why are live and bigwig the only DAWS to have clip launchers ?

Audio Plugin Hosts and other audio software applications discussion
Post Reply New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

Presonus Studio One doesn't have one in it's current version, so I designed my own concept sketch idea and posted it on their forum a few months back. There's brief details about it in the Presonus Studio One 4 [expectations] thread where news of updates are posted. It's a similar but different sort of system to other clip systems, (more trigger based) but also using the node system of Studio One. So who knows... what's gonna happen in whether Presonus will adapt some sort of similar system around it.

Image
KVR S1-Thread | The Intrancersonic-Design Source > Program Resource | Studio One Resource | Music Gallery | 2D / 3D Sci-fi Art | GUI Projects | Animations | Photography | Film Docs | 80's Cartoons | Games | Music Hardware |

Post

Nice mockup -- reminds me of Stagelight and Waveform. :tu:

Post

Well, I'm not surprised seeing a lot of whining here from "true musicians" that don't need clip launching to create boxy, repetitive music.

But in reality, it's just a tool like any other and it's up to you to either use to your advantage or not.

The "launching" part of it is obviously tied to performance aspect and there it's brilliant, as you can achieve the amount of - live - creative freedom and flexibility that no linear DAW affords you.

But Session View is also incredibly valuable to just write music - you record, draw by mouse or even drag in clips with musical ideas (short & long), then jam on them for a bit and then either record that jam to linear arranger page for further refinement, or drag & drop them like a puzzles. I'm pretty sure even the proponents of linear-only DAWs work in similar ways, stashing their ideas and musical snippets at the beginning or end of the timeline out of the main song. How is that anymore convenient than Session View, which you can treat as a note pad of sorts?

So yeah, get of your high horse and remove your head from your ass. Plenty of people do wonderful, non-linear music in Live or Bitwig, just as plenty of people do repetitive, formulaic stuff in Cubase or Logic.

It's not the tools that make you a (good) musician.
Music tech enthusiast
DAW, VST & hardware hoarder
My "music": https://soundcloud.com/antic604

Post

Maybe one day they'll realise a clip can be any damn length you want it to be with the ability to copy tab and paste desired bits back'n'forth between either view non destructively for audio & midi
Don't feed the gators,y'all
https://m.soundcloud.com/tonedeadj

Post

Image
This entire forum is wading through predictions, opinions, barely formed thoughts, drama, and whining. If you don't enjoy that, why are you here? :D ShawnG

Post

:hihi:
Don't feed the gators,y'all
https://m.soundcloud.com/tonedeadj

Post

antic604 wrote:Well, I'm not surprised seeing a lot of whining here from "true musicians" that don't need clip launching to create boxy, repetitive music.

But in reality, it's just a tool like any other and it's up to you to either use to your advantage or not.

The "launching" part of it is obviously tied to performance aspect and there it's brilliant, as you can achieve the amount of - live - creative freedom and flexibility that no linear DAW affords you.

But Session View is also incredibly valuable to just write music - you record, draw by mouse or even drag in clips with musical ideas (short & long), then jam on them for a bit and then either record that jam to linear arranger page for further refinement, or drag & drop them like a puzzles. I'm pretty sure even the proponents of linear-only DAWs work in similar ways, stashing their ideas and musical snippets at the beginning or end of the timeline out of the main song. How is that anymore convenient than Session View, which you can treat as a note pad of sorts?

So yeah, get of your high horse and remove your head from your ass. Plenty of people do wonderful, non-linear music in Live or Bitwig, just as plenty of people do repetitive, formulaic stuff in Cubase or Logic.

It's not the tools that make you a (good) musician.
You might want to take into consideration that there is a lot of music that is not clipped based and those people may not want to pay for a feature they will never use. As well, they may not wish to see development time taken away from bug fixing and advancing features they do use to support something they will never need. Would you want to pay extra to get notation in Bitwig or Ableton? Would you want development time devoted to it at the sake of other features you use not worked on?

Post

Bigwig? :ud:

Post

JJ_Jettflow wrote:
antic604 wrote:Well, I'm not surprised seeing a lot of whining here from "true musicians" that don't need clip launching to create boxy, repetitive music.

But in reality, it's just a tool like any other and it's up to you to either use to your advantage or not.

The "launching" part of it is obviously tied to performance aspect and there it's brilliant, as you can achieve the amount of - live - creative freedom and flexibility that no linear DAW affords you.

But Session View is also incredibly valuable to just write music - you record, draw by mouse or even drag in clips with musical ideas (short & long), then jam on them for a bit and then either record that jam to linear arranger page for further refinement, or drag & drop them like a puzzles. I'm pretty sure even the proponents of linear-only DAWs work in similar ways, stashing their ideas and musical snippets at the beginning or end of the timeline out of the main song. How is that anymore convenient than Session View, which you can treat as a note pad of sorts?

So yeah, get of your high horse and remove your head from your ass. Plenty of people do wonderful, non-linear music in Live or Bitwig, just as plenty of people do repetitive, formulaic stuff in Cubase or Logic.

It's not the tools that make you a (good) musician.
You might want to take into consideration that there is a lot of music that is not clipped based and those people may not want to pay for a feature they will never use. As well, they may not wish to see development time taken away from bug fixing and advancing features they do use to support something they will never need. Would you want to pay extra to get notation in Bitwig or Ableton? Would you want development time devoted to it at the sake of other features you use not worked on?
Technically, even if someone is recording singing over guitar & piano, they still record that into clips, so there - it's clip based ;) :P

Obviously, while choosing a DAW people should be conscious of what it does and whether or not it will help them with their workflow and how they create music. But I don't think there's ANYONE who can say the DAW they've chosen only develops functionalities that they want and nothing else. Every DAW developer tries to increase market share, get new users and more money, hence expanding the feature set. Like eg. Cubase getting 'zones' to cater to single monitor / laptop users.

Sure, it's difficult to tell how much development resources is taken by devs working on features that I personally don't want, but by choosing a DAW I also subscribe to their vision for the future of the product*, so I have faith that their decision to add stuff I'm not interested in right now will keep them afloat, so that I can eventually get "my" features. So, to answer your question - if Bitwig decided they need to add notation to get new users, I wouldn't mind because I know that's not their end goal, that it's just a means to an end (which is opening the modular system).

* by that I mean like Live is for beat-makers & live performance, Bitwig is for sound design & modular stuff, Studio One is to take market share from traditional, linear DAWs like Cubase & Logic, those are for primarily track music, etc.
Music tech enthusiast
DAW, VST & hardware hoarder
My "music": https://soundcloud.com/antic604

Post

antic604 wrote:


Obviously, while choosing a DAW people should be conscious of what it does and whether or not it will help them with their workflow and how they create music. But I don't think there's ANYONE who can say the DAW they've chosen only develops functionalities that they want and nothing else.


Well it was why I stopped using Sonar. The two reasons I dropped it for the addition of Pro Channel and the take on a clip launcher. Instead of taking care of years-old problems, they wasted time on features not important to me so I moved on.
antic604 wrote: Sure, it's difficult to tell how much development resources is taken by devs working on features that I personally don't want, but by choosing a DAW I also subscribe to their vision for the future of the product*...........
I agree with your statement up to here. I used to own Bitwig but when I found out that it could not handle time signature changes and after talking to the support team I realized that this feature was low on the priority list, I sold it a moved to a DAW that was capable of this basic feature.

So I think you answered the question for yourself; a clip launcher is not a feature that all DAW developers share as part of their vision of the future of their product so they have no desire to implement it.

Post

JJ_Jettflow wrote:
I agree with your statement up to here. I used to own Bitwig but when I found out that it could not handle time signature changes and after talking to the support team I realized that this feature was low on the priority list, I sold it a moved to a DAW that was capable of this basic feature.

So I think you answered the question for yourself; a clip launcher is not a feature that all DAW developers share as part of their vision of the future of their product so they have no desire to implement it.
I would very much like it for Bitwig to implement time signature changes. They did say they will do it, but yeah, when is the question. In the meantime, I have Logic for that.

Various DAW's may not add a clip launcher as such, but most of them have responded to the success of Live in one way or another.

Post

JJ_Jettflow wrote:You might want to take into consideration that there is a lot of music that is not clipped based and those people may not want to pay for a feature they will never use.
They may not want to, but its pretty much the case that only people who stick to the simplest of single-purpose tools have not had to reconcile themselves with the fact that the more complex the tool they use for a task, the more certain it is that it will contain features they will never use. And even the simplest DAWs are very complex tools.
OFFICIAL free competition : If you' see martiu post 'why you mad homie' or similar after this post, you are a prizewinner, and a free reverb plugin is yours. PM martiu immediately, and ask for your prize. He'll give it to you, baby!

Post

pdxindy wrote:
JJ_Jettflow wrote:
I agree with your statement up to here. I used to own Bitwig but when I found out that it could not handle time signature changes and after talking to the support team I realized that this feature was low on the priority list, I sold it a moved to a DAW that was capable of this basic feature.

So I think you answered the question for yourself; a clip launcher is not a feature that all DAW developers share as part of their vision of the future of their product so they have no desire to implement it.
I would very much like it for Bitwig to implement time signature changes. They did say they will do it, but yeah, when is the question. In the meantime, I have Logic for that.

Various DAW's may not add a clip launcher as such, but most of them have responded to the success of Live in one way or another.
Yeah I liked Bitwig. It was fun and made me rethink some of my tired old ways of doing things. It was not only the just the lack of time signatures that stopped me from using it, my audio interface was acting up with it (quad capture) and my PC was really getting taxed so I sold it to help fund a new PC. I do have a copy of Ableton lite I have yet to get at..

I have not seen anything like it in Cubase yet.

Post

whyterabbyt wrote:
JJ_Jettflow wrote:You might want to take into consideration that there is a lot of music that is not clipped based and those people may not want to pay for a feature they will never use.
They may not want to, but its pretty much the case that only people who stick to the simplest of single-purpose tools have not had to reconcile themselves with the fact that the more complex the tool they use for a task, the more certain it is that it will contain features they will never use. And even the simplest DAWs are very complex tools.
True enough. What I should have said was that I was speaking about DAWs that are already established and have a certain user base as opposed to DAWs like Ableton and Bitwig which incorporated clip launchers from the start.

Like my example with Sonar; a program that had problems that never got addressed and then adding new features instead.

Post

antic604 wrote:Well, I'm not surprised seeing a lot of whining here from "true musicians" that don't need clip launching to create boxy, repetitive music.
Hey we finally agree ... "true musicians" can create boxy, repetitive music. DJ's need clip launchers to play it back. So we need two types of DAWs, recording based and jukebox based.
If you have to ask, you can't afford the answer

Post Reply

Return to “Hosts & Applications (Sequencers, DAWs, Audio Editors, etc.)”