# ...wanna know why computer recording software is such a mystery?



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...it finally hit me why digital recording software, from cubase, to reason to logic to nuendo and beyond is so phenomenally complex.

it has to be!

because, if it wasn't, users could easily go from manufacturer to manufacturer, from software program to software program, before deciding which one they want to commit to!
garageband has shown that it can be made dead simple.
you open up the program and, voila, everything is right there in front of you.
but, of course, there's a catch - garageband is severely limited.
most "pro" software comes with instruction manuals that are hundreds of pages thick.
because, once you have completely lost your mind trying to navigate a learning curve that would stump most rocket scientists and brain surgeons, it is highly unlikely that you will be willing to go through that again simply to check someone else's software.


----------



## greco (Jul 15, 2007)

David...Are "we" not *enjoying* "our" recording software recently?

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

The only one I've found that operates as easily as my dearly departed late '70s 4 track Akai 10" reel-to-reel is Audacity, and it doesn't sound near as good. Really.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

I find Reaper intuitive to use. But that's just me, I've been working on computers for 36 years. One thing I do with it is to create templates of what I want to record, like if I wanted to use 10 inputs, I have a template for that, which mic goes to what channel, etc... Or sometimes just 2 tracks for my stereo mic which I use as an overhead for recording rehearsals. I have tons of tracks by doing this. I used to use Cool Edit Pro and was very comfortable with it, but have since moved into Reaper as it is more powerful and better. You just need to have someone who is familiar with it, to show the basic things you can do with it. I don't mess around with mixing or adding effects. All I do is track. If I want something released, I'll bring it to a mixing engineer and send it for mastering some place.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i got into computer recording almost exactly one year ago.

since then, the time i would normally spend recording, writing, arranging, playing and singing has been spent bashing my head against the wall created by this industry.

but the news is not all bad. 

i'm smoking again, and i now start drinking earlier in the day.

and, i now know why...


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Chito said:


> I find Reaper intuitive to use. But that's just me, I've been working on computers for 36 years. One thing I do with it is to create templates of what I want to record, like if I wanted to use 10 inputs, I have a template for that, which mic goes to what channel, etc... Or sometimes just 2 tracks for my stereo mic which I use as an overhead for recording rehearsals. I have tons of tracks by doing this. I used to use Cool Edit Pro and was very comfortable with it, but have since moved into Reaper as it is more powerful and better. You just need to have someone who is familiar with it, to show the basic things you can do with it. I don't mess around with mixing or adding effects. All I do is track. If I want something released, I'll bring it to a mixing engineer and send it for mastering some place.


...same here. all i want to do is track.

and i'm also at that point where i'm trying to create templates, as you describe, for different types of projects, from sitting down with an acoustic guitars and vocal mic, to full on productions, or recording live-off-the-floor with a full band.

i'd been using garageband, but my recording engineer uses cubase, and since he doesn't charge me, i'm obligated to at least not make the process more difficult than necessary.

when i send him files, he has to spend precious time converting them from garageband to cubase.

plus he likes to record at a higher resolution than is possible with garageband.

does anyone remember when recording was as simple as plugging in mics, setting levels and hitting the red button?


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2012)

David, a few years ago the guys at Propellerhead thought up Record as an answer to that "computer recording is too damn complicated!" complaint.

Have you looked at it? See: Record - Audio Recording, Mixing and Music Production Software for Musicians - Propellerhead

I think it's all part of the Reason production suite now, which is also pretty easy to use and mimics real-world interfaces where you drag cables around and stuff to connect things up.


----------



## Guest (Sep 15, 2012)

The sales video was entertaining.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

Personally, I've watched as everyone and their brother tells everyone how good their recording software is. Deep down, I know it cannot possibly be as good as Cakewalk/Sonar which has been around for as long as I can remember, but I keep silent. If you keep searching for the easy way, you will never find it. Buy the best, learn how to use it and at least you will not have to learn how to use all of these so called easy programs over and over. Sonar is not easy but once you have learned it, your good to go. It even supports surround sound and video editing. Why would you go anywhere else. This is of course, is my opinion. I wish you the best with your recording software of choice.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Isn't it just like any type of software? 

I probably use 5% of what Word is actually capable of. There are lots of features I don't use and I still get the job done.

Pro Tools is the same way for me. I've been using it for 10 years and not one day goes by that I miss aligning a 24 track tape machine.




david henman said:


> ...it finally hit me why digital recording software, from cubase, to reason to logic to nuendo and beyond is so phenomenally complex.
> 
> it has to be!
> 
> ...


----------



## BEMUSofNrthAmra (Jun 9, 2012)

Digital recording will always be for demoing for me. Digital sessions do not offer the same material permanence that a analog tape reel provides. If I record my bands album on 2 inch tape reel, I feel safe knowing that tape will not degrade in quality for many years, if ever. Digital storage is unreliable, fragile and has to deal with compatibility issues throughout it's life. For these reasons, my professional work will always get done on analog tape. Digital is for playing around.


----------



## hollowbody (Jan 15, 2008)

BEMUSofNrthAmra said:


> Digital recording will always be for demoing for me. Digital sessions do not offer the same material permanence that a analog tape reel provides. If I record my bands album on 2 inch tape reel, I feel safe knowing that tape will not degrade in quality for many years, if ever. Digital storage is unreliable, fragile and has to deal with compatibility issues throughout it's life. For these reasons, my professional work will always get done on analog tape. Digital is for playing around.


Seriously? Tape is magnetic. By its nature, it's guaranteed to degrade. With a digital recording, it's never going to degrade and if you've saved your sessions as wavs, there's no compatibility issue. And who doesn't make backups? Digital storage is cheap. You make a few redundant backups and you're good to go. 

There's lots of issues to debate in terms of quality between analog tape and digital recording, but reliability isn't one of them. 

On my end, I use Sonar and I like it. I've always used it, so it's comfortable for me. I've tried Pro Tools and didn't find it all that different, so I didn't see any reason to switch over.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

hollowbody said:


> BEMUSofNrthAmra said:
> 
> 
> > Digital recording will always be for demoing for me. Digital sessions do not offer the same material permanence that a analog tape reel provides. If I record my bands album on 2 inch tape reel, I feel safe knowing that tape will not degrade in quality for many years, if ever. Digital storage is unreliable, fragile and has to deal with compatibility issues throughout it's life. For these reasons, my professional work will always get done on analog tape. Digital is for playing around.
> ...



Agreed. Analog tape is only reliable if it's stored properly. I've had to transfer fifty year old 1/4" tapes that were so sticky and fragile they only had one or two passes left in them.

Digital media is so cheap its easy to make redundant back ups.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

I wish Roland would start making the vs series of DAW's again. I did a couple of projects on a vs-2000cd and it is an awesome rig. For the record, part of the project was done through a Mackie 1604 to an aleisis ADAT, then brought over to the vs when it was brought in. It was a great learning experience and I had a lot of fun doing it. To the point I actually considered giving it a shot as a new career.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

I haven't bought any new recording hardware since I sold my 4 track cassette recorder years ago. My recording equipment is my E-MU 1820 wish simply takes over as my sound card, that I bought used off Ebay about 8 years ago for under $200. I use it with my computer and Sonar X1 Producer Edition and it's all I need to record with amazing quality. It gives me unlimited tracks to record on to and there's no expensive equipment sitting around getting dusty. It's all I'll ever need until I decide to update my E-MU 1820. I've been neglecting it for awhile now but plan on doing a lot more recording this winter. I'll post a few tunes when I do.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

iaresee said:


> David, a few years ago the guys at Propellerhead thought up Record as an answer to that "computer recording is too damn complicated!" complaint.
> Have you looked at it? See: Record - Audio Recording, Mixing and Music Production Software for Musicians - Propellerhead
> I think it's all part of the Reason production suite now, which is also pretty easy to use and mimics real-world interfaces where you drag cables around and stuff to connect things up.



...thanks! i did take a look.
it appears that at least some manufacturers are prepared to address this.
i've given up on cubase, and sent them a message to explain why.
for now, it's back to garageband, but at some point i will spend the money on a program that is totally straightforward.
anyone want to buy cubase 6.5 from me?


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Guitar101 said:


> Personally, I've watched as everyone and their brother tells everyone how good their recording software is. Deep down, I know it cannot possibly be as good as Cakewalk/Sonar which has been around for as long as I can remember, but I keep silent. If you keep searching for the easy way, you will never find it. Buy the best, learn how to use it and at least you will not have to learn how to use all of these so called easy programs over and over. Sonar is not easy but once you have learned it, your good to go. It even supports surround sound and video editing. Why would you go anywhere else. This is of course, is my opinion. I wish you the best with your recording software of choice.


...thanks, but i will continue to pass.

there is no valid reason for the software to be stupidly, prohibitively complicated.

and, in fact, no one has ever even attempted to justify, rationalize or explain why the manufacturers _chose_ to make it so complicated.

add to this the fact that some manufacturers, eg garageband and presonus, have clearly demonstrated that the software CAN be straightforward.

i have already spent far too many precious hours, days, weeks and months staring at onscreen menus and tearing my hair out.

enough.


----------



## bobb (Jan 4, 2007)

On several occasions over the years, I have tried some of the major software programs out there but keep going back to the simplicity of PowerTracks Pro from PG Music in Victoria. PowerTracks Pro Audio


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

bobb said:


> On several occasions over the years, I have tried some of the major software programs out there but keep going back to the simplicity of PowerTracks Pro from PG Music in Victoria. PowerTracks Pro Audio



...the opening blurb suggests that this software does everything for you.

i work from scratch.

for example, every kick drum hit originates from my fingertips.


----------



## Guitar101 (Jan 19, 2011)

david henman said:


> ...the opening blurb suggests that this software does everything for you. i work from scratch.
> 
> for example, every kick drum hit originates from my fingertips.


Yes, Cakewalk has gotten complicated but since I've worked with it over the years. The new versions were a little easier to learn. Adding surround sound and video editing
has also made it more complicated but I only use the parts I need so it's not so bad.

I too have to enter every kick drum hit if I'm recording a song I've written but I cheat a little if I'm doing a well known cover. I'll search for the midi file of that song, load it into Sonar and fix it to my liking.
It does save a lot of time if someone has already done the bass and drums and they are sometimes close to the original. There, my secret is out.
I do hope you find a software program to your liking but I'm with you, I don't like having to learn new programs. It seems to me that their all just different ways to get the same result.


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

david henman said:


> there is no valid reason for the software to be stupidly, prohibitively complicated.


I don't mean to sound condescending David, but maybe it's you? 

I think you need to pick one piece of software and stick with it. You suggest that it was easier for you in the past but maybe it's what you became accustomed to over many years?

I'd wager that most folks today find a DAW easier to operate than an analog setup. 

The first time I sat behind the 48 channel SSL at work it took me thirty minutes just to get a CD to play through the monitors and the convoluted SSL automation system? A foreign language that I never quite wrapped my head around without a "cheat sheet".

Aligning multitrack machines, NEVE's stupid "recall" system, patch bays and racks full of outboard gear. 

The very first time you sat at a console weren't you a bit intimidated? Was it really that much easier? Seems to me it was just as complicated until you knew your way around.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

...i have asked myself that question at least a thousand times.

but consider this:

1. i am not new at this. in fact, i have literally grown up with home recording, dating back to those first philips reel-to-reel recorders with sound-on-sound back in the 50s.
2. companies like garageband have demonstrated that straightforward software, for people who haven't spent their lives pursuing a career as a pro sound engineer, is possible.
3. companies like presonus and propellerhead are now reacting to the NEED for straightforward software, for people who haven't spent their lives pursuing a career as a pro sound engineer.
4. my own sound engineer confessed to me that trying to navigate the steep learning curve for cubase was an absolute nightmare.
5. not one person, in all this time, has even attempted to explain to me why the software NEEDS to be so complicated.
6. you are comparing apples to oranges. despite my fifty years experience in home recording, if you sat me behind a 48 channel SSL, i wouldn't even be able to find the on/off button.
i have no idea what a neve "recall" system is, i have never owned or used a patch bay, nor a rack of outboard gear.

...i am a home recordist. people have been telling me for almost two decades that i need to upgrade to computer recording.
i finally gave in when companies like tascam, fostex, roland, zoom, korg and yamaha decided to stop manufacturing home recording hardware, ie portastudios.
i had no choice.
and, it seemed like the logical thing to do - the writing was on the wall.
if even one person had suggested that there is software designed for guys who are accustomed to operating a 48-channel SSL, and software designed for guys who are accustomed to operating a roland digital portastudio, i wouldn't have had to go through this nightmarish ordeal.
but nobody did.
none of the professional engineers i know.
none of the many digital recording magazines that i read.
none of the many members of the many forums to which i subscribe.
and the reason should be obvious - with the exception of garageband, which i only stumbled upon because it came free with my imac, there wasn't any such thing as software designed for guys who are accustomed to operating a 48-channel SSL, and software designed for guys who are accustomed to operating a roland digital portastudio.

so, not to sound condescending, but do YOU know of a valid reason why almost all recording software _needs_ to be so bleeding complex?



hardasmum said:


> I don't mean to sound condescending David, but maybe it's you?
> 
> I think you need to pick one piece of software and stick with it. You suggest that it was easier for you in the past but maybe it's what you became accustomed to over many years?
> 
> ...


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

david henman said:


> so, not to sound condescending, but do YOU know of a valid reason why almost all recording software _needs_ to be so bleeding complex?


I really wasn't trying to be a dick David.
Just suggesting an old dog could learn new tricks! 

Your very descriptive post made me think that in the earlier days of home recording there was a huge divide between pro & amateur gear. For better or for worse DAWs have leveled the playing field. My Pro Tools rig at home is as powerful as the rigs in pro studios. 

A very powerful tool and I alluded in an earlier post that despite using Pro Tools software every day for fifteen years, there are functions of it I have never used!

So the only reason I can think of that software companies haven't made an "easy to use DAW" is cost. They want to play in both markets.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> I really wasn't trying to be a dick David.
> Your very descriptive post made me think that in the earlier days of home recording there was a huge divide between pro & amateur gear. For better or for worse DAWs have leveled the playing field. My Pro Tools rig at home is as powerful as the rigs in pro studios.
> A very powerful tool and I alluded in an earlier post that despite using Pro Tools software every day for fifteen years, there are functions of it I have never used!
> So the only reason I can think of that software companies haven't made an "easy to use DAW" is cost. They want to play in both markets.


...and i appreciate that. perhaps you're the kind of guy who wants to do his own processing, mixing, mastering etc.
i'm not. 
as i have told everyone who is willing to listen, i just need a basic "note-taker".
i don't do eq, compression, etc, although i will occasionally use whatever preset is available, to smooth things out for listening.
i don't mix, aside from adjusting playback levels, again purely for listening purposes.
and i don't master.
however, i do take advantage of the editing capabilities provided by daw software.
it's a great way to experiment with arrangements.
and, of course, a computer has the advantage of being able to archive an almost unlimited number of projects.

but i don't understand your last statement: making an easy-to-use daw is cost-prohibitive?


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

david henman said:


> but i don't understand your last statement: making an easy-to-use daw is cost-prohibitive?


I was suggesting that for companies that want to market to both the pro and amateur markets it's cheaper to make one piece of software that does it all.

GarageBand is an exception to this but I don't think Apple is trying to appeal to the pro market.

I'm not a software developer but you'd think it would be easy to remove functionality from a DAW to make one that's easier to operate for the home consumer. Avid has done this with Pro Tools in the past, releasing light versions that don't include "pro" functions like time code.

For myself Pro Tools is the one DAW that operates the most like a mixer / tape machine. Ironically they have been criticized in the past for having a rather boring GUI and poor MIDI functionality compared to Nuendo, Cakewalk etc. They have actually updated their software to compete with these other companies.

Have you had a chance to try Pro Tools? You might find it more to your liking.


----------



## RandyF (Aug 16, 2012)

As F.Z. would say it's "Very Distraughtening". Probably the only solution is to become a 'hermit' and live in the studio until you learn the program. Unless I win the lottery, it ain't happenin'.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

A couple of other forums I belong to have had lots of threads complaining about this same thing. Pro Tools specifically. I understand that they were bought not too long back and are really sliding in popularity since. I am not really up on what is available, but I keep hearing "Reaper" and "Sonar" in a good way. Still, probably too much to use as a "notepad" as David wants. I just do not understand why all-in-one DAW's are out of favour. The Roland VS-2000 is an awesome piece and fairly easy to get a grasp of in it's operation. They kinda mucked it up apparently when they went to the 2400 series with some bad changes and then abandoned the market. I say, the time is right for someone to take a swing at it again. If interested, check them out.
VS-2000CD :: Products :: Roland


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Jim DaddyO said:


> I understand that they were bought not too long back and are really sliding in popularity since.


Not so. They are still the industry standard for digital audio recording. The Post Production industry uses it almost exclusively. 

The Avid ICON control surface for Pro Tools is hugely popular.

http://www.avid.com/US/products/ICON-D-Command-ES


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

OK, I stand corrected. Maybe I am just hearing more complaints. Is the information that they were bought out (by Avid??) correct?


----------



## hardasmum (Apr 23, 2008)

Jim DaddyO said:


> OK, I stand corrected. Maybe I am just hearing more complaints. Is the information that they were bought out (by Avid??) correct?


I believe it was just a name change. Formerly Digidesign made ProTools and Avid was the video division. I think it was just a branding thing.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

hardasmum said:


> Have you had a chance to try Pro Tools? You might find it more to your liking.



...my understanding is that pro tools is only slightly lees confusing than the other programs, although it is the one that has been most often recommended.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

RandyF said:


> As F.Z. would say it's "Very Distraughtening". Probably the only solution is to become a 'hermit' and live in the studio until you learn the program. Unless I win the lottery, it ain't happenin'.


...the good news is that manufacturers have finally recognzed the vacuum they have created. expect many more to follow the lead of garageband, record, studio one etc.


----------



## david henman (Feb 3, 2006)

Jim DaddyO said:


> A couple of other forums I belong to have had lots of threads complaining about this same thing. Pro Tools specifically. I understand that they were bought not too long back and are really sliding in popularity since. I am not really up on what is available, but I keep hearing "Reaper" and "Sonar" in a good way. Still, probably too much to use as a "notepad" as David wants. I just do not understand why all-in-one DAW's are out of favour. The Roland VS-2000 is an awesome piece and fairly easy to get a grasp of in it's operation. They kinda mucked it up apparently when they went to the 2400 series with some bad changes and then abandoned the market. I say, the time is right for someone to take a swing at it again. If interested, check them out.
> VS-2000CD :: Products :: Roland


...yeah, i tried reaper. 650-page manual!!!! but, again, the company was great about refunding my money.

i'm "initimately" familiar with the portastudio market, having literally grown up with it. 

unfortunately, the roland stuff can't come close to my korg d3200, which sits on a shelf above my computer, unused, since i'm determined to move forward with this.


----------



## Jim DaddyO (Mar 20, 2009)

david henman said:


> ...yeah, i tried reaper. 650-page manual!!!! but, again, the company was great about refunding my money.
> 
> i'm "initimately" familiar with the portastudio market, having literally grown up with it.
> 
> unfortunately, the roland stuff can't come close to my korg d3200, which sits on a shelf above my computer, unused, since i'm determined to move forward with this.



Well, you have half the battle won already. Being determined to go forward is the right attitude. All the best in your search, I will be watching to see what you come up with. If I hear anything I will pass it on.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

I used to use cooledit pro, was very easy to use & intuitive

am now looking for a replacement...reaper doesn't look too bad; I fired it up the other day. but I wish it had a built in editor as slick as the cooledit one

all I really need to do is track....I prefer "real" recording techniques to all the crazy plugins out there.


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

bolero said:


> I used to use cooledit pro, was very easy to use & intuitive
> 
> am now looking for a replacement...reaper doesn't look too bad; I fired it up the other day. but I wish it had a built in editor as slick as the cooledit one
> 
> all I really need to do is track....I prefer "real" recording techniques to all the crazy plugins out there.


One of the great features of Reaper is the ability to assign an editor to work within it. I use Adobe Audition (Cool Edit Pro's successor) to do this.

Once you have assigned the editor (an easy task in the Reaper User Preference) you only need to highlight a track running in Reaper, click CTRL+ALT+E and the file opens in AA. Do your editing, save the file and the change is done to the track in Reaper! 

I have ProTools, Cubase, Studio One loaded in my main computer but do 99% of my work using Reaper/Audition.


----------



## keefsdad (Feb 7, 2006)

.................................


----------



## keefsdad (Feb 7, 2006)

What do you do for drum tracks? I use Reaper too but haven't figured that part out.






Chito said:


> I find Reaper intuitive to use. But that's just me, I've been working on computers for 36 years. One thing I do with it is to create templates of what I want to record, like if I wanted to use 10 inputs, I have a template for that, which mic goes to what channel, etc... Or sometimes just 2 tracks for my stereo mic which I use as an overhead for recording rehearsals. I have tons of tracks by doing this. I used to use Cool Edit Pro and was very comfortable with it, but have since moved into Reaper as it is more powerful and better. You just need to have someone who is familiar with it, to show the basic things you can do with it. I don't mess around with mixing or adding effects. All I do is track. If I want something released, I'll bring it to a mixing engineer and send it for mastering some place.


----------



## Chito (Feb 17, 2006)

keefsdad said:


> What do you do for drum tracks? I use Reaper too but haven't figured that part out.


Not sure if this is what you are asking, but right now I record live drums for the drum track. Two MXL603s for overheads, an AKG D112 for the bass drum and an SM57 on the snare. So that's a total of 4 tracks. I can add some more if I want to coz the Tascam interface has 14 inputs excluding the 2 midi inputs. Like I mentioned I'm recording 10 tracks at the moment, 4 for drums, 1 for the keyboard, 1 for bass, 1 for guitar, 1 for vocals and another 2 for a stereo mic I use to create some room ambiance.


----------



## Mr Yerp (Feb 24, 2006)

Someone mentioned Cool Edit Pro, and I thought I'd endorse it also. VERY easy to learn and use, you can just go stereo in, or multitrack. Has a few useable effects, and is great for converting from WAVE to MP3 etc.
Here's a link to a free 21 day trial. I didn't look around to find out what it's worth now, 2.0, (which is what I have) is an old program, but at least you can play with it for no $$.
Old Version of Cool Edit Pro 2.0 Download - OldApps.com
I use Cubase myself, and there certainly was a lot of frustration involved with the learning curve. Not fun, and not intuitive. Good luck....


----------



## ronmac (Sep 22, 2006)

No offense intended Mr. Yerp, but I wouldn't recommend downloading software (even if it is older and discontinued, but still licensed) from an unknown source. There are lots of legitimate ways to access free software trials, and in some cases freeware aps.


----------



## Mr Yerp (Feb 24, 2006)

ronmac said:


> No offense intended Mr. Yerp, but I wouldn't recommend downloading software (even if it is older and discontinued, but still licensed) from an unknown source. There are lots of legitimate ways to access free software trials, and in some cases freeware aps.


You're right of course, no harm intended.....


----------



## fraser (Feb 24, 2007)

cool edit pro 2.0 was the first one i ever tried, i liked it, and at that time i was a complete newby to computers.
i didnt have internet yet even, or email, or any of that. didnt really know what any of that was lol.
but i learned to use cool edit.



> What do you do for drum tracks? I use Reaper too but haven't figured that part out.


i find ezdrummer works great in reaper, its pretty headache free actually.
it has pre recorded loops you can simply drag and drop into a reaper track.
what i do is trigger the drums on an m audio keyboard in real time,
recording it as i go, just like tracking any live instrument.

but after all the mucking around, i often just get fed up and grab an acoustic and my old cassette four track.
im one of those people to whom all the endless possibilities and options become a hindrance when it comes to actually creating a finished 'something'.


----------

