Was just thinking, maybe if they allowed automation of the Send To parameter per sequence it might provide a workaround for live sets, the other main thing that’s broken for me.
tl;dr thinking out loud about performance approaches
Like, you could have a midi track for drums with a standard layout, across the entire project, but instead of swapping in and out programs for different songs/sections it could point to different “drum tracks” as you move through sequences. Would also be a way of bringing back event mutes, although I hope/expect both this and track mutes saved per sequence will get fixed eventually. Downside would be accessing the mixer, but I guess you could route kicks/snares/etc. each to a submix and maybe from there to an external mixer.
It seems like the alternatives are to keep tabs on which track has your parts for the particular sequence, which seems like a nightmare in a live scenario. Or consolidating everything into a single program for drums/bass/chops organised with a bank per sequence, which isn’t as bad but will still be confusing to keep track of - it would be nice if they would provide visual feedback in the pad mutes page of which pads are playing so you could see at a glance. But I don’t think this is a good substitute, one of the advantages of the MPC way is that you can easily keep things consistent across the entire project, and not have to think about whether you’re on the right bank. Or maybe consolidate kicks/snares/etc to a track and use track mutes rather than pad mutes, can see advantages but presumably will involve consolidating sounds and sacrificing control as a result. Any which way it’s looking worse than the previous firmware for this.
Just thinking out loud when I really should be working. I guess at base level really I just want some kind of hack/workaround to bring back the MPC approach to programs and sequences as freestanding entities. I saw someone else in the first wave of the beta going through this same process in the first couple of days of trying to figure out complex workarounds to keep MPC techniques alive and eventually concluding that it’s not worth it, either go with what they’re giving us or don’t. I guess the q link macros are a bonus that’s worth exploring.
Yup, that’s pretty much how I understood it. Either you do the linear thing from the start in which case sequences are pretty much obsolete, or you continue to work with sequences, in which case the arranger is pretty much obsolete (unless/until they add a lot more functionality to it).
It seems like Akai assume that the linear approach is now the main show in town, it’s not a coincidence that all the demos were done this way. Also explains why gamebreaking stuff for a lot of people like track mutes and the live performance stuff I was waffling about above seem to have been completely overlooked - as well as a bunch of other things. In a way it’s good that we’ve had plenty of time to understand the changes via YouTube and vent about them, there would have been a complete meltdown if they’d just dropped this on the day of announcement.
Personally, I never thought the sequence/track/program/sound paradigm was even slightly confusing and as above it has/had a lot of unique approaches and techniques that gives/gave the MPC advantages over DAWs and other hardware devices.
It’s still as non linear as you want it to be though. I still work across muiltiple sequences and only when it’s time to ‘finish’ or render out a track will I moosh it all into a single big sequence using song mode and then do the linear thing with arranger (usually just some fades or mutes or dropping out the odd beat here or there). It’s non destructive so I can still go back and play different shorter sections if I want to, they are all still there where I left them.
I was always getting my program housekeeping all out of whack and ended up with the wrong program on the wrong track which caused no end of stoned confusion when made into a single long sequence so I’m super into the tracks just being the tracks.
It is interesting though how many different ways of working people have come to on essentially the same bit of kit.
Even on the Force I never made a beat using the arranger. I would use scenes to create an pre-arrangement first then record all them into the arranger so I can work on automations & any other track edits.
If I was on the MPC I would convert a bunch of sequences in song mode into 1 seq to see it all in 1 arranger view & then add any automations & final tweaks. I don’t like to compose in linear way but some do & may like making beat from start to finish from the arranger. It sounds like me & you ain’t those type of dudes & that’s OK. Akai give us multiple ways to skin a cat.
Exactly. So you’ll have to record each track one at a damn time. Moving old music from external devices into the the Force or MPC is a nightmare. It stop you from recording from external gear live into these units.
The workflow has improved as in it’s much easier to navagate around the interface. Ive had the mic since release and 3.0 is a massive improvement. Mpc 2 always felt unintuitive as they were clinging on to the older concepts of past devices which never really suited this more modern incarnation.
Nitpicking a little but, you mentioned that Akai thinks linear approach is now the main show in town and all the demos only show this, but I’m just watching the official Akai mpc 3 overview video with Andy Mac, and he worked on a non linear way first, before he got to the arrangement section, pretty much like some of us have been saying we will work. Create sequences first, turn into big sequence, then arrange.
When he did come to talk about the arrangement here, he started off with a bunch of sequences already lined up on the arrangement, he didn’t start the song from scratch and built it all in the arrangement in a linear way
You can do that now (going fully linear) as some users here have expressed and that’s great, I will probably do both ways, cause I like switching things up between projects
Edit: 15 minutes in he does go from one sequence to arrangement by duplicating it four times and just arranging, but that’s just one way of working and you can choose and pick whichever works best for you as you always had with the mpc, except now even more workflows (and greater control over your song structure) are possible in standalone
We just had a baby so I won’t be able to dive deep for a while, but my install was smooth and my projects loaded with no issues. (I am a one-long-sequence man so the transition won’t be difficult.) LOVE mixer view
Many (most?) of us who work on desktop linear DAWS probably make patterns (blocks) and duplicate them to build a song structure etc. The real advantage of true linear workflow is when recording live musicians who may play the song from start to finish (maybe with a few comped takes) or at least large ‘overlapping’ parts (guitar solus, vocals etc). As far as I can see after a day, MPC3 lets you do both.
By example using a dedicated drum machine, i use a Mpd232 for sequencing drums because is much better, but that gives many midi problems that have to be solved because is a basic MIDI Implementation protocol, and anyway many people says that not happened in 2.12 and before… is not a particular way of use, is an normal use for those who use external midi devices, maybe people who use mpc like just a toy without any other equipment they will be fine…
Purely based on first impressions and subject to change - kinda. You can definitely still bang out a bunch of sequences one after the other with different ideas and approaches and pick the ones you like, which was a relief. Track mutes per sequence is a major downer for this in the current beta, but for whatever reason I’m confident this will be resolved eventually.
But where this starts hitting the skids is when you want to, say, try out a few different drum loops or kits or chops or instruments and don’t have a clear idea in mind of what material you want to work with. You end up with a bunch of tracks to keep tabs on or much more complicated programs, rather than just saying that e.g. track 1 in any given sequence is drums, even though it might have a different/sounds per sequence. I don’t see how this is easier/more streamlined/less confusing.
So I think it’s kinda inevitable that the device is going to push me towards sticking with a more limited range of possibilities just because of the additional friction involved in trying things out. Maybe this will even be a good thing, but it’s still a more linear approach. Also, I guess some of this is from treating selecting/chopping samples and building kits as a separate part of the process, which is how I’ve always done it.
Idk, I never had a problem organising my sequences in terms of track order once I’d gotten past the point of throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks. Or at least, I never felt it was that big a deal as against the various advantages of being able to have different programs in the same basic track structure across sequences.
Anyway, it is what it is. I don’t want to seem like I’m too down on this, if it works for other people then great. Personally, it’s looking more and more like my initial reaction that this isn’t for me is being confirmed as I try it out and the new stuff isn’t really blowing me away to compensate so far, but I’ll need to explore the stuff it can do that the previous firmware can’t instead of just focusing on the stuff it can’t do that the previous one can before calling it.
The one thing I really like about the update is how snappy and responsive it feels as against the previous version. If this isn’t just in my head, I guess the consolidated architecture might have a lot to do with it, so there is that.
I wouldn’t say anyone who isn’t sequencing their MPC with an external sequencer is just using it as a ‘toy’. Personally I have a lot of external hardware sequencers (both Midi and CV) but I don’t sequence the MPC with them as I use them on my modular, analogue gear or DAW (for digital samples). The MPC has a particular use case for me, the MPC workflow (and portability in the case of the Live II), its also pretty good as a CV sequencer recording the results in as a sample. There are lots of ways to use it!
I repeat, is not a particular way of use, i use a midi devices not for sequencing mpc inside those devices, i use it to trigger drums inside mpc… who secuence all is mpc but the midi drum sequencer is fissically in other place, but is part of mpc. Anyway is not a petition of 4 people who does an rare use of mpc, mpc was able to do that, akai recognise is an Error before 2.12… you dont use it taht way? Ok, is your choice, but any hardware who implement midi have to be capable to not mix midi channels. Maybe i dont explain well what i want to say or maybe you cant understand what midi protocol say and maybe you are not noticed avery midi device agrees with this protocol… is not an option for manufacturers…
If you mean the Q-link popout menu thing, you absolutely can. I believe you press and hold the Q-link button, the option to turn it off should be in that meu somewhere.
still bitter about the mouse support being there but not enabled. Think how much easier it be with mouse in sequencing in the piano roll, input a note and then use mouse scroll to set the length back or forth. it goes beyond that, selecting and copy and pasting would be far easier.
I am not so sure, the advantage of not using my desktop DAW is the touchscreen and physical knobs, also they would also have to add monitor support for me to be able to see it
Joking aside, I suspect new MPCS with 2 button track pads many be coming!
For a workaround for the lack of mute per sequence can’t you automate mutes on & off where necessary & then all that will be recorded as in song mode as which can converted in on seq?
I don’t use mutes per seq so I never tried this but it should work unless I’m missing something.
The way Akai may implement mutes per seq is by creating mute on/off automations automatically.
