Are DAWs Today Just Boring ?

[antic604]

Why should DAWs be anything other than boring? They are tools and the best thing they can do is shrink into the background so you don't notice them.

Despite seeing 15 "likes" for your post, I have to say I don't agree with it, not all the way at least.

I mean for some people - perhaps most? - what you say is true, but for many of us DAWs play equal role to any other instrument or effect in the creative process, i.e. they can be a source of ideas, of inspiration and let you do things no other instrument would - there's whole genres of contemporary music that wouldn't be possible (or at least wouldn't sound like they do) without modern DAWs & most of them originated in leftfield/untraditional DAWs like Live, FL, Reason, Renoise.

Example? Cubase vs. Reason. One could say that the former - in capable hands - is the best music making tool available, whereas the latter mostly only covers the required minimum and even falls short of that in some areas. But I'm bored dead in front of Cubase, whereas every time I open Reason - even to check the latest beta nowadays - I end up with something worth saving & potentially finishing, because the GUI, workflow, devices, factory presets invite me to explore... Just like someone finds their inspiration with a guitar, piano or synth; I do fooling around in - some - DAWs.

Another example for more contemporary software would be Studio One vs. Bitwig. There's no doubt that the former, as a "reimagining" of modern Cubase is a much better tool than the latter, but it's - like its protoplast - mostly lifeless and very utilitarian, whereas Bitwig's modulation systems, FX & PolyGrid and clip launcher invite to be explored and "toyed" with elevating it way above just being a (very imperfect, mind) tool.

So in a way I can see why OP would say that. I don't think anything in DAW space since Bitwig has been really exciting? Since I've been using DAWs, i.e. early 2017, all I see is basically filling the gaps between DAWs. Perhaps more innovation - and thus excitement - is happening now on iOS, but I've no idea as I don't (yet) have any Apple hardware.

[recursive one]

Why should DAWs be anything other than boring? They are tools and the best thing they can do is shrink into the background so you don't notice them.

Despite seeing 15 "likes" for your post, I have to say I don't agree with it, not all the way at least.

It's not that often I like Bones' posts but I wish i could give this one another 15 likes.

I never tried Bitwig (and probably never will) but for almost any feature that could potentially interest me in Ableton or FL Studio and which Studio One lacks there's a better 3rd party alternative or a simple workaround.

What I really love about Studio One is that I just don't notice it at all when I work on a project, I'm focused strictly on plugins, mixer faders and midi/automation programming which is implemented in S1 in the most straightforward manner (the last time i tried FL and Ableton the basic things like writing automation or freezing tracks were quite a mess in both, especially FL).

And I make music which involves quite a bit of various gimmicky things, such as psytrance.

Not to say FL looks too much eye-candy to be functional and Ableton is too ugly too look at it for more than 20 minutes.

[antic604]

It's not that often I like Bones' posts but I wish i could give this one another 15 likes.

I don't disagree with him. I just don't agree with him 100% in that that it's highly subjective whether DAW is just a tool or almost like another instrument/effect in your arsenal. I tilt - heavily - towards the latter.

I never tried Bitwig (and probably never will) but for almost any feature that could potentially interest me in Ableton or FL Studio and which Studio One lacks there's a better 3rd party alternative or a simple workaround.

I'd say that's not true, factually. But whether it matters for the quality of the end result is obviously debatable and the average listener definitely wouldn't care

What I really love about Studio One is that I just don't notice it at all when I work on a project, I'm focused strictly on plugins, mixer faders and midi/automation programming which is implemented in S1 in the most straightforward manner (the last time i tried FL and Ableton the basic things like writing automation or freezing tracks were quite a mess in both, especially FL).

Maybe I'm weird (duh?!), but my music is different in different DAWs. I mean broadly it's in the same genre, but the looks of the DAW, available native devices, workflow will inform my choices and end result pretty heavily.

Not to say FL looks too much eye-candy to be functional and Ableton is too ugly too look at it for more than 20 minutes.

Doesn't that contradict your earlier point, though? If DAW is just a tool, then it shouldn't matter how it looks as long as it has all the tools & workflow you require

[THE INTRANCER]

New types of DAW interfaces, where making music is more of an immersive and exciting experience is what I'm aiming at. DAW developers seem to lack the ingenuity to take things further in new directions. Nothing has really changed in 25 years... Now whilst this might be too out there, it's concept in which to readapt what we know of DAWs. Metasynth being an exception and diversifying the concept in how music is created in itself. My own vision in my mind is similar to this, but rather employing things more conventionally in what we already understand. To really convey how this would look, is something I would probably need to illustrate.

Music Creation With A 3D Interface



https://cdm.link/2011/06/entering-the-t ... interface/

AudioGL, a project teased in videos first in April and then again last week, is a new concept in designing a user interface for real-time music creation. Visuals and sound alike are generative, with the rotating, 3D-wireframe graphics and symbolic icons representing a kind of score for live synthesized music. The tracks in the video may sound like they’ve been pre-synthesized, polished, and sampled from elsewhere, but according to the creator, they’re all produced in the graphical interface you see – what you see is what you hear.

The newest video, released this week, reveals in detail the project’s notions of how to make a 3D, live music interface work. The UI itself is similar to other graphical patching metaphors, but here, like exploding a circuit diagram in space, routings and parameter envelopes are seen and edited in a freely-rotating view in three dimensions rather than on a flat plane.

There’s a reason interfaces like this have been few. Computer displays and pointing methods tend to be heavily biased to two-dimensional use, modeled as flat planes like pieces of paper. Working in two dimension is simply easier; there’s no reason you can’t take another layer of parameters and represent it on a two-dimensional interface. And rotating around in 3D space can make it difficult to keep your bearings.

Those challenges, though, don’t make this less interesting – they make it juicier and more delicious as design problem and stunning, futuristic musical model. Freed in three dimensions, a complex set of envelopes and parameters has room to spread out visually, making a kind of spatial score. This particular project strikes an interesting balance between traditional, iconic UI – operators are represented with graphic symbols – and more free-flowing geometry representing the sequencing and envelopes. To me, the latter is more compelling, but putting the two together may make the program more flexible and familiar to users of other music software.

What could knock you out of your chair, though, is the sheer depth of the software teased in the video. This is no simple tech demo: it’s an attempt to build an entirely new, live-synthesizing music tool from scratch in 3D. It’s like the International Space Station of music software, assembled in some void. I got a couple of tips on this today, and some are even wondering if it’s real.

It appears to be very real. Whether this particular tool is usable or not to me almost isn’t important: a spectacular failure in this arena would even be useful. Anyone waiting for some sort of “singularity” in music tech, I think it’s coming: it’s just going to be a singularity of human software ingenuity, explosive creativity and invention from independent developers. I can’t wait.

[BONES]

Another example for more contemporary software would be Studio One vs. Bitwig. There's no doubt that the former, as a "reimagining" of modern Cubase is a much better tool than the latter, but it's - like its protoplast - mostly lifeless and very utilitarian, whereas Bitwig's modulation systems, FX & PolyGrid and clip launcher invite to be explored and "toyed" with elevating it way above just being a (very imperfect, mind) tool.

Maybe to you but to me that shit just gets in the way of me getting my work done. I hated Bitwig and couldn't get anything done in it at all. It seems you want a playground, I want a workshop.

[jonljacobi]

Should a carpenter be excited by a hammer?

[mrcleats]

Nailed it

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

Should a carpenter be excited by a hammer?

Only if it does his job all by itself. To some, this is actually what they want from a DAW, and given the tons of prefab loops the devs insist to fill our hard disks with, the users are encouraged to expect it.

In the 90s, all music workstations were a mess to work with. Patience, training and steep learning curves made the deal. Now a days, the kiddos want all on a silver platter, even the talent, and training is left out of every “what is the best” thread as if it never really mattered.

[antic604]

Patience, training and steep learning curves made the deal. Now a days, the kiddos want all on a silver platter, even the talent, and training is left out of every “what is the best” thread as if it never really mattered.

What does that have to do with anything?

Are you saying those that see a DAW as more than just a tool are kiddos without any talent & skill? Walk me through that logic, please.

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I am saying that kiddos, who expect it to be more than a tool, e.g. that it has to do the work for you in exciting ways and even provide the talent of making music, are spoiled (compare to Bones’ playground point). I am a little worried you didn’t get that. To me, the logic is screamingly transparent.

[BoogerSnot]

My DAW can do this, it's very exciting:

[AnX]

Should a carpenter be excited by a hammer?

yes, I bought a new Estwing (24oz claw) a few weeks back, it's so nice I'm gonna buy a bigger one (32oz framing hammer) to go with it.

[pixel85]

Seriously the most exciting DAW for me was FruityLoops 2 (or 2.5?) Demo.
No save option so I had to make full track in one go and render. And it was crashing all the time, so often I had to do the same track two or three times. Happy, exciting times AF

Now, when my brain is fuc*** up (anchedonia) I still enjoy working with Cubase (which it seems, all "broducers" call boring) and I find it "exciting" as much as it can be in my case. So if you need new colorful exciting supadupa DAWs doing fireworks and belly dance etc... Then maybe you have even more dopamine deficiency than me

[antic604]

I am saying that kiddos, who expect it to be more than a tool, e.g. that it has to do the work for you in exciting ways and even provide the talent of making music, are spoiled (compare to Bones’ playground point). I am a little worried you didn’t get that. To me, the logic is screamingly transparent.

I get that angle (of kiddos expecting stuff), but you somehow imply that DAWs getting "easier" to work with and more feature-packed - therefore more exciting, as per the topic of this thread - are somehow less professional and more of a toy, rather than a tool. Perhaps it looks like that when you were starting with a crude, steep learning curve tools of the 80s and 90s; but I'd argue that nowadays you can do much more with those "toy" DAWs that you could 30-40 years ago with professional stuff. So I'm not convinced about the "toy" thing.

And I read your comment as a bit of snobbery - "Once upon a time I had to go to school / course and take a mortgage to record and produce music and only the brightest & most blessed of us could pull it off. Nowadays 10 year olds have access to more than I did for the price of their lunch money. And they all want to use it and be the next X or Y. Those damn talentless, spoiled kids!!!"

I am a little worried you didn’t see that, either

[TribeOfHǫfuð]

I get that angle (of kiddos expecting stuff), but you somehow imply that DAWs getting "easier" to work with and more feature-packed - therefore more exciting, as per the topic of this thread - are somehow less professional and more of a toy, rather than a tool.

Now it worries me that you think that a more feature packed DAW is universally a more exciting one. Not to Bones and not necessarily to me either, depends on the features needed and that is individual. Your false premise undermines a lot of your assertions here.