Meta: Is Bitwig "Too Good"

[pdxindy]

That's fine that you don't find the feature interesting, but follow actions wasn't what we were talking about and I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. We were talking about generative, probability based note sequencing, not follow actions which Bitwig has had for a while already.

Follow Actions have had probability as a feature forever, this IMO seems like an outgrowth of that feature, sincerely the most useful feature of probability in Follow Actions for most people is to set up various drum patterns to switch as percentages of random times, which sounds just like a simpler version of the new probability features in Bitwig. I would say if you can't see a similarity then you're trying not to.

Follow Actions are very limited.

First, they only work in the Clip Launcher, not Arrangement.
Second, once you use the Follow Action to randomly select between some clips, you cannot do anything else. So if I have 4 clips and I use follow actions to randomly play 1 of the 4 clips, I cannot then progress from those 4 clips to other clips. It just stays stuck in those 4 clips.
Third, you don't really get true randomization cause at most you can pick between a set of fixed clips.

The new Operators and Expression randomization in Bitwig 4 is magnitudes more capable and flexible. I can easily set up a single clip that even with a dozen individual clips using follow actions could not be duplicated, and attempting to do so would be much more work and visually confusing. And of course, using Operators and Expression Randomization leaves the Clip Follow actions alone so one can still use follow actions to progress though a set of clips over time.

I agree with apoclypse that they are quite different things.

[machinesworking]

I agree with apoclypse that they are quite different things.

We don't have to agree, but we don't disagree. They are different things, and I think 100% that there's a natural progression from Follow Actions to the new probability features in Bitwig. Follow Actions are 20 years old roughly, but the ideas are similar enough to see a lineage, an evolution. Of course the probability features are more advanced, it would be weird if they weren't.

[apoclypse]

I agree with apoclypse that they are quite different things.

We don't have to agree, but we don't disagree. They are different things, and I think 100% that there's a natural progression from Follow Actions to the new probability features in Bitwig. Follow Actions are 20 years old roughly, but the ideas are similar enough to see a lineage, an evolution. Of course the probability features are more advanced, it would be weird if they weren't.

Follow actions are not the same thing and I’m not sure why you keep trying to correlate the two. The topic is generative probability for data within a clip. Randomly triggering clips is not the same thing. You keep saying generative probability is some kind of follow up or extension to follow actions but it actually came from the hardware world (Elektron Digitakt etc). Stop trying to equate the two they aren’t remotely the same thing.

[pdxindy]

I agree with apoclypse that they are quite different things.

We don't have to agree, but we don't disagree. They are different things, and I think 100% that there's a natural progression from Follow Actions to the new probability features in Bitwig. Follow Actions are 20 years old roughly, but the ideas are similar enough to see a lineage, an evolution. Of course the probability features are more advanced, it would be weird if they weren't.

You are welcome to have a different view and I have no interest to convince you of mine. However, we do disagree and I see them as unrelated.

[machinesworking]

I agree with apoclypse that they are quite different things.

We don't have to agree, but we don't disagree. They are different things, and I think 100% that there's a natural progression from Follow Actions to the new probability features in Bitwig. Follow Actions are 20 years old roughly, but the ideas are similar enough to see a lineage, an evolution. Of course the probability features are more advanced, it would be weird if they weren't.

Follow actions are not the same thing and I’m not sure why you keep trying to correlate the two. The topic is generative probability for data within a clip. Randomly triggering clips is not the same thing. You keep saying generative probability is some kind of follow up or extension to follow actions but it actually came from the hardware world (Elektron Digitakt etc). Stop trying to equate the two they aren’t remotely the same thing.

How the hell do you get me saying they're the same thing? It's an evolution of a concept IMO. A percentage of random chance etc. I don't get why that's become I think they're the same? because similar and same are simply not the same terms.

Doesn't matter. This has just turned into internet battles of the boring kind where no one is paying any attention to what is being said and everyone is "winning"..

[ThomasHelzle]

To me it looks more like the usual Every-DAW-should-do-what-I-personally-need or think important discussion.
Making Bitwig into DP probably won't happen, although yes, being able to seamlessly switch between projects would be a major thing.

But I think the original question starting this thread wasn't pointed at this kind of discussion at all, but at a much more sublime point: Can a DAW be too good.
Not in the way of serving every audience or doing everything (features are just half the equation - if that) but in the way that something can be absolutely brilliant and still people won't "get" it or can't "see" it.

I personally - in the case of Bitwig - saw it from the moment the first images appeared on the initial webpage asking for beta testers. It instantly gave me the impression of something new. I was using Live at the time and wasn't totally happy, but only when seeing where Bitwig was supposedly heading I realised what was missing.
That.
And "that" wasn't just feature X or Y, it was a certain approach to the whole realm of music and sound.
It just fits me like a glove.

And that "Approach" is still there, still going strong, and got better and better way beyond what I expected back then.
Bitwig could have become one of those "do you remember that DAW with the funny name" episodes.
But it didn't. It found it's place in the crowded DAW market with a set of excellent features.
In a time where everybody went analogue, they were there with CV support and integrated non-digital gear seamlessly.
While a lot of people had issues with 32 and 64 plugins, their sandboxing took any sting out of it from the start - and out of a ton of other things too.
When many people were using touchscreens or thinking about them, they offered a fresh and very specific solution for that.
There was always something new and fresh and interesting to explore.

The thing is: Every living organism grows not in a linear straight line but meanders and adapts to the circumstances.
In that way, Bitwig is very alive and kicking.
Thanks god they do not have a designed-by-comitee approach. That is the straight way to hell.
There are a ton of DAWs out there that "win" the feature race.
But they "lose" as a living organism.
I want to deal with applications (and humans) that are alive.
They are rare enough.

Like we do not have one flavour of yogurt or one song or one language, we do not have one DAW.
Thanks to the universe for diversity

Cheers,

Tom

[apoclypse]

I agree with apoclypse that they are quite different things.

We don't have to agree, but we don't disagree. They are different things, and I think 100% that there's a natural progression from Follow Actions to the new probability features in Bitwig. Follow Actions are 20 years old roughly, but the ideas are similar enough to see a lineage, an evolution. Of course the probability features are more advanced, it would be weird if they weren't.

Follow actions are not the same thing and I’m not sure why you keep trying to correlate the two. The topic is generative probability for data within a clip. Randomly triggering clips is not the same thing. You keep saying generative probability is some kind of follow up or extension to follow actions but it actually came from the hardware world (Elektron Digitakt etc). Stop trying to equate the two they aren’t remotely the same thing.

How the hell do you get me saying they're the same thing? It's an evolution of a concept IMO. A percentage of random chance etc. I don't get why that's become I think they're the same? because similar and same are simply not the same terms.

Doesn't matter. This has just turned into internet battles of the boring kind where no one is paying any attention to what is being said and everyone is "winning"..

This is what you wrote:

I dunno I'm probably jaded, I've owned Live since v3 and Ableton had an interest in random event programming in Clips 15 years ago. It's hard for me to look at Bitwig and think that's a uniquely Bitwig thing.

It's not about "winning", it's about calling someone out on something that makes no sense. It seems you are so hell bent on talking about DP that you start spouting nonsense when it comes to subjects you are not really the well versed in.

All I asked for is clarification on your comment about Ableton having generative probability features since v3 (which it didn't) and then you started spouting nonsense about Follow Actions and generative probability being related. Sorry but I had to call you out on it.

[machinesworking]

I agree with apoclypse that they are quite different things.

We don't have to agree, but we don't disagree. They are different things, and I think 100% that there's a natural progression from Follow Actions to the new probability features in Bitwig. Follow Actions are 20 years old roughly, but the ideas are similar enough to see a lineage, an evolution. Of course the probability features are more advanced, it would be weird if they weren't.

Follow actions are not the same thing and I’m not sure why you keep trying to correlate the two. The topic is generative probability for data within a clip. Randomly triggering clips is not the same thing. You keep saying generative probability is some kind of follow up or extension to follow actions but it actually came from the hardware world (Elektron Digitakt etc). Stop trying to equate the two they aren’t remotely the same thing.

How the hell do you get me saying they're the same thing? It's an evolution of a concept IMO. A percentage of random chance etc. I don't get why that's become I think they're the same? because similar and same are simply not the same terms.

Doesn't matter. This has just turned into internet battles of the boring kind where no one is paying any attention to what is being said and everyone is "winning"..

This is what you wrote:

I dunno I'm probably jaded, I've owned Live since v3 and Ableton had an interest in random event programming in Clips 15 years ago. It's hard for me to look at Bitwig and think that's a uniquely Bitwig thing.

It's not about "winning", it's about calling someone out on something that makes no sense. It seems you are so hell bent on talking about DP that you start spouting nonsense when it comes to subjects you are not really the well versed in.

All I asked for is clarification on your comment about Ableton having generative probability features since v3 (which it didn't) and then you started spouting nonsense about Follow Actions and generative probability being related. Sorry but I had to call you out on it.

Look, I can't win this, you and others aren't willing to even begin to understand what I'm saying here. Again I never said that Bitwig is doing the exact same thing, or that they're the same, but IMO generative approaches to music making are not unique to Bitwig, and I do see a progression from things like Clips in Live having Follow Actions that can be set up with chances of switching to the next action, and 15 odd years later there being probability features at a deeper level than that in the most closely related to Live DAW there is. I do not get why that's hard to follow? Yes Clips/Follow actions aren't notes etc. but the idea of using a percentage of chance as a factor in the writing process is not unrelated. It's the same math.

[Taika-Kim]

You are making a bold assumption here that they are making Bitwig with a mass audience in mind.

[SLiC]

You are making a bold assumption here that they are making Bitwig with a mass audience in mind.

This.

Your average band/guitarist/singer songwriter doesn't need most of what Bitwig can do and would find many aspects of Bitwig unnecessary and confusing. They would also find several essential tools missing.

Bitwig is a tinkerers playground, a creatives toolkit, modulation heaven...but if you just want to record a song using mainly live instruments, apply a little pitch and timing correction and master it, it isn't what I would use.

I wonder how many people who own and use Bitwig also own a modular or semi modular synth of some sort, or Elektron gear...are we a type

For what it's worth, I think Bitwig have it about right- they are obviously some way behind normal linear DAWS like Studio One and Cubase in terms of audio and midi editing and mixing (as is Live) so they have to offer something new and unique to attract a niche audience initially. Now they can then build on that in whatever direction they choose...They are competing against really cheap full featured DAWS like Reaper and soon a free DAW from Behringer...its a tough market, you need to be different to stand out!

[jclosed]

You are making a bold assumption here that they are making Bitwig with a mass audience in mind.

This.

Your average band/guitarist/singer songwriter doesn't need most of what Bitwig can do and would find many aspects of Bitwig unnecessary and confusing. They would also find several essential tools missing.

Bitwig is a tinkerers playground, a creatives toolkit, modulation heaven...but if you just want to record a song using mainly live instruments, apply a little pitch and timing correction and master it, it isn't what I would use.

I wonder how many people who own and use Bitwig also own a modular or semi modular synth of some sort, or Elektron gear...are we a type

For what it's worth, I think Bitwig have it about right- they are obviously some way behind normal linear DAWS like Studio One and Cubase in terms of audio and midi editing and mixing (as is Live) so they have to offer something new and unique to attract a niche audience initially. Now they can then build on that in whatever direction they choose...They are competing against really cheap full featured DAWS like Reaper and soon a free DAW from Behringer...its a tough market, you need to be different to stand out!

Well - I use Bitwig in combination with Cubase, so Bitwig does not need to mimic an "traditional" DAW. I think Bitwig is a immensely valuable DAW/Tool for the creative phase of songwriting/music production, and Cubase is a equally valuable tool for the final mixing/mastering phase.
Cubase can do things that would be difficult (but not impossible) in Bitwig. At the other hand - Bitwig can do things that are completely out of reach for Cubase.
The problems rises when you want Bitwig to be more Cubase-ish, or Cubase to become more Bitwig-ish. Both are DAW's - That's true. But the philosophy and designs behind both DAW's are completely different (although there is, of course, a lot of overlap).
In stead of wishing Bitwig would be more like a "traditional" DAW, I should say that Bitwig should embrace those things that let users do things that are not so easy to do in other DAW's

Is Bitwig "too good"? Hmm... Well.. I have tried a lot of DAW's during my life (I'm 67 now), and for me personally Bitwig is head and shoulders above DAW's like FL Studio, Ableton Live, Reason and so on. Maybe because Bitwig give me a bit of bit of nostalgic feeling because it feels like a distant cousin of Project 5, that I loved to pieces a long time ago. So yeah - Maybe some crazy bias here.

At the end I use Bitwig in combination with Cubase for a long time now, and I am perfectly happy with that "marriage"...

[SLiC]

FL Studio, Ableton Live + Reason can all do things Bitwig can't do (like Cubase) so it really just depends what you need or prefer personally as you say. I also dabbled with Project 5 back in the day and it had a lot of fans and was advertised as the ultimate 'creative do everything' DAW...I ended up back with Cubase and Live!

[pdxindy]

Is Bitwig "too good"? Hmm... Well.. I have tried a lot of DAW's during my life (I'm 67 now), and for me personally Bitwig is head and shoulders above DAW's like FL Studio, Ableton Live, Reason and so on.

I have the same subjective opinion... Bitwig suits my interests and it is a pleasure to use.

[coroknight]

Honestly I think most people love messy, complicated bullshit instead of the simple, clean, and modular tools that Bitwig offers.

Instead of a simple LFO that can be used anywhere and on any device they'd prefer THE WOBBLER, AN INSTRUMENT THAT LOOKS LIKE A KEWL PIECE OF HARDWARE AND ONLY DOES DOPE DUBSTEP WOBBLES.

Now obviously I'm exaggerating a bit because most people understand LFOs but you get the point. The latter they can wrap their head around but the former is too abstract. It's too simple and actually requires imagination to figure out how to use properly.

Bitwig is they type of software that has a small audience but that audience REALLY likes bitwig. There is a certain type of person that looks at the tools bitwig offers and sees unlimited possibilities.

[pdxindy]

they are obviously some way behind normal linear DAWS like Studio One and Cubase in terms of audio and midi editing and mixing (as is Live) so they have to offer something new and unique to attract a niche audience initially.

You're right in some sense, but also the idea of 'some way behind' sees these things in a fixed linear line.

One of my favorite synths is Borderlands on iOS. It cannot even be played with midi notes. Someone could say it is behind other synths because of it. Yet it is fun and beautiful musical results are easy and fast. To me, it is not behind, but rather different and does not fit on the linear line of expected feature set.

I find Bitwig also like that in various ways. I don't consider it behind DAW's like Cubase, but rather on a different trajectory.