Why do so few grooveboxes have thoughtful workflows around laying out a whole song?

Many people feel stuck in the rut of only making short loops 1-4 bars long with their hardware. It’s fun, but also tricky to get out of: endlessly noodling interactively around variations on that 1-4 bar loop, but never arranging a song, with a beginning, a middle, an end, and different sections with light and shade along the way.

I think this is down to groovebox design and I’d be interested to hear views on which do it well, but also why so few grooveboxes have thoughtful workflows around laying out a whole song.

The best that most get is the ability to chain single patterns one after another (“play 1, 2, 5, 5, 5, 5, 9, 9, 9, 9, 5, 5, 5, 5, 9, 9, 9, 9, 11”). This is the case on eg DT, OPZ, PO’s, etc.

But laying out a piece on a timeline is usually more about overlapping puzzle pieces, often with different lengths. Hats1 and Hats2 might be 2 bars. Chords1 and Chords2 might be 32 bars each. Riff1 might be 4 bars. And you want to mix and match those, experimenting. Doing this in Ableton is one of the great joys of Session View, and then printing it to the timeline view. Fewer devices are capable of that, and capable of it in a way that feels intuitive (to me, we’re all different!). So, OP1 in its weird tape workflow lends itself well to this arrangement and consolidation. M8 does it brilliantly, if you like the tracker mindset (and lots of users rave about how it helps them make actual finished songs because of that). Deluge does it too (I’ve never personally liked the arrangement mode, but we’re all different!).

If you want to achieve the same thing on a groovebox like DT, OPZ, etc with the paradigm of “single patterns that can be placed a chain” then you have to make all your patterns as long as the longest sub-pattern, copy things around, etc, which is such a hassle that… I think we often give up.

That feels like a weird failure on ethos and user-experience for grooveboxes, because as a genre, they’re often brilliantly well thought through for productive creative interaction. And each groovebox (or family, like Elektron) has its own fascinating opinionated workflows that make each one differently fertile for creating music.

The problem is, these seem to have been focused excessively on short loops. I think that collective and largely unspoken focus, has driven a whole community into a bit of creative difficulty around finishing things. This is often attributed to procrastination, of course, or perfectionism. But I think the absence of good facilitative tools is a part of it.

So, interested if others agree/disagree, or any brilliant song arrangement workflows I’ve missed!

38 Likes

Embrace the limitations creatively or use something else… isn’t that about the size of it?

16 Likes

Groovebox implies a device for performance. It should only need to allow for some basic song/arrangement structure (at best). The advanced feature set that you’re describing would be an arranger.

17 Likes

DAW vs groovebox, probaby the bottom line. Just different animals I suppose.

I guess arranger, as d4ydream says, is also accurate.

4 Likes

I have been using an M8 and it (and trackers in general) are very good at getting around this. And this is why I feel like it is good at this.

You get a overview of the entire song, and you can dive into each pattern as the whole song is playing. This allows you to edit one pattern while a different one is playing. The patterns are seperate, so you can make one bassline pattern and use it between different parts of the song, instead of having to copy and paste stuff around. All of this really encourages you to see the song as a whole, and there is very little friction for moving around through the patterns and editing things.

14 Likes

OP gave a lot of thought to the problem and avenues to solution. I look forward to answers that match, or come near to, that depth.

18 Likes

Yeah I think m8 and op1 are my favourites for arrangements.

The mc101 and the Deluge make a good stab at it.

Always keen to hear of more that run at it well, or unsuccessfully (as that’s interesting too!).

3 Likes

May I introduce you to 2 very fine machines called the Synthstrom Deluge and the Dirtywave M8 Tracker! Both of these have different but powerful approaches that allow you to structure a song inside the box easily.

1 Like

For me the way around this is in live performance, and the Octatrack with its plays free tracks, slicing and looping in combination with an extensive MIDI controller setup gives a lot of options for crafting something longer and more unpredictable on the fly. It just takes a lot of practice and experimentation to figure out a good workflow.

3 Likes

It’s been stated but live performance is the way to go. Make multiple patterns in the groovebox and work the track out.

I multitrack the live arrangement into the daw while i perform it and finish it there.

If you want to go the groovebox route than you gotta use those knobs for good.

4 Likes

I think it would be interesting to see a device that has dedicated sequencer controls for the larger arrangement. Like at least one additional row of 16 trigs that’s operating on a longer timescale, but still allows you to p-lock tracks and other things. Not sure how well that could work exactly, would probably take a lot of R&D work but I’d like to see something like that.

2 Likes

I definitely agree that live performance is one way around this, and some machines lend themselves well to that. But the process of thoughtfully laying out an arrangement is quite different, and often a good way of getting ideas out. It’s like the difference between playing the keyboard live, or thoughtfully laying out a pattern. Iterative programming of the music, as it plays, is a great way to develop a piece of music, and so I’d like to see more thoughtful workflows around that for arrangement as well as short loops. Again, I don’t think we disagree here!

5 Likes

Deluge is the way, now it’s got grid mode so you can create all your clips from there. When you have everything set up, you can then record to arranger as well very easily, by pressing rec and song.

Then you just perform the grid mode and it will record everything directly in to arranger. After it is recorded in, if you wanted to make even more small changes, you can edit clips in arranger to set as unique and then go in and edit to create variations, drum fills etc.

For every single clip, can go in excess of 10,000 BARS. So nothing really is close to this. Not to mention the amazing public firmware that improves so many things exponentially.

Also you could use deluge as a midi sequencer to any of the other gear you mention, and use the same method as you say in ableton.

Just saying :slight_smile:

That all being said, hell I can use Electribe 2 blue standalone with its limitations and mute out tracks , switch patterns manually and have a really great end result. I think you can song write with any gear even abandoned stuff. That’s my opinion.

4 Likes

Digis have Song Mode. I would be curious to know what’s your take on this (of course, if you did use it).

3 Likes

I bet the music your into/influenced by wasnt recorded on groovebox. And there is where the fraustration starts.

7 Likes

Hardware sequencers like Cirklon or Pyramid can help you with that, they offer a lot of features that that simpler “groovebox sequencers” (like ST/DT/OT/DN) lack, and they are also great for performing with more than a single groovebox.

3 Likes

I mean, they are grooveboxes, not songboxes.

Once you get enough capability for laying out a whole song on a hardware unit (like a modern MPC), it gets the “DAW in a box” moniker online and the sales targets drop.

2 Likes

Why do so few grooveboxes have thoughtful workflows around laying out a whole song?

IMHO Because manufacturers (wrongly) believe that most people buying these boxes will never make a single song. They would if they could.

I mean how many year did it take for the Digitakt to get a pattern chain that can be saved?

Look at the Electribe 2, the EMX had a song mode (a great one). People had to complain to Korg in order for the manufacturer to implement a (bad) pattern chain…

Same on the MC101/MC707, there was no way to chain scenes at release, which is strange because the very first grooveboxes (MC303/MC505) had a song mode.

The AKAI Force released without an arranger, and it flopped, its price never recovered. despite the arranger being added 1+ year after release.

So one cannot claim that implementing a pattern chain isn’t worth the dev cost… if a $1500 groovebox can’t even chain patterns, I question the competency of the product manager…

It’s crazy because every single workflow / performance issue that can exist has been solved decades ago by previous grooveboxes…

The RS7000, the Motif series, the MV8000, MC505/MC909, EMX, and many many other devices… Manufacturers think these machines don’t exist…

Tangential, but the MPC3000 (1994, 30 years ago…) allowed to run 2 sequences at the same time, or a song and a sequence at the same time, where is it on the new MPC?

Roland invented that word when marketing the MC303 and the MC505 in the 90’s. BOTH devices had a song mode.

21 Likes

I’m still dismayed by the number of replies that are both short and dismissive.

9 Likes

What does annoy me with many grooveboxes is being trapped in their eco system.

People bang on about the Deluge. But - theres no multi outs and no way of easily exporting a bunch of tracks

4 Likes