Another important use of multitracking is also to enable one to use a single instrument for multiple purposes/tracks. I always love rewatching @cuckoomusic’s Typhon video to see how he does this.
1 Like
What would be more convenient? I don’t think there is anything out there that is easier than this when it comes to making something on a groovebox and transferring it into a DAW.
And then being able to send from the DAW back into the groovebox? Thats not even a thing with most gear.
You’re right that this sets a new standard in a way, but on the MPC, you can carry on working on a project in the MPC2 DAW without even transferring anything. Just plug in the USB cable and you have access to the built-in drive. My understanding is that the Push 3 requires you to transfer a copy of the project file back and forth instead, and whatever you do in arranger view won’t carry over back into the Push, unlike on the MPC.
1 Like
Its just a wifi transfer, so its probably faster than finding a usb cable and plugging it in. Plus, you are using MPC software, which is not even close to the level of Ableton, at least for me.
So yeah you drag the file back and forth, that honestly takes very little time on wifi. The issue I have with Push3 wifif is it was not finding my network, but apparently they have already fixed that. When it did work, I could transfer a project over to the DAW in seconds.
So to get the MPC Live into an actual DAW, you still need to a lot more. I know because I did it. It required stem exporting on the MPC or tracking out, both things are a hassle. The stem export did not always work so I had to do it multiple times. The tracking out part can be a hassle since the Live doesn’t sync well to external clock so you basically had to record 8 tracks out and then line them up. I used to program a stick hits in the first few bars to make lining things up easier, but it was still a pain.
1 Like
Yeah I know too and this is why I sold me MPC in the end, the stem export workflow was killing the flow and staying within MPC2 felt like a massive compromise compared to Reason 10.
The Push 3 no doubt seems like the best attempt at bridging the groovebox / DAW gap yet.
1 Like
Yeah, that’s one of the main reasons I was interested in the push 3. I hate doing individual takes for different drums, but also really want the flexibility of having everything on a separate track in the DAW (although to be fair, having the kick separate from everything else is usually good enough). The MPC “explode” or stem workflows always felt a little clunky and required way more planning than I usually put into a song.
Plus on the MPC the pattern workflow really sucks if I want to change something across the song. On the push (or Force, I guess), it’s simply a matter of making a new clip… although I’m learning quickly that keeping my clips organized is crucial for having a song that I can parse the next day lol.
2 Likes
Yeah the explode function was a mess, as were the choices of how to export stems (dry vs wet). It just never seemed to work the way I expected. Let alone the fact that I hate committing to audio print in case I change my mind about some automation later.
Kicks separate from the other drums are only good enough if your levels are spot on. I often find myself having to dial down a hi hat or a percussion later on, and it’s awkward to resort to EQ at that point.
The only problem with Push 3 for me is money, and the fact that I have to switch DAW too = even more money.
Don’t forget that time to learn anything new = money 
1 Like
I use Hardware (Alpha Base, Moog Mother 32, DFAM, Blue Marvin, Octatrack, Wavestate, Bassline DB01) and Ableton Live. My expirences are is that programming and recording in a DAW (Live) ist much easier than doing it with the HW only.
With a pure HW setup sometimes it is difficult to coordinate everything at the right time
in a live performance (Prog-/Bank-Changes; FX-Lines, …). In a Daw it is much easier to reproduce what you have thought out in your studio. A combination DAW + HW is also fine, if good managed.
1 Like
This is gold
5 Likes
This reminds me of one of the best pieces of songwriting advice I’ve gotten - go wide at first, not deep, and work quickly. Most of the time the songs I wrote that I like the most are the ones where I quickly got the structure of the song mostly finished, and afterwards did all the detail and ear candy and such. Instrumentation, arrangement, mixing might all change drastically later but the bones of the song are still roughly similar.
12 Likes
I’ve found the opposite working better for me. Start with one pattern that will be the climax of the track and go down in both directions.
This video gives a good example: https://youtu.be/2YQHTfEr5ws
3 Likes
I do this occasionally, but for me it results in tracks that have a bit less variation - I find it difficult to build a B part and a C part this way.
3 Likes
This is great advice. Sometimes I’m on a real roll, and I stop, instead of pushing on to see what happens. Usually I can’t create the same vibe again, which mean way, way more work.
2 Likes
Yeah I find having loads of groove boxes and drum machines all synced up can be confusing and sometimes I’ll only use a kick from something that has 16 channels
In terms of arranging well…Ricky Tinez has a video somewhere of him taking a loop from his digitakt and arranging the fuck out of it in Abelton so I’m kind of leaning to learning Abelton to finish stuff rather than spitting out endless amazing loops with no structure
Be difficult challenge to identify your favourite top 3 ‘arranged’ or naturally progressing recordings in any genre unless you know music really well.
I’ve a few ‘that’s interesting’ ideas in mind where things change but work.
I’m not talking about several successions of layering in your hats and samples, but more so your chord and scale progressions, mood and subtle development not sounding like a DAW/Groovebox and not having the listener feeling anything more complex uncomfortable feelings than ‘this is great’.
That is one of the shortcoming of electronic spreadsheet composed music - it can feel like a ‘here’s this bit’ approach that reveals itself as soulless, cliched and mechanised
Now for the drop …
-> How to develop a great original catchy loop into a full thoughtful and mojo rich arrangement that is even better than the loop by itself
1 Like
I really like his recent video on simple formula to make a B section (in house)
4 Likes
The detail oriented work i do visually turns to absolute mud in the time domain, it’s such a different approach. Sculpting time is the enemy of ADD.
How do you sketch your songs out quickly and rapidly iterate like that?
I’m always preemptively optimizing and polishing instead of zooming out a bit.
1 Like
I build the structure of the track on whichever box I’m using initially by using mutes to bring parts in and out. That leads to arranging parts in different sequences and then repeat the mutes for some more fine tuning. At that point I’ve usually got a few options and I’ll play them through, chopping and changing as I go, until I’m happy with the flow. Some parts will be placeholders by that point; I’ll maybe have a bass line part on the box that I’ll change about in the DAW but I’ll keep using the placeholder part to build other parts around. I’ve been using the MPC Live 2 recently and I can get some great structures and sections nailed down with FX and EQ before tracking to DAW. I tend to record dry and use the DAW FX and EQ to replicate and improve on what I had in the Live 2. Other times the placeholder FX and EQ gets tracked too if I’m happy with what I’ve got.
In essence I try and do as much as I can on the groovebox before tracking to DAW for final polishing however since using the Live 2 I’m finding I can get full tracks done without the DAW arrangement stage. Just lots of good old playing through, rewinding, playing again, fiddling about, playing again etc etc. Lots of parts hit the cutting room floor and others get inspired by the evolving structure
1 Like
My process is, in a nutshell. All of this is flexible and it doesn’t always play out like this, but I’d say the majority of my stuff follows this skeleton:
- work on the basic drum groove (usually just a placeholder 8 or 16-bar section, on occasion I’ll make the entire song’s drums here before touching anything else)
- work on the pads or bass. These can be placeholders sometimes, sometimes they don’t change at all. Depends on how I feel later.
- stretch those out in the rough shape of the song using mutes or different patterns
- get distracted and design a sound for an hour that I won’t end up using in the song
- work on whichever element I feel the song needs next (usually not a lead line yet, and usually using FX boxes or built-in FX as placeholders). Repeat.
- shape the arrangement a bit more, start editing the drums to fit the other pieces. At this point I’ll probably start working on new drum patterns if I don’t already have a bunch.
- record what I’ve got into the DAW
- do my actual arranging in the DAW, making more adjustments. The song usually transforms significantly here.
- record the lead if the song has one. My best leads are improvised and happen after everything else is written.
- do ear candy/ intricate edits in the DAW, re-record a few sections depending on what I’ve decided I want (like, if I decide I want a filter sweep on the Take 5, I’ll re-record that part with the sweep at this point). Lots of FX VSTs, filter sweeps, etc get added. I especially like having total control over delay/reverb, so I rarely record those before this stage.
- Get the song about 2/3 mixed. It stays here unless I decide it’s going on an album.
Also worth noting, I got a Dirtywave m8 and a Push 3 since writing my statement you replied to, and I’m finding it a lot easier to use those in a linear fashion, writing most of a section of a song before moving on. It’s interesting how this stuff changes.
6 Likes