I have a couple of groove boxes, several controllers, with and without their own sounds, and bunch of synths (sound sources). They are all connected to each other midi (MRCC Midi router) and audio (Mackie 16 VLZ mixer) and this is all connected to a couple of FX pedals (H9 and BigSky) and my desktop computer (running Live and Logic but tons of VSTs). I can use any controller to control any synth and any synth to send sound wherever I want. At this point it is sort of set it and forget it. It took me a lot of time and research to get it to this point. Now, when I sit down, I have the joy of both amazing choices and then also the ability to narrow things down to whatever I want to do, in that moment. Do I create “tracks” with it? Maybe. Is that why I have this stuff? Not really. I can spend hours droning on a single controller with a single VST or outboard synth, or sometimes get some rhythms going with sequencers of multiple boxes at the same time, just sitting in reverberating pulses going on all around me. Lovely either or any way.
This sounds like a Stereolab album title
I think a lot of today’s ‘dawless’ hardware is aimed at fun and not necessarily a cohesive studio set up with lots of gear. If you look at 80/90s studios that were hardware only they were structured to make complete tracks with everything you need, big mixing board, outboard racks of effects/synths etc, keyboards, bread and butter drum machines with song mode. And yes a central brain, a midi sequencer that could sequence entire songs. Roland MCs, mmt8 or ataris etc.
I think today’s dawless gear is often designed expecting the user to track to daw eventually. I’m not surprised if improvised jamming doesn’t suit some people for finishing tracks.
In my case, and I can understand why people hate it, it was the original polyend tracker. Huge limitations, only 2 FX per step and only 2 minutes of sounds per project. I learnt a great lesson with that about limitations. In the compositional project, limitations are the best. Then in the creative mixing stage, you can get wild but tracker, with it’s primitive song mode, was the best for me. No distractions. Less sample, less FX, and one simple arrangement.
Right now I totally avoid Daw for creation. Only for further mixing and mastering.
And speaking of mastering and mixing, now I don’t mind very much how ir sounds, the finer details. I spent hours and hour mixing things, moving .03 dB for nothing. I don’t need to compete with other artists. I make music for me. It took me a lot to understand that. I want to move forward and make music for me. I do t mind how it sounds (only a little bit). So I guess you need to find your machine, be minimalistic and have a goal, a project.
One thing that helped me a lot was to get a bunch of samples and use the same in different songs. I eliminated the searching for more samples so with a template project, por on the device and ready to finish songs.
I bought my first hardware because I knew nothing about making music and found Ableton impenetrable as a result. Got into modular which I found really useful for understanding synth structure and modulation. Moved to discrete units now. I might have more fun with Ableton now than I did originally but I still don’t like Push as a device to work on.
Whatever makes you happy, I guess. If that’s a computer with plugins, go do that. No-one says that’s wrong. Myself, I like the tactile things of actually have hardware to fiddle with. Makes it more enjoyable and ‘real’ for me, even though plugins will probably sound just as well nowadays. Finishing a track is also dependant on your own expectations. Personally, I don’t make money with my faffing about, nor was it meant to. I’d like to get better at composing tracks and designing sounds, but I don’t care if I finish something, it’s just for fun. Depends on how much time you can pour into it too.
I love this answer
Hardware is fun to me and I make tracks. I think I can identify two separate issues here:
- You are using stuff you don’t enjoy. Stick to stuff you enjoy, be it DAW or a device, and use that setup as your home base.
- You are not recording your stuff. Start with jams and build from there. Your skills will grow over time.
This is a book that I read often. There’s a lot good advices in it.
Sorry for the amazon link.
lately I’ve begun to think of grooveboxes as ‘sauceboxes’.
maybe try that?
I hope this catches on.
“Guys, I’m looking for a new analog Saucebox, with song-mode, below $500. What are my options?”
Analog Saucebox is going to be my new artist name.
Mine will be: Fried Fridge
Better than Organic Saucebox.
Reflecting on this a bit more
I had a Drum Brute Impact and a B1 (303) connected together and I had loads of fun.
Nothing I’d record or build on, or try and turn into a track, but lots of flow and enjoyment.
I started to get annoyed that there was no reverb or panning on the drums and the delay on the B1 isn’t beat synced etc and so I added a mixer and an FX pedal and an additional synth and the result is that the whole thing is now less fun and has lots of annoying cables.
Maybe that is the lesson.
In my opinion, there’s a double advantage to hardware: the fun side and the limitations.
If I spend several hours composing on a machine for a mediocre result, I can delete the project without much frustration because I will have had fun practicing. These boxes are truly instruments in the end.
Secondly, compared to a DAW, it’s often the machine’s limitations that allow you to stay focused and complete something without getting lost along the way. In my opinion, it’s a trap to want to expand your setup too much to bypass the limitations.
Connecting lots of little boxes is frustrating in many ways and the main gain I get from it is the joy of tinkering. Being an electronic musician requires constantly assembling your instrument, unless you settle for a rig, which normal musicians rarely do.
Your post has a trend where more centralized interfaces yields faster results (tracks) which is a good insight. Compared to only using BW in the box, what benefits would you get from connecting hardware to Bitwig? It could be a way to stay organized but have access to spontaneous play. The elktron boxes strike a fabulous middle ground since sound generation and arrangement are combined and most parameters can be sequenced.
I think this is an important point.
I’m not the kind of person who enjoys tinkering.
I generally want to just get on with making music as fast as possible and ideally make a finisted track in 2-3 days which is usually not compatible with setting up a load of boxes.
This suggests the multi box hardware approach isn’t really compatible with my way of thinking / working.
It’s probably helpful to focus on one thing at a time but you bought the boxes because they were appealing, right? Why not decide on their specific best use cases and make presets for it in BW?