Nice try but when it's your workflow versus mine, that doesn't leave room for a third option, does it? You explained your workflow and it was bad. I explained mine, which is clearly good. That you chose not to defend your workflow but instead to use semantics to try and attack mine shows that you have no logical argument to make in defense of your position.
You know almost every successful big time band takes their finished tracks to a Pro Tools studio to mix and master right?
That's a different situation, in that they are not taking advantage of the software and/or equipment, but of the talent of the person who runs it. i.e. They don't take it to "Pro Tools" for mixing, they take it to a producer or an engineer they think has something to add to what they have already done. It's collaboration and if you've ever done a remix or provided a remix kit, you'll understand the limitations when compared to having access to the original project files.
In fact, a remix is a good illustration of my point - if all you do is work with stems, you are severely limited in what you can do but if you can use MIDI tracks and/or whole project files, you have a lot more freedom. Obviously with your own work, you are not looking to radically change it from it's original form but there will be times when tweaking an instrument is the best option for fixing a problem or improving a piece, so the analogy holds.
I'm glad you've thought about what works best for you, but the simple fact is it's not the best for everyone.
Of course it is, or would be if you weren't too stubborn to even consider that you might be doing it wrong.
Played guitar and a Radio Shack Realistic Moog in bands in 1983.
Started in 1986 down the sequencing path in an industrial rock band with a copy of Performer on a Mac+ and an Ensoniq Mirage.
That's with bands, where you have other people to do stuff for you. I've been getting up on stage all by myself since 1985 so I've had to rely on my sequencers for everything I wasn't playing by hand. If I'd had a band I could have got by with any old krap sequencer, if I'd needed one at all.
You again have a binary way of thinking. I also mostly write with maybe a 12-24 parts, but I'm amazed at and in awe of people who mix and create with 30-90 tracks.
I think they're idiots who probably don't know what they're doing (or are getting paid by the hour for it).
Some people like film composers who use big orchestral mock ups always write with 30-120 parts.
Yeah but it is likely they are doing that to impress the director, rather than because they really, really need to work like that. It becomes part of selling what you do. I see it at work all the time because i have to work with other people's After Effects projects. I have a reputation at work for being able to get my work done in a fraction of the time it takes anyone else and when I see the convoluted way in which many of the work, I understand completely why that is. Their projects grow organically, they never sit back and look at how they might be able to simplify anything. As their projects mature and change with feedback from their clients, they don't go back and look at what isn't needed any ore, they just leave it all in. Often, as in several times a week, I can reduce a project to one-tenth the size it was when I opened it in just a few minutes and I can halve the number of layers in compositions just by removing elements that are no longer contributing but are still switched on (layers are visible). The other guys focus solely on the output and pay little or no attention to how they got to where they are. They don't even understand the concept of workflow.
Everyone with 90 tracks to compose is using stems. There is no single right way to write music.
No-one is saying there is but there are better and worse ways and if I had 90 tracks, I'd be looking at reducing it to a manageable number, not pre-rendering them as stems. e.g. Let's say I'd written strings arrangement one instrument at a time and ended up with 20 parts. Once I was happy with that, I'd be bouncing the MIDI into a single clip and using a single instance of my favourite strings library to perform it. At the very least I'd put it into a group as a sub-mix to simplify the master mix.
I think you actually have good intentions with this sort of militant fascist "there is only one right way" approach you take.
I don't have anything like that approach. I would love nothing more than for someone to show me a better way of working. It's why I bother with this place at all. My folly is assuming other people are the same, when the reality is that all they want is confirmation that every stupid thing they do is the way everyone else is doing it. But every now and then I dig up a nugget of pure gold, so I persist.
I get that you're looking at mostly people getting in their own way workflow wise, but not everyone who uses more than one DAW is doing it because they're oblivious to the fact that it complicates things, and complication isn't always the enemy. If some DAW has a better approach I'm going to use it.
You don't see the contradiction in what you've said here? You are looking for the best approach but deliberately blinding yourself to the possibility than, in doing so, you are worsening the overall
approach. It seems you aren't looking at the big picture, the end to end process, just at each little part of it in isolation.
Buying 8 DAWs today is cheaper than a single mono synth was in the 80's. They're just tools, if one has MPE and I think that's important to my creative process then I'm going to simply use it.
That's the thing though, isn't it? You "simply use" this host for that process, and you "simply use" that host for this process and you can't see how it makes the overall process anything but simple. Using your MPE example, that is one reason I started looking for a new host - I wanted features my current host didn't support. But I didn't decide that I'd just add another one to the daisy chain. Quite the opposite, I found one that simplifies the process even further by allowing me to do a lot of things I would previously have had to go out to a standalone audio editor to do.Because even though Orion had good integration with external audio editors, it was still a more complicated process than doing it in situ.
I do think it's very logical to start off DAW wise (or anything wise really) using one DAW.
I see no logic in that at all. What if you start off on completely the wrong host for you? Your initial experience is awful and you give up. I think it is newcomers who need to try all the different flavours and find one that works for them. It's us old timers who can bend any host to our will because we have the skills and experience to do it. When I first made the move to computers for music, I tried Fruityloops, I tried Cakewalk and I tried Cubase. None of them worked for me. If I hadn't found Orion I'd have kept making music in hardware because it was quicker and easier.
The world is complex enough and music is diverse enough to where the players break all those rules, with good effect.
Sometimes, not all the time. And just because someone else manages it, doesn't make it the best or only way to go. Again, it is something I see both here and at work - people see something in a tutorial and think it's the way you have to do everything, without seeing that it really only applies to this narrow circumstance or that it only works for them because they are much better at it than you are.
There are advantages and disadvantages to printing a song to audio. Commitment is not a bad thing, and even in your example, it's again trivial to go back to Orion and re-render the track.
Once, maybe, but it's something you might need to do 20, 30 or even 50 times. Because that's the thing - you can't hear it in context until you render it again, then you realise that it needs another tweak so you go back and do that, then render it again. Then you realise you over-did it so you go back and re-tweak it a third time, then render it a third time. Then you realise it's affected another part so you go and do the same thing again. And again. And again. Pretty soon you've re-rendered 50 times. Or, more likely, you decide "that'll do, I'm sick of going back and forth all night
" and you leave it, knowing it could be better.
I'm actually surprised you left Orion honestly, Suicide Commando last time I checked still used a copy of Notator on an Atari to write with.
That's because your notion of who I am/how I am is out of step with reality. Suicide Commando is terrible. He has been writing the same song over and over again for 20 years. You buy one album and you've heard them all.