Computer software as (programmed) instrument?

I would like to make some artist‐recording (sound)tracker relationships.

(Sound)trackers are like sampler+sequencer software that you program then it plays your music, like Mario Paint (if you like it, you can use the fun mariopants on PC) or like orgue de barbarie.

Wikipedia calls them Music Trackers or just Trackers but in my small world we called it a soundtracker but we would also occasionally use the word tracker in conversations (faster word).

I have used some of them in the past, they all had cool names like ProTracker and Audio Sculpture on Atari ST, then on PC, MultiTracker Module Editor (MMEDIT), Scream Tracker 3 and eventually Impulse Tracker 2.

Shall we create a new instrument called Software?
With a sub instrument called Tracker?
Then I would use credited as to mention the actual software name.
☞ ARTIST programmed TRACKER (credited as IMPULSE TRACKER 2) in 1997 on RECORDING.


In the meantime, I have used the Electronic instrument, credited as software name.


hmm! I generally am not *​​against​​﹡this idea. I like the notion of giving “programmed” its own “tree” of “instruments”, then we could include in it; synthesisers, computers, trackers, gizmos, other vocoders, etc.
It would solve both and the problem inherent with (see the comments)

Sadly it, and any extended “gears” type such is also dependant (at-least in part) by

My idea is to have one tree, but each instrument can have any or all of 4 attributes (ticket box): “instrument”, “vocal”, “gear” and this: “programmable”. Then, in the edit-relationship search for attaching vocals/instruments etc, to the “artist performed [instrument]” relation, the instrument would only show up at the appropriate places:
say “Electric guitar” has “instrument”, it wouldn’t show up in the “vocal” relationship search, but vocoder would have “vocal” and “programmable” and thus would show up in both, “Computer” would only have “programmable” but “soprano” would only have vocal, various synths would have “instrument” and “programmable” while a dampener could probably have “programmable” and “gear”… and so on.

1 Like

The problem (IMO) with programming is…
Are you programming an instrument, or are you programming as an instrument.

For example…

  • Keyboard programming is programming that is an extension of an instrument.
    No keyboard, no programming.
  • But programming, in the case of a computer musician, is the instrument itself.
    No programming, no music.
1 Like

I don’t understand what you mean…
Sorry, it seems recently I’m little bit dumb… :thinking:

Programming the computer software I’m asking is like, I think, programming a Roland / Korg / etc. keyboards / drum machines sort of.

Not playing any instrument indeed, rather writing the music directly (through computer keyboard or MIDI instruments), note by note, saving it to a file, so the software will then replay it, no direct playing of any instruments.