Ha, you are right, it didn’t happen. The PO-33 was in the very first batch of things I bought (it has been sold). But so was an NTS-1 (which I still have). They convinced me that I shouldn’t be too parsimonious.
I know a DAW can do everything, and I’m not afraid of using a laptop for more than work, but I don’t like the way they look (huge user community means slow evolution? why do I think “1999” when I open one?), and I don’t think a keyboard and mouse is the right way to make music, and I haven’t seen a knobby controller I really care for (taking interface complexity into account, and the limitations of MIDI). There’s no real possibility of consolidating separate acoustic devices (twin-neck guitar/bass notwithstanding) and I somehow managed back then.
My “thing” with DAWs is that I feel they need more effort. And if you commit to it they are theoretically the dominant tool for making music.
But I don’t like effort when making music. I prefer to grab/plug and go.
If my Model give me only 1% of resources than my Ableton, but I can totally access the 100% of those possibilities within seconds with my 10 fingers and my pair of stereo sound ears I’m totally happy.
I don’t need the deepest/wider/diverse set of tools that a DAW offers (not for my needs).
Because of the same low effort/friction approach I only like to use 1 unit at the time.
I do have a lot of boxes, because I do like variety of instruments. But only one at time.
Sure, and I feel this also. It is a factor with hardware as well. A4 requires more effort.
I will combine two boxes but I find it awkward to pay attention to both. If one is mostly set-and-forget (like a drum machine that is not the dominant element, maybe I hit pattern change occasionally), that works better.
I get what you’re saying, and I have definitely thought it before. But we’re all in different stages, phases of life, and at different points on our music production timelines, if you will.
For whatever reason, I find myself ignoring the DAW, and other instruments/gear, and focusing exclusively on the OG DT. I’m a bedroom producer and don’t play live. I guess there are always exceptions to anything.
I’m sure I will go back to Ableton Live in the future (I have at least 2-3 unfinished albums worth of songs in Live).
But for now, I’m having a blast just using the DT to sketch out near-complete songs without worrying about a multitude of options with max-for-live devices, presets, racks, plugins, etc.
It’s not for everyone. And I’m not advocating a one-size-fits-all approach. I never would have guessed I’d be working like this, and be happy with it (one Elektron box), a few years ago. But it’s working right now! Good enough for me.
I’ve kind of gone the opposite way and now prefer specialized but simple tools I can mix and match. In theory I have a soft spot for grooveboxes that do everything without a mess of cables, but in practice I hate the menus, button combos and the inability to switch sound source to another.
Machine+ looks very cool though, especially as an alternative for a laptop.
I took the wrong damn turn. Had a savage buying period of late .
Been having so much fun with more experimental machines rather then the Elektrons with deliberate restrictions. The Pulsar-23 has been the most fun ive had in many years
I have partially replaced 2-3 devices by 6-9 (or more) devices and it works wonderfully because the latter are much simpler to use than the former. On paper, this is a very bad idea because new gear adds to distraction but in practice it makes me appreciate the 2-3 original devices even more for what they can do more uniquely. Plus, for vanilla stuff I now turn to the simpler devices, which has made me faster at creating, well, vanilla stuff. The only objective negatives of this de-consolidation strategy are the expense and the space.
Nevertheless, if you feel comfortable with the one that can do it all for you, then there is no reason to switch. Forcing yourself to slim down can accelerate your workflow in theory but it can also remove two key components which can be crucial for inspiration in practice: pleasure and fun.
I think we all get so invested in an actual or desired workflow that we feel a lot of inertia and resistance to change.
I toy with this idea all the time, the MPC Live 2 is a really compelling option for an all in one device, especially paired with a couple of synths for multisampling. But do I really want to learn a new ecosystem? Is it really the missing piece of the puzzle for me?
I have too many centrepiece devices, Maschine Studio, QY700, Blackbox, Ensoniq EPS… part of it is wanting to get into the mindset or experience of what making music was like when these were the latest and greatest, rather than working out which is necessarily the best fit for me. But I think about this process more than actually doing it.
If Native Instruments brought out another standalone version of Maschine closer in concept to the MPC Live/Push standalone I would probably jump on it. Maschine has definitely felt the easiest to me to quickly come up with creative and unexpected ideas. A huge part of that is easy access to sounds/plugins through Komplete and Kontakt libraries, to the extent that the Maschine Plus felt a bit pointless to me as it missed the part of the ecosystem I used the most.
I dunno, everything I make kind of sucks because I am terrible at programming drums and fills, and my timing playing keys is shoddy, and I can’t resist playing way too many notes. If there’s a device that can help with that, I’m in.
Edit: A final thought from something work related I was thinking about yesterday. If every second week we have to create say 15 written products that takes a total of 15 total staff hours to produce, we could look at that and say can we cover the same 15 issues in say 8 products and do it in 8 hours? The answer is probably no, because those 8 become more complicated to produce and take twice as long to make sense in the required format.
So maybe slimming down hardware to devices that cover double duty can be a bit the same. Sure, people can make full sounding tracks on a Digitone but that’s definitely way more complicated than doing the same on a separate drum machine, bass and lead synths.
Such an underrated feature and well kept secret (though it maybe buggy once in a while) I still produce pretty much everything in MPC Software- either literally using the software or running it in Ableton if i have a new idea at later stages of the production.
100%
I feel like im artistically set back months if not years whenever i fall into a GAS trap and sell of stuff to make a new setup.
I think this is the main reason why im not so prone to GAS on new synths and samplers anymore, because the amount of time it would take to learn the new equipment would set me back artistically and im at a stage in my process where that time is really important to me.
Some great responses here folks, as ever - thanks.
For sure I imagine for anyone with Ableton has this come up at some point. The ultimate selling point for Push seems to me to be that if you’re solid with Ableton, you’re always making progress towards something in the same place, and building that muscle memory, perhaps like you do on the MPC platform. Whether you’re making a loop, playing with a sample, sketching a track or moving to the computer to finish a track it’s the same device you’re using - especially now standalone is an option. Always tempting…
These 2 points are really good actually. The fun factor and the focus on making a noise, rather than the technicalities is a pretty important part of the process. I’ve definitely found that in Maschine on desktop (not standalone) where it’s just a blast to come up with stuff. The OP1 at least on price alone sits in the same bracket as the Push which is a pretty stark comparison! But the fact that it’s an ultra portable “no idea what’s happening” device is actually a nice place to start thinking about music and as you say not getting bogged down in the details.
Thanks for your write up
I must admit that this would be my one concern about Push. And regarding the previous point, my only knock on Ableton (since I like it otherwise) is that it’s quite easy to noodle rather than making progress. I have the feeling the likes of the OP-1, the Maschines and MPC’s suffer less from this to different degrees. I’ve heard a few stories of folks thinking it would be a catch-all but then not quite enjoying the workflow - maybe too much business and not enough pleasure? Even despite that, it is still tempting because it’s truly an all in one centrepiece that is somewhat portable. I get that potentially it might feel less fun than others, but coming back to the initial thought in the thread, perhaps that’s the cost of that unified workflow point. It’s unlikely in choosing a unified workflow that you’ll tick all the boxes.
Interesting pointers, cheers!
Yeah I can absolutely agree with that. I have a mk3 and never quite felt the itch to get the + even though it was cheap enough. But more access to the sounds standalone in a +mk2 would change that. If that existed then it would be a pretty obvious choice in my book. It’s portable (enough) fun and with some improvements I imagine you could get pretty close to a finished song in there. If they could bring it to a level around where the MPC has gone to, then all of a sudden it’s an interesting comparison again. Failing that, if you could easily work on an idea standalone with the built in options, then add more instruments from Komplete at the computer before exporting, it would probably work.
I think the process of going from noodling to making progress is a question of discipline and developing music composition habits, more than the tools you’re using. I wouldn’t say that the MPC makes me more disciplined than Ableton, it’s just a more engaging and fun workflow to engage with your music with your hands. Simply put, the MPC gives me a platform and an instrument feel that makes the process more fun.
I think a lot of it comes down to your attitude towards diving into a new world. If you enter it with questions like: “how do I make it do this thing that I did on this other piece of gear?” or “why can’t it do this?” etc, you’ll end up getting frustrated about any new piece of gear. But if you approach it with an attempt at keeping your mind clear and free from previous bias and try to discover what makes this new piece of gear unique, you’re more likely to learn something new and get comfortable with the workflow.
I really enjoy the MPC workflow now, but it wasn’t love at first sight. I found it easy to understand, that only took a few days, but I wasn’t sure if I loved it until much later. Today, I really like that I can quickly make copies of sequences to try different things, then puzzle them together again to make an embryo of a song structure. That already takes me away from getting stuck in a loop. Just a couple of different bass lines or chord progressions and you’re off. The Push 3 can do all of that too btw, this isn’t something unique to the MPC. In fact, the Push is more flexible since you can combine different clips (parts of tracks) freely, whereas on the MPC it’s more like being restricted to working only on the equivalent of an entire row of clips on the Push at a time. But that doesn’t bother me at all, in fact I see it as a simplification that reduces complexity. With the new Arranger feature in MPC3, I’m sure I’ll discover even more efficient way to progress from that first loop to a full song structure. There’s lot of ways to do it.
But again, back to your question, is it a fun workflow? The only way to know is to try it out. And in the end that’s all that matters because if you’re having fun, you’ll use it more and as a result you’ll progress more as a musician. So it’s a really good question to ask yourself.
I forgot to comment on this one - this is such an important point and this is what’s made me settle with the MPC. No workflow is perfect, or we wouldn’t be constantly searching for new ones. But I’ve gotten to a point where I’ve accepted that fact, so my focus has shifted towards finding the best compromise. The Syntakt is incredibly fun, but more tedious to build up full sounding tracks on. It’s a good piece of kit in my studio and I don’t plan on selling it in a very long time, if ever. The MPC is fun and productive, but it’s not free from annoyances and there are moments when I think “this would have been easier in Ableton”. But then again I wouldn’t have ended up with this amount of progress in Ableton. So, some parts of the workflow will be fast and smooth, others will be more tedious. It’s true no matter what platform/gear you choose. Once you accept that, it’s easier to find your comfort zone and reduce the constant chase for something new that might be a bit better than what you already have.
All fair points. One itch I’ve been wanting to scratch is Push, and certainly the way that works today as you say - the only way to know is to get one since they don’t do retail sales anymore. They have a 30 day trial, so there is at least that.
But yes, as you point out, that’s why I asked the question. I know a lot of people have followed a particular workflow, and technically any change is time not making music. But that state you’ve reached with the MPC of one core box and a simple workflow is what I’m aiming for. As you say - step by step and no rush, but it’s one worth thinking through what you’re trading in advance.
100% following you there. In my case some gear would probably need to go by the wayside to make it work. I currently have a Tracker Mini and while it ticks the portability box in a big way, and I actually enjoy the workflow. But the fact that it takes me away from using Ableton as a song-starter on the couch (and that’s something I could do with Push 3) is just one reason I’m pondering a switch up. Push would obviously take some work, but I have experience of using it with Launchpads etc, which I enjoy, so…
Yeah, Push was my theoretical groovebox to rule them all. And I wouldn’t have settled on the MPC if I didn’t take the opportunity to evaluate the Push. Others have found the Push to be the holy grail, it just didn’t work out that way for me, I’m more comfortable on the MPC. The key is that you need to try for yourself to know what works for you. I’m grateful that I had the opportunity to explore, because it made me more sure about my choices in the end. Besides, I have made a lot of music along the way.
.
I still produce pretty much everything in MPC Software- either literally using the software or running it in Ableton if i have a new idea at later stages of the production.
