that you miss the point of metric units if you don't get why doing
such transformations is useful.

In the metric system, converting between length, volume and weight is trivial
and straightforward. This comes into play neatly whenever you need to pile up
a precise amount of batter or liquid from containers measured with a different
unit.

------
exabrial
Guys if you haven't seen Sonic PI ([http://sonic-pi.net/](http://sonic-
pi.net/)), this is also a great tool! You can write beats using a Ruby DSL and
it runs them real time.

I sat down and did this in an hour: [https://github.com/exabrial/sonic-pi-
beats/blob/master/house...](https://github.com/exabrial/sonic-pi-
beats/blob/master/house_beat.rb)

Sam Aaron is the guy behind the project, he does a lot of ambient type stuff:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1m0aX9Lpts](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1m0aX9Lpts)

~~~
ivarv
I wanted to come and post this. Sonic Pi is an amazing tool with a compelling
raison d'etre that I would think resonates with the HN community. It's a
realtime code as performance tool aimed at teaching kids programming but is
also used by advanced users to create wonderful pieces of music.

------
adamnemecek
I'm actually working full time on a new DAW that should make writing music a
lot faster and easier. Current DAWs don't really understand music. Also the
note input process and experimentation is extremely time consuming and the DAW
never helps. Current DAW : my thing = Windows Notepad : IDE. The HN audience
is definitely one of my core groups.

If you are interested, sign up here
[https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-aQzVbkbGwv2BMQsvuoneOUPgyr...](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1-aQzVbkbGwv2BMQsvuoneOUPgyrc6HRl-
DjVwHZxKvo) and I'll contact you when it's released.

~~~
dri_ft
I think my idea of a perfect music program is closer to vim than an IDE, but
you're on the right track.

~~~
maze-le
Have a look at extempore, a lispy live music/notation language and
environment. Only emacs bindings, no vim, but impressive preformance
nevertheless...

[0]: [http://extempore.moso.com.au/](http://extempore.moso.com.au/)

[1]:
[https://github.com/digego/extempore](https://github.com/digego/extempore)

~~~
YorickPeterse
I played around with this a while back and there are Vim plugins for it. My
biggest problem was having to compile the thing from source which involved
also compiling a custom version of LLVM, which took forever. It's possible
this is no longer a problem.

------
jarmitage
Check out Jack Schaedler who works in this at Ableton
[https://jackschaedler.github.io/](https://jackschaedler.github.io/)

He even made an interactive essay about the GRAIL text recognizer from the
1960s [https://jackschaedler.github.io/handwriting-
recognition/](https://jackschaedler.github.io/handwriting-recognition/)

~~~
nburdy
I found the Circles, Sines and Signals to be amazing too. An awesome
introduction. [https://jackschaedler.github.io/circles-sines-
signals/](https://jackschaedler.github.io/circles-sines-signals/)

------
puranjay
I'm an amateur musician and one of the things I hate about electronic music is
how "distant" it all feels.

I'm used to picking up the guitar, playing a few chords and writing a melody.

Ableton (or any other DAW) feels like a chore. I have to boot up the computer,
connect the MIDI keyboard, the audio interface and the headphones, then wait
for Ableton to load, then create a new track and add a MIDI instrument before
I can play a single note.

I know the sessions view in Ableton was an attempt to make the music feel more
like jamming, but it doesn't really work for me. A lot of musicians who play
instruments I've talked to feel the same way.

I would love an "Ableton in a box" that feels more intuitive and immediate.

~~~
hashmal
Computers are powerful but boring as hell when it comes to creating music.
Lately physical machines have been getting popular again (drum machines,
modular systems like eurorack, etc). The computer is then used to glue
everything together (mixing and mastering)

You can do electronic music without a computer and with the immediacy of an
acoustic instrument : pick up a Volca or an Analog Rytm and you can go a long
way (some machines are quite expensive, but hey, guitars and piano are, too)

~~~
Applejinx
No reason they have to be. I recently ordered a couple 'Bastl Kastles' to use
as oscillators and LFOs (patching them into Xoxboxes and/or each other). Part
of the reason some of those old things like DINsync hardware are prized is
retro nostalgia, but the other reason is they're using primitive timing
systems that have less jitter than the more sophisticated centralized MIDI
systems. If you're using DINsync, all your instruments are playing their own
sequences and a timing tick is just keeping them aligned. If you're running
MIDI then you have to send actual note descriptions over a 31.25 Kbaud serial
bus before you can get any sounds out. If you're sequencing from a DAW (not
doing realtime processing) and daisy-chaining instruments, forget it ;)

I'm currently getting a bank of Delta Labs Effectrons together for delays: old
delta-sigma (like SACD, but potato grade) digital delays. It's possible that
popularizing this would make Effectrons trendy and pricey, like the EMS VCS3
synth is trendy and pricey… but Bastle Kastle kits are dirt cheap. There's no
reason there can't be a delta-sigma digital delay kit with the same
functionality as Effectrons and the same or better sound in relevant ways.
Tools don't have to be expensive these days.

~~~
hashmal
I only have basic knowledge about these old things, so thanks for the info.
While MIDI endured the effects of time quite well, as a developer it is a pain
in the ass. Every device (or DAW) handles things a bit differently.

------
fil_a_del_fee_a
I purchased the Ableton Push 2 a month or so ago and it has to be one of the
most beautifully engineered pieces of equipment I have ever used. Look up the
teardown video. Extremely simple, yet elegant. The Push 1 was created by Akai,
and apparently Ableton wasn't satisfied, so they designed and built their own.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItWQdJgXLs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YItWQdJgXLs)

~~~
exodust
Push 1 is still awesome and there's a ton on the second hand market for a
fraction of the price of Push 2. You get way more than you pay for at those
prices.

I'm happy with mine, I like the pads and it's fine for sequencing and playing.
It still receives updates and improvements.

I do like the screen on Push 2, it looks like a nice update, but you are
paying a lot for that screen, so you better use it!

I also own a Maschine Mikro MkII by Native Instruments, it's my go-to machine
for finger drumming beats and sonic experiments... great pads, very precise,
compact and enjoyable. The Maschine software is very good, and the add-on
sound packs are great quality.

~~~
andkon
Having tried both a ton before settling on the Push 2, the screen is great,
but that's not why I bought it. In every way it feels better to make music on
than the first Push. The pads especially are a thousand times more responsive
— the Push 1's got this weird wooden feeling that never seemed to register the
velocity I was going for.

I think the Push 2 is ~3x as much, and it is worth every penny.

~~~
fil_a_del_fee_a
I was shocked at how sensitive the pads are on the Push 2. A graceful brush of
a finger triggers the pads. I know that sensitivity can he adjusted, but wow!
I produce classic Hip-Hop / Rap music which involves sampling. The screen is
insanely helpful when it comes to chopping samples.

------
radiorental
Related, this is trending on reddit this morning. Just fascinating to watch
someone build a catchy track up on such a (apparently) basic piece of
equipment...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK5cU9qWRg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FK5cU9qWRg0)

~~~
danielskogly
It's a cool video, but not really a very basic piece of equipment.

> That's actually a $900 synth/sampler/effects processing unit called the Op-1
> by Teenage Engineering.

From this thread on /r/ArtisanVideos:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtisanVideos/comments/6a2yq4/guy_m...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtisanVideos/comments/6a2yq4/guy_making_electronic_music_with_simple_synth/)

~~~
omegote
Not to mention that OP-1 stands for overpriced-1, you can do much more with
way more affordable gear.

------
Mister_Snuggles
As someone who has no musical talent whatsoever, I'm oddly intrigued by
Ableton's products. I've occasionally stumbled across the Push[0] and been
fascinated by it as an input device.

This site is another thing to add to my Intriguing Stuff list.

[0] [https://www.ableton.com/en/push/](https://www.ableton.com/en/push/)

~~~
fiatpandas
I have a Push (v1) and it's a lot of fun. The whole idea is to pull out the
functionality from Ableton onto a tactile device, and I think it succeeds in
doing so. When I play with it, I stash my laptop to the side beecause you
don't really need to stay glued to the screen while working with it.

Beyond its utility, it's a really beautiful device.

~~~
Mister_Snuggles
Are you able to use the Push as a generic input device? Could it drive
something other than the Ableton software?

I can think of a ton of things I'd like to do where having a custom "keyboard"
would be awesome.

~~~
fiatpandas
Yes you can. There's a dedicated button that puts it into "user" mode, at
which point you can use it as a general midi input device. Every button and
encoder is mapped, including aftertouch. You can program the LCD display and
set the colors of the pads (via midi sysex messages).

I'm not sure how programmable the display is on the Push 2, as it's a
different display tech. I imagine you send it snapshots of a framebuffer
rendered on your computer.

------
ahoglund
This looks strangely similar to a collaborative app I made last year with
Elixir/Elm/WebAudio API:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCVuLh5Io9A](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCVuLh5Io9A)

------
thatwebdude
Get Started Making Music (In Ableton Live).

Love the simplicity, though it does seem to favor EMD (for obvious reasons).

I've always loved the idea of using Live in a live improvisation context,
potentially with multiple instruments having their own looping setup; or just
a solo thing. It's hard to find that sort of thing, though.

Checking out Tone.js now.

~~~
baldfat
There are a lot of bands that have been using Live for performance. Right now
Sylvan Esso is my favorite of this new instrument.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNiiAldfyM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELNiiAldfyM)

PS The song is radio and has everything right about why I have always HATED
mainstream pop radio.

~~~
eeeeeeeeeeeee
Just learned about Sylvan Esso, thanks!

------
gcoda
They put Tone.js to good use. Promoting Ableton by showing what cool stuff you
can do with free js library that can work in browser, weird?
[https://tonejs.github.io](https://tonejs.github.io)

------
pishpash
To all the people complaining, I feel you. There is not one tool that takes
you through the entire workflow of making music well, but they sell software
pretending they do support the entire workflow. In truth, you write and
arrange in specialized notation software, create samples in specialized
synthesis software, or record live audio, then you use audio workstations to
fix, edit, transform, and mix. Even there you may rely on external hardware or
software plugins. These tools aren't meant for a one-person creator. They
mimic the specializations in the music industry. A good all-in-one software
simply does not exist, and small teams trying to work on these projects are
trying to bite off a real big pie. It's very complex and requires a lot of
specialized knowledge, and many of the pieces are probably patent-encumbered,
too. But good luck!

------
calflegal
The timing of this post is funny, as just this week I launched a little ear
training game built with React an Tone.js:
[https://www.notetuning.com/](https://www.notetuning.com/)

~~~
peapicker
I first saw a link to this Ableton page from a group I'm in on facebook on
April 24, so Ableton's had this up at least since then....

------
geoffreyy
The first page of that tutorial reminded me of a product I saw at the Apple
store a few weeks ago called Roli. They have a great app [0], but the hardware
[1] itself is not ideal but unfortunately necessary to unlock some features...
I will be waiting for a v2...

[0] [https://roli.com/products/noise](https://roli.com/products/noise)

[1] [https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKFR2VC/A/roli-
lightpad-b...](https://www.apple.com/shop/product/HKFR2VC/A/roli-lightpad-
block)

------
ilamont
I was looking for an app like this for my son. He started with "My Singing
Monsters" and some music lessons at school, but when I tried to get him into
Garage Band it was too much for a beginner.

Thank you to the creator ... I will show it to him later today. I am not sure
how far he can take it, but I like what I have seen so far.

Also, if anyone has other suggestions for music-making apps for tween kids I
am all ears ...

~~~
archagon
I'm sorry for posting this several times in this thread already, but... I made
a "music painting" iPad app called Composer's Sketchpad that sounds like it
would be a good fit. It's not made for kids, but it did win a Children's
Technology Review Editor's Choice Award last year. Maybe up your alley?
There's a Lite version, too:
[http://composerssketchpad.com](http://composerssketchpad.com)

------
stevenj
I think the design of this is really interesting.

It's designed in a way to make the user (e.g. anyone who likes music) just
want to play with it in a way that's very intuitive via its simple, visual
layout. And it provides instant feedback that makes you want to continually
tinker with it to make something that you like more and more.

Web development/programming training tool makers should really take note of
this.

------
dyeje
Wow this is super high quality content. Props to Ableton. By far my favorite
DAW, but I wish they would come out with a cheaper license.

~~~
Splendor
Cheaper than the $99 Intro license?

~~~
dyeje
Intro has a limit on how many tracks you can have. Which makes it more or less
unusable for my purposes.

------
meri_dian
I can't speak for other DAW's, but Ableton was really easy for me to pick up
as a complete novice to digital music production

~~~
MichaelGG
I agree. A lot of the other UIs are insane. One of them boasts about its full
physics package to accurately render the cables connecting one "device" to
another. I thought it was so gimmicky but a lot of them do the same stuff and
people buy it so what do I know. Ableton just makes sense.

But maybe because I'm not an artist. I just like learning these tools. I will
say that with a few hundred bucks of equipment (a Launchpad and a
Kaossilator2) I've had hours of fun just "jamming".

Also for more technical fun, there are 3rd party MIDI loopback interfaces
available on Windows, so it's easy to write your own instruments. Took about
an hour to hook up an Xbox360 controller so I got a few x-y inputs. Ableton
makes it super easy to map them.

~~~
meri_dian
The Ableton hate is pretty unfounded. Most people use third party synths and
effects anyway so who cares about what the DAW comes prepackaged with.

~~~
thatswrong0
Wha? Ableton has great built-in effects and Sampler + Operator are fantastic
instruments. Some of my favorite producers use almost exclusively built-ins.
You can get really far with just a few stacked Operators + saturator + erosion
+ overdrive + multiband dynamics.

All I've felt the need for so far is a better limiter (you can't really push
Ableton's) and a multi-band distortion plugin.

~~~
thirdsun
Plus those instruments are developed by AAS [1] - a company known for their
top notch physical modeling instruments. They are very powerful indeed.

\---

[1] [https://www.applied-acoustics.com/](https://www.applied-acoustics.com/)

------
whiddershins
Ableton Live is my main daw. I use it every day, generally for hours, and for
a wide variety of purposes.

The most depressing thing about ableton is made obvious in two seconds of
messing with that tutorial. A complete disregard for music in the sense of
pushing boundaries of time, or doing things that are not tied to any sort of
grid, and the sense of music as an emotive form.

So many aspects of music are very annoying or borderline impossible to do in
ableton. Yet in all these years, and with so many installations, they just
never addressed those issues. Instead they vaguely pretend as if music that
would require features they don't have is radically experimental. Which might
become true if so many people learn music only through using their software.

Seriously, Ableton. Stop pretending making music is clicking on and off in
little boxes. It's embarrassing.

\--

Edited to take out the "art" part and put in a couple of more specific
criticisms.

~~~
drivers99
For those of us who haven't used Ableton yet, what is it missing?

Edit: fixed autocorrect typo

~~~
whiddershins
It just encourages so much grid based work that you tend to lose perspective
on the fact that most of the music made throughout all of the history of ever
wasn't actually on a grid.

I love ableton a ton. It just encourages a limited mind set.

------
hmage
I noticed many people commenting here think there's only one page.

There's more -- scroll down and click next.

------
6stringmerc
Over the years I like to think Ableton has been at the forefront of the
digital music community (at least among the pack like Korg), at a special
nexus of hardware, software, VST developers, and global sharing by way of an
incredibly robust and deep Live Suite program. Seeing the firm continue to
reach out and share community resources is habitual for them, and I'm very
pleased to see this get all sorts of attention from this community. The
intersection of Technology and Art is a bright, multi-cultural future, and
with that comes responsibility. To put it in a phrase, this is an example of
Ableton providing a ladder up to new members, rather than slamming the door
behind them once a certain level was reached. Enjoy!

------
alxdistill
Like any technology there can be lots of different inputs and outputs. I think
it is safe to say that Roland and the TR808, 909, 303 changed music notation,
and music forever, with their popularization of grid based music programming.
It may be that Ableton is doing the same with their software. Each year the
tools get better to do these sorts of creative activities. The Beatles
recorded Abbey Road on a giant 4 track expensive four track owned by a record
label. In 1995 I saved up my money from a summer job and bought a 4-track
cassette recorder for about $500. Now you can get a four track app for you
mobile phone for about $5. Or download an open source one for free.

YAY :)

------
tomduncalf
Off topic, but I posted the exact same link about 24 hours earlier:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14291332)

Not that it's important but I'm kinda curious why a. my submission would only
get 7 points and b. how it was possible for someone else to submit the same
link so soon after and gain the points rather than my submission getting
boosted?

It it just random chance/time of day of posting? Or is it because the user who
posted this had more points to start with and so was more likely to be
"noticed"?

Awesome site in any case!

------
bbreier
Myself and two friends have tried to make music production easier (and more
robust) on the phone in our spare time, and came up with our iPhone app, Tize
([https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tize-make-music-beats-
easy/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/tize-make-music-beats-
easy/id1130726632?mt=8)), to that end.

If it sounds like something you're interested in please give it a go! We're
always working to improve it and open to feedback. (Android is coming soon)

~~~
catshirt
seems like a blatant clone of iMaschine?

------
skandl
This is beautiful and amazing. I love how each step builds on the previous,
and uses pop examples to explain theory concepts. I've often wondered so many
of the things presented in this, particularly around what common
characteristics a genre has with respect to rhythm! Big kudos to the team who
built this. I'd love to learn about the development backstory, as this feels a
lot like an internal sideproject made by passionate individuals and less like
a product idea dreamed up with requirements and specs.

------
PeanutNore
I've been using Ableton Live for about a week after getting a free copy with
the USB interface I bought (Focusrite Scarlett 2i2, highly recommend) and I
had to turn to YouTube to figure out how to actually sequence MIDI drums in
it.

I use it pretty much solely for recording, but I take advantage of the MIDI
sequencer functions to program in a drum beat instead of recording to a click,
because I've found my timing and rhythm is so much better playing to drums
than it is just playing to a metronome.

------
nonsince
I did music at GCSE and A-level so I knew about a lot of the basic theory
here, but it's fallen out of use in the past year or two. The best part of
this by far was the deconstruction of tracks that I like into their components
and realising that they're not insurmountably complicated. Kinda like a
musical version of "you could have invented monads".

------
WWKong
I wanted to build something similar for mobile to make music on the go. I
started it here (abandoned now, but code is linked):
[http://buildanappwithme.blogspot.in/2016/04/lets-make-
music....](http://buildanappwithme.blogspot.in/2016/04/lets-make-music.html)

------
cosmolev
The following really helps understanding the difference between electronic
music genres.

Legendary Ishkur's Guide to Electronic Music:

[http://techno.org/electronic-music-guide/](http://techno.org/electronic-
music-guide/) (requires flash)

------
schemathings
If you want to get an interesting take on the 'Live' part of Ableton Live,
look for 'Kid Beyond Ableton' videos. He builds up tracks live on stage by
beatboxing all the instruments, and uses something called a Hothand recently
as his controller.

------
guruz
I think I've watched this video a ton of times:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-
WaElI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU5Dn-WaElI)

That guy is using Ableton Live to re-create a popular song of The Prodigy.

------
dsmithatx
Did this get voted 1023 points (so far) because, it's a great article or does
everyone love music? Btw, I use Ableton after my Pro Tools rig was stolen and,
I'm buying a new MatrixBrute. I can't wait to checkout this site.

------
clarkenheim
Similar concept using Daft Punk samples instead:
[http://readonlymemories.com/](http://readonlymemories.com/) plus some
filtering and looping capability.

~~~
iKlsR
If you like that, you'll love Madeon's Adventure Machine -
[http://www.madeon.fr/adventuremachine/](http://www.madeon.fr/adventuremachine/)

------
viach
It reminds me "Generative Music Otomata"
[http://www.earslap.com/page/otomata.html](http://www.earslap.com/page/otomata.html)

------
rubatuga
This is extremely comprehensive for any beginner/intermediate
musician/composer, and I'm really impressed at how they managed to implement
the content in a mobile friendly manner!

------
ablation
Love it. Great web app from a really good company. I use Ableton a lot and I'm
continually impressed with their software and content marketing activity.

------
tommynicholas
I used to be a professional musician and I've used a lot of real Ableton
equipment and I still found this incredibly interesting and fun.

------
moron4hire
This is really awesome. They really went the extra mile on building this out.
It even supports multi-touch screens. Very well done.

------
markhall
Wow, this is super impressive. I fell in love after adding a few chords over
drums. Amazing.

------
nialv7
It'd be nice if we can share the stuff we make in the playground with friends.

------
mayukh
Wow, this looks great. Is there an app for this? I'd love for my son to try.

~~~
sgdesign
Check out Auxy for iPhone for a really simple way to get started with
sequencers.

------
xchip
This is AWESOME! Sharing it with all my friends!

Thanks OP!

------
pugworthy
So much for being productive today...

------
octref
Yep, not using hottest framework, not a SPA, not a PWA. Just something that
loads fast and works great. Good job.

------
gowk
That's fantastic!

------
duggalr2
This is amazing!

------
2845197541
This seems like the wrong place to start. This seems like the place to start
learning a DAW and snapping together samples—to, IMO, make depersonalized
unoriginal loop music in a society awash with it because DAW's and looping
have created an angel's path to production and proliferation. Learn to drag
and drop and you can tell people you meet that you're a musician or a
producer. I've met too many mediocre people like this. There should be a
disclaimer when this page loads: learn to play an instrument first. Bringing
forth music from a physical object utilizes the body as well as the mind,
attunes to nuance, and emphasizes that music is primarily a physical
phenomenon. It's also just fun and you can jam with or perform for friends.
This cut and paste and drag and drop and sample and loop mentality popularized
by the rise of hip-hop has lead to an oversaturation of homogeneous,
uninspired, unoriginal sound in society. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I think
people should spend long, frustrated hours cutting and blistering their
fingers for the craft, at least at first. That builds character and will show
in your music as you move on.

~~~
flycaliguy
Maybe you haven't developed an ear to distinguish between the good and bad?
Walk down my college town bar scene and it's awash with dudes who have poured
years into an acoustic and it all sounds the same to me... except my buddy
Dave (who has the same feelings toward beats as you BTW and honestly I think
it's because his guitar is a social crutch...)

Personally I've found DAW style copy and pasting, along with a skeleton set of
quality effects, has provided an infinite space for learning and creation. I
would never strut around calling myself a musician, but I am a graphic artist
and the overlap between the fields is significant. In fact, I attribute my
talent for wallpaper and tiled pattern design almost entirely to my loop
making. Want to learn motion graphics? Muck about with some jazz drum loops.

I'd say there is enough overlap between beat production and all sorts of
fields to warrant a curious mind to explore this world without a silly stigma.

~~~
andyjsong
You're a musician, you're just not classically trained in traditional
instruments.

It's the same as a modern photographer who doesn't know how develop film, does
it make you less of a artist because your photos were developed on a LCD
screen. If anything, it frees you from spending time in a darkroom and instead
have more time shooting photos.

~~~
wordupmaking
Having assisted a photographer who spent weeks coming up with ideas for and
planning sometimes single photographs we traveled like 100km to take, a both
very gifted and work obsessed person, I am absolutely firm in "not being a
real photographer" even though I do have somewhat of an eye for it, if I may
say so myself. That's not to belittle what I or others do, but my way to tip
my hat. I cannot use one word to conflate all that, she paints with light, she
thinks long and hard about what she will paint and how she will do it, she
knows her palette, and doing right by what ever is going on in her head as
well as she can consumes her. I am not that way, and I doubt the people who
make most of the photos we see on the web are that way.

And yes, she could do that 100% digitally too, she uses digital if need be,
and the big frame camera stuff she scans anyway, to mangle in photoshop. She
just also spent her nights in the dark room she had built in her apartment ^^

Have you ever met someone who is passionate about dancing? The kind that kills
your knees by the time you're 30? Imagine saying to them "oh, I'm a dancer
too", just because I sometimes dance at home or at the club. In a sense, yes
I'm a "dancer", in another, heck no. And the distinction I'm looking for isn't
covered by "professional photographer" at all.

Oh, and I also feel that way about the "music" I make with trackers. I put it
in quotes not because I don't listen to it for hours on end with a grin on my
face, but because I just derp around until I like the result. I know how
seriously in contrast I take the lyrics I write, that's an entirely different
game; but the "music" really could be the way I make it or a million other
ways, I don't care too much. I'm easy to please and lazy in that regard.
Everybody has to decide that for themselves, I'm not trying to delineate
"serious art" or define "art" in general, but still, if you'd call me a
musician I'd say that feels subjectively wrong, I don't want that label, it's
a bit too big.

------
hashkb
This is not the basics of making music. It's a super advanced technique using
a computer. The real basics involve pencil, (staff) paper, and hard work.
Downvotes please.

~~~
brianpan
I have a musician friend who doesn't think drums are a musical instrument and
that drummers are not musicians. As far as I can figure it's has primarily to
do with drums not having the same concepts of pitch/melody.

I feel like this is along your line of reasoning- only certain (classical,
western) ways of doing music is _real_ music.

~~~
hashkb
There is sheet music for drummers.

------
uranian
A more appropriate title would be: Get started triggering samples.

Making music is really something different IMO.

~~~
copperx
There's space for all kinds of music, and for some, triggered samples under a
grid is considered music.

~~~
uranian
Making music (also EDM) is really, really hard. Most people that try will
fail, and Ableton knows that. They are just trying to sell their product here
which is fair enough. But 'getting started making music' is like you only need
their product, trigger some samples and you can be an artist too.

Try sit behind a drum kit for the first time, you think you can start making
music? Most aspiring drummers need to practice for years before you can play a
reasonable beat. Same with EDM, it takes many years of practice and improving
all kinds of skills. This tutorial is just showing how you can trigger samples
in a grid and how you can put this together in a DAW. For me that is not
making music, sorry.

Btw, the resulting loops in the tutorial were not made by beginners, and
listen to the result, is that music to you? Would you buy that? Another title
that would be appropriate but not sell, could be: Get started making rubbish.

~~~
mejari
> But 'getting started making music' is like you only need their product,
> trigger some samples and you can be an artist too.

I mean, is that wrong? Unless you stick to some elitist definition of artist,
why is someone who plays with these samples to create something not being an
artist?

~~~
uranian
It's not wrong, just feels misleading. For me it's like Sublime text comes
with a little tutorial with the title "Get started making apps", and only give
an intro on making a hello world program in C++, to sell their product.

~~~
mejari
I don't get the problem with that either? Being an "artist", or "making apps"
aren't hallowed titles. Are you treating it more like they're saying "You'll
be a super successful musician" or "You'll be a multi-millionaire app maker"?
Because I'm no seeing it like that.

------
_pmf_
Amazing presentation. Concentrates on the content, works on mobile[0], no
bullshit effects.

[0] within the constraints of Android's embarrassingly crappy audio subsystem

------
greggman
Am I missing something? I went through all the tutorials and AFAICT there
isn't much here. It seemed like "here's a piano. Here's some music made on the
piano. Now bang on the piano. Fun yea?"

Is there really any learning here? Did I miss it? I saw the sample songs a few
minor things like "major chords are generally considered happy and minor sad"
etc... but I didn't feel like going through this I'd actually have learned
much about music.

I'm not in anyway against EDM or beat based music. I bought Acid 1.0 through
3.0 back in the 90s which AFAIK was one of the first types of apps to do stuff
like this. My only point is I didn't feel like I was getting much learning in
order to truly use a piece of software like this. Rather it seemed like a cool
flashy page but with a low content ratio. I'm not sure what I was expecting. I
guess I'd like some guidance on which notes to actually place where and why,
not just empty grids and very vague direction.

