Studio One workflow issues.. (Ableton fx-racks...?)

[jamcat]

So I found an Ableton tutorial video on the Session view just to see what it was all about. I see now it is made for morons. I'm so glad Studio One doesn't have anything like this. I would demand my money back if they ever added it. It's no way to go about creating real songs. But it's OK if you like to play DJ and create monotonous endless loops, I guess.

Isn't it obvious it isn't for creating song, although it can be used as such.
It's the "live" aspect of Ableton Live.

Consider a traditional daw, you want to improvise live.. how do you change order of the song and switch out loops to do a new arrangement while playing live in a linear daw with only an arranger.
Ofcourse, weather or not that is useful depends of what kind of music you do.

From a composing point of view, you can try ideas in session view before rearranging your timeline. So it can be convenient as sort of a scratch pad.

I'm no Ableton user though

If a musician wants to change up a live performance they put their fingers in a different position on their instrument. That’s why I say it must be for people who want to play DJ, not musicians. That’s also why I would drop Studio One the minute they added something like that. Because that would be the moment when Studio One was no longer geared towards musicians like myself.

[xbitz]

...

From a composing point of view, you can try ideas in session view before rearranging your timeline. So it can be convenient as sort of a scratch pad.

I'm no Ableton user though

just a remark, in S1 events can be dropped to the scratchpad and can be listened back in the arranger from any point

and vice-versa, no needs session view

[elnn]

...

From a composing point of view, you can try ideas in session view before rearranging your timeline. So it can be convenient as sort of a scratch pad.

I'm no Ableton user though

just a remark, in S1 events can be dropped to the scratchpad and can be listened back in the arranger from any point
and vice-versa, no needs session view

Scratch pad was very buggy when I still used S1. It used to leave whole lists of scratch pads without data after reloading a project. Not sure if it's been fixed.

[Trancit]

...

From a composing point of view, you can try ideas in session view before rearranging your timeline. So it can be convenient as sort of a scratch pad.

I'm no Ableton user though

just a remark, in S1 events can be dropped to the scratchpad and can be listened back in the arranger from any point

and vice-versa, no needs session view

But perhaps it should be noted that the scratch pad is perhaps able to do 10% of what Ableton´s session view can do!
Follow actions alone is a world of it´s own...

[xbitz]

^^^ but it does not do consolidation using arranger clips and can keep the connection with the original material

so has a world of its own...

ps. btw. I can see follow actions on its Show Time page, but never used it https://musictech.com/tutorials/studio- ... dio-one-5/
point ten

[BONES]

Consider a traditional daw, you want to improvise live.. how do you change order of the song and switch out loops to do a new arrangement while playing live in a linear daw with only an arranger.

In Studio One you use the Arranger Track. Perfectly simple, really. The problem is, though, that it requires you to f**k about on stage with your computer when you're supposed to be engaging with your audience. It's the last thing any performer is going to want to do. My ideal situation is one where I press the Spacebar when I walk out on stage and never have to touch the laptop again. Nobody goes to a gig to watch someone play with their laptop, they want to be entertained.

Also, I can't ever remember going to a show where the band improvised anything. People go to hear you play your songs and the most you might get is your rhythm section keeping time while the frontman tries to get the audience to sing along or clap along or something, which pretty much always feels horribly contrived (yet is normally effective).

[jamcat]

Nothing makes an audience feel cheated more than watching someone muck about with a computer and playlist on stage. They’re paying money to see musicians play, not watch a DJ press play.

[Crossinger]

Nothing makes an audience feel cheated more than watching someone muck about with a computer and playlist on stage. They’re paying money to see musicians play, not watch a DJ press play.

I don’t think so

But I digress…

[jamcat]

The vocalist does a pretty good Johnny Rotten. But hitting someone with a laptop doesn’t have the same impact as a bass guitar.

Other than that, the only thing missing is the rhetorical question, “Ever get the feeling you’ve been cheated?”

[BONES]

Nothing makes an audience feel cheated more than watching someone muck about with a computer and playlist on stage. They’re paying money to see musicians play, not watch a DJ press play.

I think the essential difference is that a DJ is there to play what the people want to hear, whereas the audience at a rock gig is there to hear what the band wants to play for them. Obviously a generalisation but, by and large, fairly accurate in my experience.

[Dionysos]

whereas the audience at a rock gig is there to hear what the band wants to play for them

...and then complain afterwards that it wasn't what they wanted to hear.

IMO that distinction is entirely made up and doesn't hold water, I could reverse the roles and it would make just as much (or little) sense.

[BONES]

Hardly made up, the proof is there whenever you care to go to either type of venue. Of course, we're talking about artists who play original music, not cover bands. A band never cuts a song short because nobody's dancing, they run through their set, in order, and people take it or leave it. OTOH, DJ's will string out pieces that are going well and cut short pieces that aren't. They tailor what they do to their crowd, which is not something most bands would even contemplate.

[bermudagold]

No, they show what, not why and to me they seem like the dumbest idea. It might have made sense 10-15 years ago, when synths were a lot more basic, but these days you're much better off doing most of that stuff, which is basically just sound deign, in the instrument. In the Ablelton videos I watched all they ever ended up with was a sound for a track, something I can get from a synth on it's own, without all that faffing about.

Well I think that is the crux of it...you prefer to do sound design in the instrument separate from the DAW function...you probably find that compartmentalization focused,...other people find that limiting...others find using the functional components of the DAW modularly to do sound design liberating...again the DAW as the instrument

Well at least you tried these things with an open mind and determined the value added wasn't there for you...fair enough...it just shows how complex cognitive performance is and therefore how tricky CHI design is...isolating and quantifying what makes a light bulb go off for one person while frustrating another person is a fascinating science

[BONES]

Sorry but I can't see how it is limiting in any way when the results aren't any different. If you were coming up with results that couldn't be achieved any other way, then fine, but that's not where it ends up, is it? I think it comes down to whether you are doing it for a reason, i.e. to make a song for an album or something, or if you are just doing it for the sake of doing it. For those latter people, it becomes a matter of "why not?", whereas for the former group it is more "why would I do it that way when I don't need to?"

[jamcat]

If you're doing sound design in the instrument then you can bank that as a preset and it becomes totally portable from one song to another, or even from one DAW to another. You can easily share it with bandmates or just mates.

I see a lot of value in that.