If you had to stick to one DAW, which one would it be?

[milesdeem]

Yeah i mean, vibrato is cool and all, but I'm not sure its music

[liquidsound]

It’s fair to say bitwigers have a passion for modulations, but I’m not sure that includes music making

All musicians have a passion for modulations... there wouldn't be music otherwise.

Balance... Balance...BALANCE!!!

[frankpain]

My how Pro Tools have fallen

[syntonica]

It’s fair to say bitwigers have a passion for modulations, but I’m not sure that includes music making

All musicians have a passion for modulations... there wouldn't be music otherwise.

Nah, man...I kinda like everything in the same key...

[vurt]

motorik

[BONES]

That said, I like an all around DAW, DP and Logic are by far the most feature rich DAWs out there, (queue Reaper users saying you can write a script for it), if you need access to all the paradigms those two cover more bases than the rest, followed slightly by Cubase, Studio One, Reaper, and Sonar.

You're confusing needs and wants. Nobody needs a clip launcher to produce a piece of music but pretty much everybody needs a mixer.

Your example of MOTU doing a shit job on their clip launcher is the perfect illustration of my point and it goes against the notion that being "feature rich" is better. To me, the best DAW is the one that does the best job of catering to my needs, not the one with all the features I might want. I have licenses for both Studio One Artist and Pro. Pro has some really nice features, but nothing over Artist that I really need, so Artist is the one I use.

When we worked in hardware, the mixer and the sequencer were never the most important parts of our set-up. The most important things were always the instruments. They were the biggest boxes and the most expensive individual items, so they had pride of place in the set-up. The mixer and the sequencer were just things you had to have, like cables and keyboard stands.

When we started working ITB, those priorities didn't change. Our instruments are still the most important things, the DAW is just there to support them. It only needs to do simple things but, like a good mixer, it needs to them very well. The rest of it is mostly marketing bullshit that helps the developer sell more licenses more than it helps users make better music and I can happily do without it.

[Jac459]

Yeah i mean, vibrato is cool and all, but I'm not sure its music

I don't know if I don't get you or you just don't get the discussion .

[sQeetz]

I have licenses for both Studio One Artist and Pro. Pro has some really nice features, but nothing over Artist that I really need, so Artist is the one I use.

Wait... you have a Pro license, but use Artist because you don't need the features of Pro. Since you own the Pro license, why not use that and just ignore the pro features? What is in the way?

[Jac459]

That said, I like an all around DAW, DP and Logic are by far the most feature rich DAWs out there, (queue Reaper users saying you can write a script for it), if you need access to all the paradigms those two cover more bases than the rest, followed slightly by Cubase, Studio One, Reaper, and Sonar.

You're confusing needs and wants. Nobody needs a clip launcher to produce a piece of music but pretty much everybody needs a mixer.

Your example of MOTU doing a shit job on their clip launcher is the perfect illustration of my point and it goes against the notion that being "feature rich" is better. To me, the best DAW is the one that does the best job of catering to my needs, not the one with all the features I might want. I have licenses for both Studio One Artist and Pro. Pro has some really nice features, but nothing over Artist that I really need, so Artist is the one I use.

When we worked in hardware, the mixer and the sequencer were never the most important parts of our set-up. The most important things were always the instruments. They were the biggest boxes and the most expensive individual items, so they had pride of place in the set-up. The mixer and the sequencer were just things you had to have, like cables and keyboard stands.

When we started working ITB, those priorities didn't change. Our instruments are still the most important things, the DAW is just there to support them. It only needs to do simple things but, like a good mixer, it needs to them very well. The rest of it is mostly marketing bullshit that helps the developer sell more licenses more than it helps users make better music and I can happily do without it.

I mostly agree with you in general but I do think that the modulation systems in general and Bitwig in particular are not part of your demonstration.

As you said very well yourself, the most important point, beyond a sequencer, is actually the instrument. Its sound of course but beyond that and more importantly, the way it is played.
We can take as an example the Jazz fans, they are prouder to be able to recognise an interpret than the song itself, just the way the song is played, they can know who interpret it.

I will summarise all that by expressivity (maybe there is a better word, but I am not native...).

Expressivity is everywhere in music, from the talent of a violinist, a bassist and even the imperfection of an analog synth, the voice of a rapper (they can have very repetitive and simple electronic beats because the expressivity is in the voice).

In many electronic music genre, this expressivity is done through various transformation of the sound while playing (or programming) by changing a filter, evolving an ADSR, speeding up an LFO, etc...
From a broader observation, electronic music has really started to work broadly 85-90s when it managed to gain back expressivity. It could have been the genius programming of a Jean-Michel Jarre or Vangelis, or the programmation of the opening of a filter with Acid music. But it speed with people like Mirwais or later Amon Tobin, they have introduced a new level of refinement of expressivity in electronic music which has become mainstream with Skrillex and other dubstepers....

Now I consider Bitwig is the natural brainchild of this approach.

[machinesworking]

That said, I like an all around DAW, DP and Logic are by far the most feature rich DAWs out there, (queue Reaper users saying you can write a script for it), if you need access to all the paradigms those two cover more bases than the rest, followed slightly by Cubase, Studio One, Reaper, and Sonar.

You're confusing needs and wants. Nobody needs a clip launcher to produce a piece of music but pretty much everybody needs a mixer.

Your example of MOTU doing a shit job on their clip launcher is the perfect illustration of my point and it goes against the notion that being "feature rich" is better. To me, the best DAW is the one that does the best job of catering to my needs, not the one with all the features I might want. I have licenses for both Studio One Artist and Pro. Pro has some really nice features, but nothing over Artist that I really need, so Artist is the one I use.

When we worked in hardware, the mixer and the sequencer were never the most important parts of our set-up. The most important things were always the instruments. They were the biggest boxes and the most expensive individual items, so they had pride of place in the set-up. The mixer and the sequencer were just things you had to have, like cables and keyboard stands.

When we started working ITB, those priorities didn't change. Our instruments are still the most important things, the DAW is just there to support them. It only needs to do simple things but, like a good mixer, it needs to them very well. The rest of it is mostly marketing bullshit that helps the developer sell more licenses more than it helps users make better music and I can happily do without it.

I think you missed the part where I agreed with you on this. DAWs adding in features that make other DAWs unique but missing the plot and doing it half baked is a good argument for developers to not chase bloatware and stick to what they do well.

I've been back to Live for a collaboration for a couple weeks now, and IMO there is a limit to this though. Ableton tie the loop and punch in/out feature to the same locators, so you can't overdub while looping without using a count in, and count in is tied to recording so you can't have a click count in without recording. So to have a practice countoff at bar one you have to add in empty space, then audio click WAVs in that space etc.

You can definitely go too far.

[dellboy]

Expressivity is everywhere in music, from the talent of a violinist, a bassist and even the imperfection of an analog synth, the voice of a rapper (they can have very repetitive and simple electronic beats because the expressivity is in the voice).

In many electronic music genre, this expressivity is done through various transformation of the sound while playing (or programming) by changing a filter, evolving an ADSR, speeding up an LFO, etc...


Now I consider Bitwig is the natural brainchild of this approach.

There is a vast difference between a truly great violinist such as Jascha Heifetz manipulating his violin in real time, to someone twiddling some knobs with a mouse in Bitwig. The former takes a whole lifetime of dedication to learn, the latter takes a few minutes of twiddling.

[Jac459]

Expressivity is everywhere in music, from the talent of a violinist, a bassist and even the imperfection of an analog synth, the voice of a rapper (they can have very repetitive and simple electronic beats because the expressivity is in the voice).

In many electronic music genre, this expressivity is done through various transformation of the sound while playing (or programming) by changing a filter, evolving an ADSR, speeding up an LFO, etc...


Now I consider Bitwig is the natural brainchild of this approach.

There is a vast difference between a truly great violinist such as Jascha Heifetz manipulating his violin in real time, to someone twiddling some knobs with a mouse in Bitwig. The former takes a whole lifetime of dedication to learn, the latter takes a few minutes of twiddling.

Thanks for this enlightening comment, I (like many others I guess) thought both were the same complexity.

By the way, in Bitwig you don't even need a mouse... It can all be done for you with modulations + automation...

But as we are talking about DAW and you seems to mean that if something is harder to do then it is better musically, do you mean to say that DAW with worst workflow are better ? ?

Or maybe your point is to say that electronic music is in fact not music because there isn't talented interpret to play it ?

[pdxindy]

In many electronic music genre, this expressivity is done through various transformation of the sound while playing (or programming) by changing a filter, evolving an ADSR, speeding up an LFO, etc...
From a broader observation, electronic music has really started to work broadly 85-90s when it managed to gain back expressivity. It could have been the genius programming of a Jean-Michel Jarre or Vangelis, or the programmation of the opening of a filter with Acid music. But it speed with people like Mirwais or later Amon Tobin, they have introduced a new level of refinement of expressivity in electronic music which has become mainstream with Skrillex and other dubstepers....

Now I consider Bitwig is the natural brainchild of this approach.

Yes, Bitwig is developing new expressive capabilities between instruments and DAW. These are exciting times for people who value both expressive playing and expressive programming and creative blends of the two.

[pdxindy]

There is a vast difference between a truly great violinist such as Jascha Heifetz manipulating his violin in real time, to someone twiddling some knobs with a mouse in Bitwig. The former takes a whole lifetime of dedication to learn, the latter takes a few minutes of twiddling.

False dichotomy... those are not the only two possibilities. There are also people who suck at violin and people who put the same sort of dedication you are talking about into learning electronic music.

And with capabilities like MPE, Note Expressions, etc., there is a vast field of nuanced and expressive possibility awaiting those who seek to explore in depth. Bitwig is at the forefront in developing expressive new tools. It is up to individuals to put the effort in to learn, same as with the violin or any other instrument.

[dellboy]

By the way, in Bitwig you don't even need a mouse... It can all be done for you with modulations + automation...

But as we are talking about DAW and you seems to mean that if something is harder to do then it is better musically, do you mean to say that DAW with worst workflow are better ? ?

Or maybe your point is to say that electronic music is in fact not music because there isn't talented interpret to play it ?

I am not criticising Bitwig, it is a brilliant piece of software engineering. I took the time to watch a video about modulations etc, and was very impressed.So its not about Bitwig. Its about soul. Only a live musician does that for me personally. I did look up the two musicians you mentioned, and listened to a few bits of their music. Jean Michelle Jarre they are not. Just a subjective personal opinion.