What is the future of Bitwig?

[Dionysos]

It can work the other way around too.

That's my entire point. It may, or may not, no one knows, so there's a risk. Focusing the public conversation on stuff that you can actually show off, like Bitwig are doing, is a safe bet on the other hand.

Maybe I would have been willing to stick with Bitwig until the next major update. But I have no idea where this train is going and have nothing to look forward to.

Maybe. If Bitwig's current capabilities aren't enough to keep you happy, sure, maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the first place. I'd always buy software based on what it is, not some promise of what it may be. Though I understand that it is a factor, I also bought Bitwig because I like the way they're going and because it seems like they've got a solid foundation and design principles to build on. But that's a fuzzy feeling rather than the expectation of specific features.

[j wazza]

While personally I'd appreciate such updates as well (just out of curiosity), I feel like there's not much in it for the devs.

Of course all approaches have pros and cons, but I think transparency and actively engaging with users is a net positive for any software company. Radio silence is really not the approach one would expect of a small indie company.

I started this thread hoping to get some official info, like U-He regularly do here on KVR. But after a couple of weeks I ended up buying a license for another DAW and will most likely end up selling my Bitwig license.

Maybe I would have been willing to stick with Bitwig until the next major update. But I have no idea where this train is going and have nothing to look forward to.

bitwig is updating itself faster than any other daw or vst i know, theyve said that bitwig 4 is all about notes, most companies dont talk about their update plans in certain, detailed terms, they dont give promises usually until near to the release date as they may not be able to get everything working how they want or on schedule etc

it seems strange to sell something because they havent said specifically what theyre going to add, uhe and reason are fairly vague too tbh but say a bit more than bitwig, but i buy stuff as it is not because of future updates whether or not they promise them, you dont know that theyll pull through

obvs use what u want tho

[pierb]

If Bitwig's current capabilities aren't enough to keep you happy, sure, maybe you shouldn't have bought it in the first place. I'd always buy software based on what it is, not some promise of what it may be.

There are a lot of details that only come up when you get deeper into using something.

I didn't buy Bitwig based on any future promise, but I did start this thread because I wanted to know if I should keep on using it or not.

[dlandis]

Will it continue to entrench itself into being the "experimental DAW"? Will it open itself to the more traditional DAW market like Studio One did?

I see no evidence of it opening up to the traditional DAW market. Studio One was built from the ground up to be a traditional linear DAW and has made very little effort in trying to attract the experimental market. Bitwig started off as a Live competitor and is doing well in that market and has no reason to change its strategy.

I think this is the single best post to sum up the entire thread (FWIW.)

The two DAWs I've been using most are (in no particular order) Studio One and Bitwig. I think I have knuckled down to these two because they are so thoroughly paradigmatically disjoint to each other. I like that. Neither has the "bloat" that can come with thirty plus years of existence. Each is progressing beautifully in its proposed raison d'etre. They are conceptually complementary and not really competitors, per se, despite both being DAWs.

I can make a comparison that I think works somewhat well: in industry and, say, a given company, there is often both an arm dedicated to production and another devoted to research and experimentation. A company that neglects one side of this equation to the exclusion of the other suffers for its decision. While individually, "one" musician may not be called to deal with both of these idealistic orientations, holistically, "musicians" as a totality most certainly are required to do this. Bitwig and Studio One represent these two dynamics very succinctly (and other DAWs do as well, I'm sure, for different people; I'm just relating the two with which I deal the most)). Studio One obviously is the production oriented DAW. Since I've started using it (and its sister application, Notion), I have yet to have one of those sessions that ends frustratingly with an issue that I have to work out the next day; it just doesn't happen. Studio One is laid out so logically that I can always get done what I need to with amazingly little fuss. Bitwig, on the other hand, is a joy of experimentation; it practically goads me into trying new approaches and sounds. I can slice, dice, and mangle to my heart's content. It satisfies my need to approach composing in a bit (or maybe radically) different manner.

FWIW, I really hope that Bitwig doesn't become a more traditional DAW. I really love it for what it is. And by the same token, I hope that Studio One doesn't decide to attempt to become an experimentation-oriented DAW. It's workflow is so beautiful that I hope nothing changes that. I'm really thankful for both.

[pierb]

FWIW, I really hope that Bitwig doesn't become a more traditional DAW.

So you'd rather keep using two incomplete DAWs than just a single DAW that had everything you need?

Not judging but it seems like a weird argument tbh.

[j wazza]

The two DAWs I've been using most are (in no particular order) Studio One and Bitwig. I think I have knuckled down to these two because they are so thoroughly paradigmatically disjoint to each other. Studio One obviously is the production oriented DAW. I have yet to have one of those sessions that ends frustratingly with an issue that I have to work out the next day; it just doesn't happen. Studio One is laid out so logically that I can always get done what I need to with amazingly little fuss. Bitwig, on the other hand, is a joy of experimentation; it practically goads me into trying new approaches and sounds. I can slice, dice, and mangle to my heart's content. It satisfies my need to approach composing in a bit (or maybe radically) different manner.

FWIW, I really hope that Bitwig doesn't become a more traditional DAW. I really love it for what it is. And by the same token, I hope that Studio One doesn't decide to attempt to become an experimentation-oriented DAW. It's workflow is so beautiful that I hope nothing changes that. I'm really thankful for both.

i use both of these too, id say bitwig and studio one are both really easy to use, intuitive and logically laid out, i wouldnt say studio one has a better workflow theyre about the same easiness but different

usually the only time i cant do something with bitwig is when i try to do something fancy that wouldnt be possible in studio one, except for pitchbend with vsts (not mpe), i tried that for a bit and gave up

what can studio one do that bitwig cant, other than the mix fx?

i would love if studio one at least added modulators like lfos, wouldnt have to be too fancy, and if bitwig had mix fx like studio one

the ideal daw for me would be a mixture of the 2, which would be ableton i just dont like the workflow of ableton, bitwig and studio one (and fruity loops) are so much more intuitive to use, i barely had to look at the manuals or watch any videos when i started using bitwig and studio one to get going in them, i still did to find out more about them especially as bitwig goes so deep but for the basics everything just works how i think it will and abletons not like that

[dlandis]

FWIW, I really hope that Bitwig doesn't become a more traditional DAW.

So you'd rather keep using two incomplete DAWs than just a single DAW that had everything you need?

Not judging but it seems like a weird argument tbh.

No, I understand you, and what you're asking is a very fair question.

I don't look at it that way. When I want to get things done and have to do it quickly, I find myself in Studio One mostly. Exploring, I go to Bitwig. For me, they really have separated into two different streams of thought. I do find myself more sensitive to noticing the difference now, though I can't tell you why this is the case. Since COVID, I've had longer periods of time to get to try things and compose, so maybe that has something to do with it, but this is speculation.

I only know that (at least for now), it's helpful to have the approaches separate.

Thanks for the question.

[dlandis]

The two DAWs I've been using most are (in no particular order) Studio One and Bitwig. I think I have knuckled down to these two because they are so thoroughly paradigmatically disjoint to each other. Studio One obviously is the production oriented DAW. I have yet to have one of those sessions that ends frustratingly with an issue that I have to work out the next day; it just doesn't happen. Studio One is laid out so logically that I can always get done what I need to with amazingly little fuss. Bitwig, on the other hand, is a joy of experimentation; it practically goads me into trying new approaches and sounds. I can slice, dice, and mangle to my heart's content. It satisfies my need to approach composing in a bit (or maybe radically) different manner.

FWIW, I really hope that Bitwig doesn't become a more traditional DAW. I really love it for what it is. And by the same token, I hope that Studio One doesn't decide to attempt to become an experimentation-oriented DAW. It's workflow is so beautiful that I hope nothing changes that. I'm really thankful for both.

i use both of these too, id say bitwig and studio one are both really easy to use, intuitive and logically laid out, i wouldnt say studio one has a better workflow theyre about the same easiness but different

usually the only time i cant do something with bitwig is when i try to do something fancy that wouldnt be possible in studio one, except for pitchbend with vsts (not mpe), i tried that for a bit and gave up

what can studio one do that bitwig cant, other than the mix fx?

i would love if studio one at least added modulators like lfos, wouldnt have to be too fancy, and if bitwig had mix fx like studio one

the ideal daw for me would be a mixture of the 2, which would be ableton i just dont like the workflow of ableton, bitwig and studio one (and fruity loops) are so much more intuitive to use, i barely had to look at the manuals or watch any videos when i started using bitwig and studio one to get going in them, i still did to find out more about them especially as bitwig goes so deep but for the basics everything just works how i think it will and abletons not like that

Again, very fair and good comments.

I think, at least for starters, is the fact that I am definitely a linear thinker. There was an immediate "in" on that level with Studio One. The ideas of clips is still a bit foreign to my natural way of conceiving. I chalk that up to the influence of a composition prof I had at the undergrad level who warned severely against ever repeating material verbatim. For him, it was a mortal sin. One just did not do that ever. I took his conviction very much as my own, so there was a connection with Studio One, but also, something of a disconnect with Bitwig on that level. (And if you're thinking it, you'd be right: "Live" didn't "feel right" for me anymore than it did for you. And I really can't explain exactly why.) Obviously, Bitwig has other "perks" for me in quick applications of modulators (as a wind driver player, I'm kind of given to that), the Grid, and randomization. These hold quite a bit of fascination for me. I'm trying to work these things in at a formal compositional level.

So, for me, it's not a playing off of one against the other. With the innate dichotomy within my own compositional biases, I'm enjoying both. It just works for me.

I should add one note: a fair amount of what I write is for people as performers, i.e., it has to go to sheet music. Eventually, someone is going to reading off of that piece of paper. The integration of Studio One with Notion is excellent and painless. For that, Bitwig would be very difficult with which to deal. Yes, I could generate a MIDI Standard File and import it into Finale, but this has yet to be really helpful for me: the editing necessary makes it almost a wash compared to just starting from scratch in Finale. Notion does lag a bit behind Finale (particularly in terms of available unusual markings), but it's definitely professional level output. If one has no need for manuscript, this point is moot, but for me, it's actually a pretty big feature.

[pierb]

No, I understand you, it's a very fair question.

I don't look at it that way. When I want to get things done and have to do it quickly, I find myself in Studio One mostly. Exploring, I go to Bitwig. For me, they really have separated into two different streams of thought. I do find myself more sensitive to noticing the difference now, though I can't tell you why this is the case. Since COVID, I've had longer periods of time to get to try things and compose, so maybe that has something to do with it, but this is speculation.

I only know that (at least for now), it's helpful to have the approaches separate.

Thanks for the question.

I get what you say about having two different mindsets.

Honestly I think Bitwig could accommodate both styles of working perfectly well. The issue is that I don't think there's much interest from the average Bitwig user, or even Bitwig itself (the company).

[backtomusic]

... I think, at least for starters, is the fact that I am definitely a linear thinker. There was an immediate "in" on that level with Studio One. The ideas of clips is still a bit foreign to my natural way of conceiving.

What is so foreign about clips? I probably don't get what you mean.
When you say clip, isn't it the same as midi/audio items in other daws that exist in a linear track that you can move around.

I don't use clip launcher to build my arrangment though if that is what your thinking about. Clip launcher is just my "backup" or try out zone if i want to replace a existing part in the linear timeline, copy that part to cliplauncher, change things upp, replace it on the timeline with a drag&drop.

[dlandis]

... I think, at least for starters, is the fact that I am definitely a linear thinker. There was an immediate "in" on that level with Studio One. The ideas of clips is still a bit foreign to my natural way of conceiving.

What is so foreign about clips? I probably don't get what you mean.
When you say clip, isn't it the same as midi/audio items in other daws that exist in a linear track that you can move around.

I don't use clip launcher to build my arrangment though if that is what your thinking about. Clip launcher is just my "backup" or try out zone if i want to replace a existing part in the linear timeline, copy that part to cliplauncher, change things upp, replace it on the timeline with a drag&drop.

Well, you're right, of course: there's nothing foreign about clips. You can certainly move them around in other DAWs that are more linearly oriented. There's no "formal" issue there, so to speak, as MIDI and audio data is equally malleable in that regard. Having said that, however, a look at the main screen of Bitwig and Studio One betrays the proclivity of each application. Bitwig has a clip launcher front and cen,...er, left, while Studio One is "straight through" tracks. Each design is suggesting to its user a direction in which to proceed. While Bitwig can certainly be used as a traditional track sequencer, I sense it is not really expected that will be the way the user will compose.

Some of this is paradigmatic. I enjoyed your description of the way you use the clip launcher. It harkens back for me to the way Dave Liebman teaches the use of ii min7-V7-I maj7 patterns for jazz improvisation. In Dave's way of thinking, one only needs six patterns flexible enough to be used (with transposition, of course) on a second's notice if one comes up "dry" for an idea during a solo. If you have full command of these six patterns (which should be your own rather than transcribed from someone else), you are golden. I'd heard other pattern oriented jazz musicians suggest that one needed an innumerable number of licks to cover every contingency, but Dave was much more into retaining a genuine sense exploration in the solo, saving patterns only to remediate emergencies. I appreciated his comments more than you can believe. Your remarks are a welcome reminder of Dave's and I appreciate the way that you are using the clip launcher in a non-doctrinaire way, if you will.

So, some of my idea, then, is probably mostly psychological/developmental. I came from using Cakewalk (also very linear) to using Studio One. I was introduced to Live years ago, but that never felt comfortable for reasons I cannot fully explain, so I never pursued it. I had the experience of my prof's dictum (against repeating musical material) rattling around in my brain also indirectly supporting the linear idea, really, to the exclusion of using patterns or clips. So, when I noticed Bitwig, it struck me as intriguing and a challenge.

I'm trying to get into each DAW for what it's paradigm implies and take each on its own merits. I don't deny that others might find this cumbersome; I imagine that might be the case for quite a few. Far less, am I implying that this is some "better" way to compose music. For many, I am sure, that is absolutely not the case. For this rather tired gray fox, however, it has been kind of fascinating.

[dupont]

bitwig will try to make poly and note grid even more complicated to use and you will need a PHD and countless hours to understand how it works

[j wazza]

Again, very fair and good comments.

I think, at least for starters, is the fact that I am definitely a linear thinker. The ideas of clips is still a bit foreign to my natural way of conceiving. I chalk that up to the influence of a composition prof I had at the undergrad level who warned severely against ever repeating material verbatim. For him, it was a mortal sin. One just did not do that ever. I took his conviction very much as my own,

I should add one note: a fair amount of what I write is for people as performers, i.e., it has to go to sheet music.

i never use the clip launcher i arrange in the same way in all daws pretty much
by not repeating verbatim do you mean like always changing the melody and chords at least slightly, like different voicings etc, or just like at least changing the velocities etc so the same melody sounds slightly different?

is there not a vst that can turn midi input into sheet music in bitwig?

bitwig will try to male poly and note grid even more complicated to use and you will need a PHD and countless hours to understand how it works

synths and modulars are always complicated, but bitwig is simpler to use than almost any other modular

[dlandis]

i never use the clip launcher i arrange in the same way in all daws pretty much
by not repeating verbatim do you mean like always changing the melody and chords at least slightly, like different voicings etc, or just like at least changing the velocities etc so the same melody sounds slightly different?

is there not a vst that can turn midi input into sheet music in bitwig?

I was thinking of more of the former in terms of change: not repeating verbatim by altering the melody and chords slightly (and often more than that.) There's a strong post-60's jazz subtext here that frowns upon an exact repetition in addition to what I gleaned from Professor DaCosta's comments along the same line coming from a 20th century Art Music background. So, normally, just changing the velocities, for example, wouldn't be a satisfying enough difference for much of what I do, though it could be enough in some more limited or less typical (for me) circumstances. With that as my paradigm, I really "push" to develop different themes, settings, textures, voicings, and motifs as I work through a given composition. It's a challenge and, actually, great fun to do so for me.

I know of no plug-in that can generate sheet music from MIDI input on the level necessary to produce professional level manuscript. I could take the MIDI output from Bitwig and load it into Studio One or (more directly) Notion, but I'm not sure that the editing necessary from that attempt would be less daunting than what happens from a similar load into Finale.

You can see why I really hope that Bitwig retains its experimental flavor.

[j wazza]

I was thinking of more of the former in terms of change: not repeating verbatim by altering the melody and chords slightly (and often more than that.) There's a strong post-60's jazz subtext here that frowns upon an exact repetition in addition to what I gleaned from Professor DaCosta's comments along the same line coming from a 20th century Art Music background. So, normally, just changing the velocities, for example, wouldn't be a satisfying enough difference for much of what I do, though it could be enough in some more limited or less typical (for me) circumstances. With that as my paradigm, I really "push" to develop different themes, settings, textures, voicings, and motifs as I work through a given composition. It's a challenge and, actually, great fun to do so for me.

I know of no plug-in that can generate sheet music from MIDI input on the level necessary to produce professional level manuscript. I could take the MIDI output from Bitwig and load it into Studio One or (more directly) Notion, but I'm not sure that the editing necessary from that attempt would be less daunting than what happens from a similar load into Finale.

You can see why I really hope that Bitwig retains its experimental flavor.

for jazz that makes sense, its a balance though as repetition can be a good thing, if something sounds good i wanna hear it again, it can get stale if repeat the exact same thing over and over, but it can also sound a bit unconnected if there isnt any repetition at all, most music does have some repetition, at least 1 part like a bass that repeats and other parts changing over the top, this is a great example that has a repeating bassline throughout but keeps it fresh with other parts changing

do you mean in your music every part is always changing, or there is always at least 1 thing changing?

that sheet music vst seems like a gap in the market if it doesnt exist as it seems like it should definitely be doable with a vst