Ricky Tinez on reaching a 'dead end' with groovebox arrangement

[Hooked]

@bibenu

Future Audio Workshop | Creating a Visual Arrangement Map

Thank you for this

[g3o2]

@J3RK

One more guess here, 35-50% of the people I mentioned above will go full circle AT LEAST once in their musical lifetimes.

I’ve gone from software (early C64/Amiga) to hardware, to a mixture, to all hardware to all software (a few times over) to where I am right now, which is probably the one that will stick.

Your post being focused on bias, we also have to factor in technological evolution.

Today you can go all hardware or all software because you just can. Both options have become far more affordable and more professional.

During the 80s and early 90s, a hardware recording setup was affordable only to professionals. DAW software as we know it today was still early stage, most of them samplers in today’s view, and relied on moderately expensive and proprietary hardware interfaces - not to forget the prohibitive cost and availability of storage space.

MIDI software sequencers were already pretty decent, provided you could ideally afford a hardware multi-timbral sound source. Trackers were nice sketch pads though. That’s how started, too.

[natehorn]

@Suspect_Frequency

Eat some toast

But what kind of bread do you use, and what do you put on it?

[djst]

@mprinsen

I think the Push 3 Standalone is the answer to this dilemma.

I’m having the same thought.

@Mistercharlie

just plugging your Push 3 into a computer running Ableton.

Is it that slick though? My understanding is that you can’t just plug in and pick up from where you left it in the Push 3, rather, you need to transfer the entire project wirelessly and the work on that local copy in Live. If you want to then unplug and continue to work in standalone, you have to transfer that project back to the Push again. Did I get that right?

I suppose it’s still a very convenient and seamless one-way transition from sketching to finalizing, it just doesn’t seem like it’s a very convenient two-way street.

[enju]

on the bread? dawless jam of course

[Mistercharlie]

[Suspect_Frequency]

I c wut yew did dare

[natehorn]

[rgarner]

My main issue appears to be that if I make eight bars I produce the ever-living flip out of it until I’m bored of hearing it instead of working on A parts/B parts and transitions. I love the painstaking bit. The freewheeling bit does come to me, just not very often!

I end up finishing other people’s tracks more often than I finish my own.

[anokah]

I think that is pretty much correct.

The standalone thing seems awesome. But when I eventually plunge for a push 3, I might consider the 1000 or so euros difference between controller and standalone better spent towards a beasty, lightweight laptop.

I am in the camp where I really don’t mind finishing tracks itb, I prefer it. But I really want to get my hands on that sweet, sweet MPE.

[g3o2]

sounds like you want to team up

[djadonis206]

It’s pretty seamless, imo. The transfer is just right there in the browser. You actually don’t have to unplug anything if the USB cable is already connected (but I get you might be working on a laptop not connected to the Push) - in either event, the same computer has to be linked to the Push.

Then just click Control Live on the Push and open the file from the browser. Boom.

Going the other way is a bit more complicated if you’re going from the computer to the Push. You’d have to make sure any 3rd party VSTs are frozen, and some routings may or may not work…know what I mean

[scarfypedia]

my mentality precisely!

[bodymechanics]

To me it’s a weird state of mind to make recordings so raw and editable. Things will sound great on my devices as is.
Thinking I could make it better by recording each instruments separately and raw. It makes it extremely challenging to piece it all back together in software AND get better results.
I tend to get the best results when my gear is responsible for summing/glueing things together and I’m just recording stereo outs of that.

This also leaves my gear set up for live gigs and already sounds the way I expect it too.

Generally with multitracking everything, I don’t end up with a better final track. So it’s a ton of work for a less desirable result.

[plragde]

@bodymechanics

Thinking I could make it better by recording each instruments separately and raw. It makes it extremely challenging to piece it all back together in software AND get better results.

This is perhaps a digressive tangent but I felt the same way about shooting RAW in DSLR cameras. Once I understood what the various camera modes did and how to select and configure the ones I wanted to use, it was hard for me to think I could do better than the best JPEGs the camera algorithms produced, especially if I did things like bracket exposure to get several tries at an image. If I did this for a living, maybe. As an amateur? I’d have to spend serious time honing my skills (not to mention buying software, which I did at one point, but now I’m on the hook for a monthly subscription…!). I am equally an amateur in the music realm, and I’ll be recording stereo outs (if I record at all) for the foreseeable future.

[abluesky]

I had the exact opposite experience - developing a tailored RAW camera profile and learning how to use the development software tool my photos to the next level.

[plragde]

I believe that, because that’s largely been my experience with things I chose to dive into. But there are so many things that are interesting, and only so much time, especially on cognitively intense matters.

[bodymechanics]

That’s part of my thinking with music in a way.
I’m definitely not saying multitracking is bad, but for me it time consuming and I simply don’t want to dedicate time to learning how to make it better.
Growing up recording to cassette 4tracks, I’m not used to putting in all that work. Plus gear these days is already engineered so much better and I’m ok with it.

I realize the idea of multitracking is inviting for people who want that flexibility.
I’m sure it’s fun and feels rewarding to many.

For me I just want to vomit to a track and move one. Which is challenging enough.
I sink most of my time in arranging.
Once a track is done I’m never going to go back and edit something recoded.

I will however always be tweaking songs I play live.

I’m very similar with photography.
No lighting, no in-depth editing. If it’s good going in, there’s not much to do before it’s out.

[HBIII]

There are a ton of equally valid workflows. An all hardware setup into a mixer where you just record the main stereo ouput, to a hybrid workflow where you multitrack into a daw to continue production there, to an entirely ITB workflow. They all give different results and I think it is worth trying a handful to see what you like.

I think a hardware grooovebox is only a dead end when you produce with one workflow while having the mindset of working in a different workflow. Some kind of music production cognitive dissonance. At least, this is the conclusion I have come to after a few months of focusing entirely on workflow.

[thermionic]

@J3RK

However, I do think at least among the tunes he creates on his videos (maybe not outside the videos) he leans toward the very simplistic.

@J3RK

However, saying that anything has to be taken into a DAW to properly finish because there is some imaginary brick wall preventing it from being finished without the DAW is all you one’s head. That is absolutely NOT a requirement to make good, and good sounding music.

I would say that complexity and wanting a specific outcome is a requirement to many of us in ways that can get blockages going, I don’t feel them right now but the workflow problems certainly revolve around overcomplicating things when we are less happy with “simple”.