THE DAW: Freeing Yourself From The GRID!

[tommyzai]

Many, like myself, miss elements of analog tape recording, but it's no longer a viable option (not actively manufactured, expensive to buy and maintain, etc.). There's a reason why it's gone, but was the baby tossed out with the bathwater? Aside from the countless number of audio software designed revive the nuances of analog tape recording, there is another thing . . . FREEDOM! Some might argue that a DAW provides more freedom, but a typical workflow within a DAW also locks and confines users into a grid. I created a thread about Beat Detective and thanks to a couple of cool cats, I started thinking about going the opposite direction . . .

One suggestion by BertKoor: To free yourself? Easy!!! Set BPM = 60, then each vertical bar is a second. Ignore them totally, snap to grid: off! Now you have digital "tape".

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest? In this case, would the choice of DAW matter?

Can we free ourselves from grids?

Disclaimer: I realize this is probably not something most dance genres would consider, but for live instrument-based genres . . .

[pdxindy]

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest?

Can we free ourselves from grids?

Sure, it's easy. Turn off the grid snapping, quantization and metronome and hit record and just start playing.

One feature I like in Logic is I can record my free playing like that, and then it will conform the grid to my playing. So if I want to add some grid based sequencing to my free playing, I can.

[danbroad]

Time base set to seconds/frames, no metronome, hit record at the start of the session. I route audio from all tracks to a live recording track, so even sound changes, new ideas etc are all record-what-you-hear. Nothing from the session.. delete. Some new idea… snip out the bit you like.

[machinesworking]

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest?

Can we free ourselves from grids?

Sure, it's easy. Turn off the grid snapping, quantization and metronome and hit record and just start playing.

One feature I like in Logic is I can record my free playing like that, and then it will conform the grid to my playing. So if I want to add some grid based sequencing to my free playing, I can.

That from what I know is the actual defining difference that Logic has over every other DAW. There are manual ways to make the grid conform to audio not recorded to a metronome in other DAWs, but Logic is the only DAW I know of that does it all automatically.

[Teksonik]

Many, like myself, miss elements of analog tape recording,

For the love of all that is holy...why? I wouldn't go back unless held at gunpoint.

Some might argue that a DAW provides more freedom

And they would be 100% right.

but a typical workflow within a DAW also locks and confines users into a grid.

A "grid' is just a visual representation of time. As you say, turn off snap to grid and any other quantizing features and you're good to go.

The only difference now is that you don't need to use a razor blade to do a simple edit....

[jancivil]

Ok. I used to, in order to work freely and have no concern about what BPM or tempo manipulation as I understood it, would do just that and work freely ignoring the grid entirely. At one point, however Cubase came out with a feature called Time Warp (Studio One has it, albeit what it's called IDK, at least since v.4 something, I saw it on Youtube) at iirc SX2, circa '04.

So the way I was going is really not good, because in the first place, I'm ignorant of what my own music is doing. If I needed to adjust what I'd done, I was going into Process Bars and adding little bars of 1/32, 1/64 to give a little more time to a part.
And then arrangement is a bit dodgy, I mean adding 'layers' in the vertical - NB: a drum speaks immediately; a big horn unless it's a super-energetic FF and such (even so) takes more time; a bowed string, again unless it's a certain quicker articulation, in reality has a definite timing difference. So it's good to know where "1" is.

with Time Warp here is a two-fold approach to the timeline. 1) is you take your performance, audio or MIDI, or any audio or MIDI you want to start with and with the project timeline and the tracks set to Linear time, find your downbeats (and then your beats within bars) and drag the extant barline given in the 120BPM default to these musically meaningful nodes.
(Studio One seems to have made an improvement on the workflow of handing the tempi _to the right_ of what you've done, albeit it's not a real problem this modus operandi has rules as it were. Consequences, further adjustments...)
So now the timeline has a precise awareness of real tempi.

2) is, you want to do as I set out above, give some moments a little (or a lot) more time, you set the tracks to Musical time and in Tempo Track make a change in the tempo at this node; this technique as opposed to dragging a barline because of the rules/consequences of warping because just adjusting one node in isolation means no adjustment to the right of the node needs occur.

So I have set Cubase to have a key command to toggle 'selected tracks' from Linear to Musical time, just select the tracks (assuming our parts/events follow tracks or vice versa in our setup ie, Preferences) and toggle.

So I know of three hosts that can do this (Nuendo same as Cubase ie:) Cubendo, Studio One, and Samplitude. Logic has attempted something but it doesn't cut the mustard really. Looking around, very few people know about this or care.

See, I honestly do not know what an abstraction such as "108 BPM" feels like, isn't ever more than a guess, so for me it's a stupid way to proceed. Fortunately pretty early in my DAW whole experience Cubase came out with this feature.
I remember seeing the demonstration video vividly, it was the Pretenders tune "I'm Special" which you'd think is rock solid but the BPMs are in reality changing all the time. This was such an eye-opener for me. I'd wasted some time ignoring whazt time it is in my own music. And being that rhythmically I'm interested in some advanced shit, knowing what is actually happening leads to further exploration of time; ie., is the bar line here and am I crossing the bar in my 5-in-the-time-of-4 and whatnot or is it over here... with more than one level of time knowing is yet more crucial than it is 'normally'.

[jancivil]

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest?

Can we free ourselves from grids?

Sure, it's easy. Turn off the grid snapping, quantization and metronome and hit record and just start playing.

One feature I like in Logic is I can record my free playing like that, and then it will conform the grid to my playing. So if I want to add some grid based sequencing to my free playing, I can.

That from what I know is the actual defining difference that Logic has over every other DAW. There are manual ways to make the grid conform to audio not recorded to a metronome in other DAWs, but Logic is the only DAW I know of that does it all automatically.

Conform the grid to the music to what extent, though? "Automatically" sounds like AI (beyond ML). I mean I do things it legit/literally would have to have real intelligence to nail, including things that can be interpreted a number of ways my own self. It def would be unique and a huge advantage if it followed what I do down to the letter but this is what we call a vanishing probability. If it was as magical as that (it may well totally suss simpler rhythm than mine) I would look into switching DAWs, there are absolutely aspects of Cubendo that suck!

A simple example, 12/8 (6/8) vs 4/4 (2/4 etc) and triplets; let's say we've started into doing 8 in the time of 3 in a compound meter (aka dotted 16ths) and stay with it for a bit ie., consistently, are we *actually* in a duple meter "now"*? If we have moved from one to the other, is this a crucial distinction, if so *when, and why. Here is a decision; the which is it *really* is down to intent; and to proceed knowing (in both the vertical [layering, adding parts] and the horizontal) is crucial to me. It's absolutely going to be manual for me for a myriad of reasons, this example being one of the simpler things and that I can convey quickly. (then there's ambiguity which is yet more to go into)
{a good example of a totally flexible hemiola is Zappa Cruising For Burgers with the 1988 band. It's not more complicated than simple hemiola (in compound meter, accentuating the duple aspect here/the triple there) but I guarantee a machine is going to become confused before too long (absent giving it firm instructions like "This is in 12/8" [in a collaboration, tbf] in the first place. NB: decisions.} Now, this may seem like edge cases but to me is def. basic.

"to make the grid conform to audio [...]" - the Cubendo Time Warp is not restricted to working with audio. I compose in MIDI/the piano roll, obv. I may not commit to a decision for a while.

[jens]

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest? In this case, would the choice of DAW matter?

If you're a world-class drummer, of course...

without any other guidance (drums or some kind of metronome) it can be pretty hard already to keep only two instruments that are recorded one after the other tight... (works the better the more rhythmic at least one of both is)

If you record a band it's a different story of course - then you can just record away and overdub afterwards whatever you deem neccessary - personally I wouldn't use a click-track on a band, unless they trigger sequenced stuff without being able to tap it (well enough).

[machinesworking]

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest?

Can we free ourselves from grids?

Sure, it's easy. Turn off the grid snapping, quantization and metronome and hit record and just start playing.

One feature I like in Logic is I can record my free playing like that, and then it will conform the grid to my playing. So if I want to add some grid based sequencing to my free playing, I can.

That from what I know is the actual defining difference that Logic has over every other DAW. There are manual ways to make the grid conform to audio not recorded to a metronome in other DAWs, but Logic is the only DAW I know of that does it all automatically.

Conform the grid to the music to what extent, though? "Automatically" sounds like AI (beyond ML). I mean I do things it legit/literally would have to have real intelligence to nail, including things that can be interpreted a number of ways my own self. It def would be unique and a huge advantage if it followed what I do down to the letter but this is what we call a vanishing probability. If it was as magical as that (it may well totally suss simpler rhythm than mine) I would look into switching DAWs, there are absolutely aspects of Cubendo that suck!

A simple example, 12/8 (6/8) vs 4/4 (2/4 etc) and triplets; let's say we've started into doing 8 in the time of 3 in a compound meter (aka dotted 16ths) and stay with it for a bit ie., consistently, are we *actually* in a duple meter "now"*? If we have moved from one to the other, is this a crucial distinction, if so *when, and why. Here is a decision; the which is it *really* is down to intent; and to proceed knowing (in both the vertical [layering, adding parts] and the horizontal) is crucial to me. It's absolutely going to be manual for me for a myriad of reasons, this example being one of the simpler things and that I can convey quickly. (then there's ambiguity which is yet more to go into)
{a good example of a totally flexible hemiola is Zappa Cruising For Burgers with the 1988 band. It's not more complicated than simple hemiola (in compound meter, accentuating the duple aspect here/the triple there) but I guarantee a machine is going to become confused before too long (absent giving it firm instructions like "This is in 12/8" [in a collaboration, tbf] in the first place. NB: decisions.} Now, this may seem like edge cases but to me is def. basic.

"to make the grid conform to audio [...]" - the Cubendo Time Warp is not restricted to working with audio. I compose in MIDI/the piano roll, obv. I may not commit to a decision for a while.

I'm not a full time Logic user, so I don't have the answers, but I think your points are valid, it's probably mostly good for 4//4 accoustic guitar and drum parts that are in simple time signatures.

[stoopicus]

Many, like myself, miss elements of analog tape recording,

For the love of all that is holy...why? I wouldn't go back unless held at gunpoint.

Some might argue that a DAW provides more freedom

And they would be 100% right.

Yeah... I'll be over in this corner too. I don't miss the old days at all.

[Jac459]

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest?

Can we free ourselves from grids?

Sure, it's easy. Turn off the grid snapping, quantization and metronome and hit record and just start playing.

One feature I like in Logic is I can record my free playing like that, and then it will conform the grid to my playing. So if I want to add some grid based sequencing to my free playing, I can.

Nice feature, I didn't know it exists.

[EnGee]

Could this work? If so, what workflow would you suggest?

Can we free ourselves from grids?

Sure, it's easy. Turn off the grid snapping, quantization and metronome and hit record and just start playing.

One feature I like in Logic is I can record my free playing like that, and then it will conform the grid to my playing. So if I want to add some grid based sequencing to my free playing, I can.

You can do that also in Cubase. It's a function called "detect tempo". Both Logic amd Cubase have this function. Wish that Bitwig do it also. It's very useful to record an idea without thinking of Tempo then build on it, then decide later the tempo. Nicer than to detect the tempo by yourself. Anyway, I used now to guessing, then correcting it by tapping or just lower/increase the tempo (in Bitwig, which doesn't have tempo detection).

[tommyzai]

I don't mind correcting and editing later on, but it would be nice to freely create first.

[Danilo Villanova]

A good approach is to use a scratch track instead of a metronome. Use a guitar or drum on your desk, or whatever, without a metronome, following the structure of the song/part you're recording. Then create a tempo map based on the scratch track, then your metronome will follow that instead of the grid and you can layer the rest of your tracks using that.

[Artie Fichelle]

just do not use the metronome. Just play and edit later. Have I got something wrong thought with that?