Ableton's inability

[Nadaka]

I've used Live for a few years now and while I can say that it has a lot of great features, all in all if you compare it many other audio software, it remains so unprofessionally designed. Saving multiple mixes within a session, Locking multiple tracks together, de-consolidating windows, these are just a few of the many things Live does not do. I Remember how many years it took them to offer the most basic crossfade option. I still can't understand how people at Ableton can be so innovative in some part and so primitive in others. Does anyone out there share that same sense of frustration?

[kb420]

First of all, welcome to the forum. I see that this is your first post. I understand exactly how you feel, and trust me, if you read through these forums, you will see that you are not alone. For me personally, it's not the things that Live doesn't do, but the things that Live does do that makes it indispensable. I've become so accustomed to working with it that everything that I do starts in Live. As of late, I've really been having a good time exporting individual tracks from finished songs in Live and mixing them in other programs just for a change of pace. This has definitely given me a different perspective.

I love Live, but there are definitely things that it could do better. For those things, I look to other programs. It's not necessarily a bad thing. The truth is, no one program can be all things to all users.

[djadonis206]

What goes into a song? Some drums, a bass, chords, melody, and some vocals? None of the DAWs available today are limited in how they let you do all the basic things like add drums, bass etc.

It's just a matter of how much fun you, as the engineer and producer, have in getting all those basic parts together. Live is so much god damn fun it's retarded. They couldn't have made it any easier or quicker to do some basic things. If you want to get all complex about it, they offer M4L right?

[JuanSOLO]

I guess I just get confused about these kinds of posts, and there are plenty here.

Once upon a time I was using outboard samplers, some friends of mine were using "Live 2" on Laptops, and they talked me into using Live by saying it turns your Laptop into a sampling instrument that was much more intuitive than what I was using. They were RIGHT, and at the time, Live was somewhat known for that, taking a computer and turning it into a live instrument utilizing session view.

Somewhere along the way more people started using it for recording more and more, because it was fun and fast by laying down ideas in session view.

Then people started "DJing" with it.

Over time Live has been updated with lots of great additions (like RACKS) tipping it's hat towards the production guys and the DJ's without completely bowing down to them.

In my mind Live is still what it always was, a killer performance tool for Laptop musicians. I'm just dont understand why people complain about how other DAW's have better "pro" features for recording or production, OR how Live is not going more DJ. Live is great at what it does and what it was ment to do from the beginning. Why do people keep wanting to make it something it's not? If there is other software that is more suited for production then use that software, and the same goes for the DJ angle.

[JuanSOLO]

Dont get me wrong I would like to see Live get updated, but I wanna see it updated with it's original intent in mind, Live performance.

[easemeister]

+ 10000000 @juanSOLO

[oddstep]

true. live is great for live performance. I think what happens is that people reflect on its price relative to other music production packages and think, well its much more than product x, it should do much more than product x. i don't think that. you pay what you pay and make the most of it.

[c33]

Dont get me wrong I would like to see Live get updated, but I wanna see it updated with it's original intent in mind, Live performance.

As someone who's primarily using it to write and record right now, I definitely would want to see Live continue to expand both its studio and performance capabilities.

I know some people around here seem to have lots of issues and complaints regarding stability (and many don't), but putting that aside.. regarding its "original intent" being live performance.. I'm willing to bet Live's performance abilities today are significantly greater than they were when it was first released.

[login]

I am new to the forums but I already see this kind of threads popping quite regularly, like if it was done by a bot.

[Nadaka]

Because I love ableton so much, Its not so much the complex professional features i'm missing but the simple things that would make life easier for all Live users.
Just Imagine ... You have two monitors, one with session view, the other with arrangement view, both running simultaneously Wow! talk about simple innovation.

[DangerousDave]

I guess I just get confused about these kinds of posts, and there are plenty here.

Once upon a time I was using outboard samplers, some friends of mine were using "Live 2" on Laptops, and they talked me into using Live by saying it turns your Laptop into a sampling instrument that was much more intuitive than what I was using. They were RIGHT, and at the time, Live was somewhat known for that, taking a computer and turning it into a live instrument utilizing session view.

Somewhere along the way more people started using it for recording more and more, because it was fun and fast by laying down ideas in session view.

Then people started "DJing" with it.

Over time Live has been updated with lots of great additions (like RACKS) tipping it's hat towards the production guys and the DJ's without completely bowing down to them.

In my mind Live is still what it always was, a killer performance tool for Laptop musicians. I'm just dont understand why people complain about how other DAW's have better "pro" features for recording or production, OR how Live is not going more DJ. Live is great at what it does and what it was ment to do from the beginning. Why do people keep wanting to make it something it's not? If there is other software that is more suited for production then use that software, and the same goes for the DJ angle.

I can definitely see where you are coming from with this, but I also feel that Live has started to adopt so many of the features often associated with a typical DAW, that in a way it should be obligated to keep up with these standards. I mean, Live is advertised as a program for " for composition, songwriting, recording, production, remixing and live performance." (from the website) So it has certainly evolved past just being a live performance tool. I just feel that if they are going to also incorporate the features of a standard DAW, they should either do it all the way, or not do it at all, focusing solely on live performance. I think this is what frustrates people is that it is entirely possible for Live to be an all in one tool, and in my opinion it is advertised as such, but there are some obvious features that may be lacking for it to do so.

As for the pricing model, I again feel that Live is set up to be an all in one tool in this way. I mean the price would certainly suggest this, compared to other DAW's. If Live was going to be advertised as specifically for one or a few special tasks, such as live performance, you would think the price would reflect that this piece of software is supplementary to other music programs. However, Live's pricing model is set up (along with ads) to suggest that it is an all in one program. I think this is the other reason people get frustrated (someone mentioned this above) when Live doesn't implement some basic features, as they purchase it with the thought that they won't need another program for things. I for one cannot afford to have several DAW's for specific tasks, and I too felt that Live should indeed be pretty substantial with its relatively high price tag, and its advertising that reflects that Live simply does it all.

Don't get me wrong, I love Live. I agree that it is one of the most creative and enjoyable tools out there. I have tried demoing other DAW's and any muse I had when I sat down is gone as I spend an hour just figuring out how to route midi data, or try to find out where all my hidden windows went or something. With live, you can literally be humming a melody one minute, and have a simple four part production (drums, bass, lead, vox, etc.) in minutes, and this true for a novice or expert user of Live. I just feel that if they are going to go all the way as an all in one piece of software (which I do believe they are trying at the moment,) then they need to go full bore.

Just my thoughts.

[JuanSOLO]

...I think this is what frustrates people is that it is entirely possible for Live to be an all in one tool...

I totally agree, yet what I see mostly in the forums is not people asking for an all in one tool, I see people wanting it to be more this or that (Logic or Traktor). To me Live could be the ultimate all in one solution by implementing the most common recommended features people have been asking for in the last 2 years or more.

And your definitely right, Live has advertised itself as such in the last 2 versions, however I feel like the more they hone in on the performance angle, the production/dj specific features would naturally fall into place. In other words, streamlining the performance workflow should naturally carry over into the production workflow, at least thats seems logical to me. I want to take my Laptop to band practice, and come up with songs on the fly, FASTER and EASIER, and second to that, capture and produce it. I feel like Live is only a version away from that being effortless, and I hope Ableton proves it.

[kanuck]

I can definitely see where you are coming from with this, but I also feel that Live has started to adopt so many of the features often associated with a typical DAW, that in a way it should be obligated to keep up with these standards. I mean, Live is advertised as a program for " for composition, songwriting, recording, production, remixing and live performance." (from the website) So it has certainly evolved past just being a live performance tool. I just feel that if they are going to also incorporate the features of a standard DAW, they should either do it all the way, or not do it at all, focusing solely on live performance. I think this is what frustrates people is that it is entirely possible for Live to be an all in one tool, and in my opinion it is advertised as such, but there are some obvious features that may be lacking for it to do so.

As for the pricing model, I again feel that Live is set up to be an all in one tool in this way. I mean the price would certainly suggest this, compared to other DAW's. If Live was going to be advertised as specifically for one or a few special tasks, such as live performance, you would think the price would reflect that this piece of software is supplementary to other music programs. However, Live's pricing model is set up (along with ads) to suggest that it is an all in one program. I think this is the other reason people get frustrated (someone mentioned this above) when Live doesn't implement some basic features, as they purchase it with the thought that they won't need another program for things. I for one cannot afford to have several DAW's for specific tasks, and I too felt that Live should indeed be pretty substantial with its relatively high price tag, and its advertising that reflects that Live simply does it all.

Don't get me wrong, I love Live. I agree that it is one of the most creative and enjoyable tools out there. I have tried demoing other DAW's and any muse I had when I sat down is gone as I spend an hour just figuring out how to route midi data, or try to find out where all my hidden windows went or something. With live, you can literally be humming a melody one minute, and have a simple four part production (drums, bass, lead, vox, etc.) in minutes, and this true for a novice or expert user of Live. I just feel that if they are going to go all the way as an all in one piece of software (which I do believe they are trying at the moment,) then they need to go full bore.

Just my thoughts.

great post.

i agree completely. I don't understand how people could call live only good for 1 thing. If Ableton wanted live to go that way they would've:
1) lower the price (who wants to pay more an application that helps for a specific thing than a full fledged daw?)
2) make it easier to integrate with other DAWs. (right now rewire is crippling and bouncing down tracks just to mix in a different DAW is almost pointless.)

There is no argument that Live lacks certain (sometimes obvious) features. But at the same time Live has addressed that they were planning to implement (some of) these features. I see Live as a full production tool with a twist from your regular linear styled recording. I'm excited for Live 9.. i'd like to see what the folks at ableton think of next.

[friend_kami]

I can definitely see where you are coming from with this, but I also feel that Live has started to adopt so many of the features often associated with a typical DAW, that in a way it should be obligated to keep up with these standards. I mean, Live is advertised as a program for " for composition, songwriting, recording, production, remixing and live performance." (from the website) So it has certainly evolved past just being a live performance tool. I just feel that if they are going to also incorporate the features of a standard DAW, they should either do it all the way, or not do it at all, focusing solely on live performance. I think this is what frustrates people is that it is entirely possible for Live to be an all in one tool, and in my opinion it is advertised as such, but there are some obvious features that may be lacking for it to do so.

As for the pricing model, I again feel that Live is set up to be an all in one tool in this way. I mean the price would certainly suggest this, compared to other DAW's. If Live was going to be advertised as specifically for one or a few special tasks, such as live performance, you would think the price would reflect that this piece of software is supplementary to other music programs. However, Live's pricing model is set up (along with ads) to suggest that it is an all in one program. I think this is the other reason people get frustrated (someone mentioned this above) when Live doesn't implement some basic features, as they purchase it with the thought that they won't need another program for things. I for one cannot afford to have several DAW's for specific tasks, and I too felt that Live should indeed be pretty substantial with its relatively high price tag, and its advertising that reflects that Live simply does it all.

Don't get me wrong, I love Live. I agree that it is one of the most creative and enjoyable tools out there. I have tried demoing other DAW's and any muse I had when I sat down is gone as I spend an hour just figuring out how to route midi data, or try to find out where all my hidden windows went or something. With live, you can literally be humming a melody one minute, and have a simple four part production (drums, bass, lead, vox, etc.) in minutes, and this true for a novice or expert user of Live. I just feel that if they are going to go all the way as an all in one piece of software (which I do believe they are trying at the moment,) then they need to go full bore.

Just my thoughts.

great post.

i agree completely. I don't understand how people could call live only good for 1 thing. If Ableton wanted live to go that way they would've:
1) lower the price (who wants to pay more an application that helps for a specific thing than a full fledged daw?)
2) make it easier to integrate with other DAWs. (right now rewire is crippling and bouncing down tracks just to mix in a different DAW is almost pointless.)

There is no argument that Live lacks certain (sometimes obvious) features. But at the same time Live has addressed that they were planning to implement (some of) these features. I see Live as a full production tool with a twist from your regular linear styled recording. I'm excited for Live 9.. i'd like to see what the folks at ableton think of next.

i want to be excited for L9, but considering what happened with 8 where the release was laughable and not even RTM, while flagship features were retracted while some other flagship features didn't even work properly, i find it very hard to justify any kind of coin sent their way. the only reason i am still using live now if because of racks and the fact that i bought it for shit tons of money and i dislike spending that much money on something and just stop using it because i got lied to in my face.

if ableton are to save face they'd better give us 64bit, bezier curved automation and a free upgrade price and make sure that that shit is rock fucking solid, because their reputation is quite bad right now.

hell even renoise has a session view now, and they've got both linux support, and 64bit versions with their own 32/64 bridge.
that's a tracker dammit. cmon..

[kanuck]

i want to be excited for L9, but considering what happened with 8 where the release was laughable and not even RTM, while flagship features were retracted while some other flagship features didn't even work properly, i find it very hard to justify any kind of coin sent their way. the only reason i am still using live now if because of racks and the fact that i bought it for shit tons of money and i dislike spending that much money on something and just stop using it because i got lied to in my face.

if ableton are to save face they'd better give us 64bit, bezier curved automation and a free upgrade price and make sure that that shit is rock fucking solid, because their reputation is quite bad right now.

hell even renoise has a session view now, and they've got both linux support, and 64bit versions with their own 32/64 bridge.
that's a tracker dammit. cmon..

fair point.. unfortunately I can't relate since I jumped into Live/Suite during Live 8.. once all the bugs had been worked out.. never had a crash yet.