Full control in music

[ApocalypsePresents]

Full control to me is being able to take my song in my head and make it a reality. The problem is getting the sounds you want to use that would fit your thought perfectly. If you have the money to invest into making that happen you will get popular for sure unless you just completely suck. You still might even get heard then. LoL

[Troisnyx]

And if that doesn't happen, you try to make the best out of the little you have.

I can safely say, and @PeterSatera can witness to this, that this WIP and Reject Reel was made with a falling-apart computer with a broken screen hinge, low RAM and low processing power, full FL Studio which was gifted to me, and nothing but soundfonts and FL presets.

The mixing isn't the best, but how do you fight to be heard when you don't have the sounds for it? You fight anyway. You learn the tricks of the trade, how to produce well. I can safely say there's been a marked difference between stuff I did in 2011, and stuff I did this year, for instance.

[Phonometrologist]

I have an issue similar to this but concerning more of the composition aspect of it. I’ve had lucid dreams where I was able to play or hear an original piece of music, but while I wake, the only thing remaining was how I felt upon hearing it. As soon as I try to write it down, it leaves me, or the notes that I grasped turn out to be disappointing. The problem comes in the interpretation of the music we hear. One gets better at it over time as others can attest to.
There’s another post concerning what to do when you can’t think of a melody, and I think that it is all tied together to that curious statement you made:

At 2/7/14 04:11 AM, ApocalypsePresents wrote: Full control to me is being able to take my song in my head and make it a reality.

I think it’s important first to establish what it means to create the music in your head a reality.
My philosophy leans toward the philosophy of this composer. I’ve came to know it before to be the case for me that the source of music is outside of myself, but when I heard him say it, I was delighted in the picture of how he explained it:

“Where does music come from? My experience with music is that it’s like an underground river that’s always there. And like an underground river you don’t know where it comes from and you don’t know where it’s going. The only difference is whether you’re listening to it or not.” -Philip Glass

Now, to be more practical in my response, all the money in the world isn’t going to get us the sound we hear in our heads.
Let’s say for example, you have a full orchestra or heavy metal band on your finger tips waiting for you to tell them what to play. How would you communicate to them the music that you would like them to play that you attempted to interpret yourself in the first place? If you can figure that out, then you will realize that having these musicians creates no sense of obligation in music to sound “great.” Or let’s say you have all the plug-ins or the libraries in the world on your computer, you can only be as good as how you know how to use them and when to use them. You didn’t use the word “great” in music, but rather to get popular. Well, I suppose popularity can be achieved by having lots of money, because popularity doesn’t equal to quality and that knowing how to market is separate from creating great music. Those are two separate discussions, and I would advise worrying about the former first rather the latter regardless if many were able to hear it or not. There will be two types of musicians, those that love music, and those that put more value in money and fame. Which would you choose to be?
That being said, to heed Triosnyx’s advice would be the thing to do.

[deadbea7]

At 2/7/14 04:24 AM, Troisnyx wrote: And if that doesn't happen, you try to make the best out of the little you have.

^this.

you've got to make the best with what you got. if you master the tools you are given, you'll make some good shit.