finally... BITWIG STUDIO! beta 'soon'...

[UncleAge]

What's wrong with Live being a Performance tool AND a Daw? I like having both in one program. Also Daw's are expensive. If you're going to spend that sort of money on an application it preferable that it can be put to different uses.

Nothing inherently 'wrong' with it, it's just that Live is a great composing tool, but I just don't see it as "surgical" like Logic, Cubase, DP etc. There are old school ideas that are great in many cases, but have little to do with electronic music or live performance that Logic and DP etc. have: SysEx, Event editors, Notation, tools, comping, destructive audio editing, advanced MIDI transform features, multiple automation write styles (Latch, Touch etc.), the list goes on. None of those features are important to a live performance, but some if not all are great for composition and mixdown. Thing is Live has a competent amount of those features now, IMO if you want the rest buy another DAW, otherwise it's this never ending wait for them to implement 'some' of those features. A better idea is IMO for Ableton to develop the live performance aspect of Live, to implement the good ideas from Kore and Mainstage and get into advanced Follow Actions for instance. Otherwise we'll see Bitwig realize this and become far more advanced as a live performance tool, since neither is going to 'beat' the features of the old school DAWs it's a redundant race to compete on that front IMO.

I here you. And it's hard to disagree with those points. At this point in time I'd bet that a significant (maybe more than 50%) of Live users are just creating in their studio. They are not performing anywhere. I have read countless posts in forums where users have said that they use Live to create or quickly grow an idea and when they are done they export it in some fashion to another environment for mixing. Right or wrong those folk (me included) represent revenue for Ableton. Personally, I'm not against a more performance oriented program. But I doubt that the Abe's will make any future improvements that don't attempt to keep that balance intact. IMO.

[betterbox]

I'm not against a more performance oriented program. But I doubt that the Abe's will make any future improvements that don't attempt to keep that balance intact. IMO.

i dont think thats an contradiction. A real techno live act is actually having a studio on stage.. a hardware studio with the possibillitys to create and alternate content on the fly..mix master ready live.. the live run off is still the most dynamic studiotactic..people buy hardware just for this...

So enhancement for better liveshows give better jam option s in the studio what will lead to more alive tracks.
And dsatbility is an issue in the studio too.. a customer that pays dont gains trust in your production capabilitys when the program crashes every hour.. They dont see that as ableton bugs..

And all the little functioalitys one only needs in the studio? as long they dont clog the user interface they dont hurt.. you have to see that before live was there we did the gigs with logic and cubase and studio vision.. all studio daws.. I know quite a few artists that still use logic on stage.. thanks to its enviroment its not too bad for that really.

i am suggest strongly that ableton focusses more on the jam aspect again.. ther new features have a higher wow factors than just adding features we had in login in the last century allready... see the fx racks..thats a performance orientated feature and the pride of abletons development in the last years..on the negative side beside that they havent achived much really.

And unstabilitys are so 90´s... we have the year 2012, only one crash allowed this year!

[3dot...]

performing... as in..playing it like an instrument.. making decisions on the fly..etc
doesn't really matter if there's only 1 person to enjoy the "performance"..
the processing power is there.. it's all about workflow..user experience..
and how wisely resources are handled

[3dot...]

And unstabilitys are so 90´s... we have the year 2012, only one crash allowed this year!

...so bigwig=Utopia ?

is it the future already?

[synnack]

And unstabilitys are so 90´s... we have the year 2012, only one crash allowed this year!

...so bigwig=Utopia ?

is it the future already?

It's really quite messed up what people infer from some screenshots. Oy Vey.

[pencilrocket]

I'm not against a more performance oriented program. But I doubt that the Abe's will make any future improvements that don't attempt to keep that balance intact. IMO.

i dont think thats an contradiction. A real techno live act is actually having a studio on stage.. a hardware studio with the possibillitys to create and alternate content on the fly..mix master ready live.. the live run off is still the most dynamic studiotactic..people buy hardware just for this...

So enhancement for better liveshows give better jam option s in the studio what will lead to more alive tracks.
And dsatbility is an issue in the studio too.. a customer that pays dont gains trust in your production capabilitys when the program crashes every hour.. They dont see that as ableton bugs..

And all the little functioalitys one only needs in the studio? as long they dont clog the user interface they dont hurt.. you have to see that before live was there we did the gigs with logic and cubase and studio vision.. all studio daws.. I know quite a few artists that still use logic on stage.. thanks to its enviroment its not too bad for that really.

i am suggest strongly that ableton focusses more on the jam aspect again.. ther new features have a higher wow factors than just adding features we had in login in the last century allready... see the fx racks..thats a performance orientated feature and the pride of abletons development in the last years..on the negative side beside that they havent achived much really.

And unstabilitys are so 90´s... we have the year 2012, only one crash allowed this year!

There are unequivocal gap between complete song which are carefully refined and mixed by producer, and quick sketch or quick improvisation. It would be okay to play repetitive loop over and over with some FX if it was realtime performance. But not so many people will buy such 10min over song from the internet to play ther DAP. If we seriously think to produce song to make a living we have to produce complete song. If we seriously think to make a living by DJing we have to learn DJ technique. Live's performance capability isn't intend to perfectly cover those DJs, I think. It's rather tool for the producers who also need to perform their song in live, and for DJ's who need 'additional' tool for their existing gears for DJing.

The reason why I have been saying they should split the session view is on this very spot. They can develop new software purely for DJing without need to bother daw paradigm.

[Donnie]

Personally its the complete package that has me using Live. I use it to produce, perform live, and DJ. It kinda makes me laugh when people try to say what Live is or should be, it is what you make of it. For some of us the bottom line is that Live allows us to do WHATEVER we want without having to be pigeonholed into a specific workflow or use separate softwares.

With that said, I really like the fact that Bitwig can be run in Linux. I wish Live had that capability since I use PC/Windows, Linux, and Mac simultaneously.

[Hervé]

There are unequivocal gap between complete song which are carefully refined and mixed by producer, and quick sketch or quick improvisation. It would be okay to play repetitive loop over and over with some FX if it was realtime performance. But not so many people will buy such 10min over song from the internet to play ther DAP. If we seriously think to produce song to make a living we have to produce complete song. If we seriously think to make a living by DJing we have to learn DJ technique. Live's performance capability isn't intend to perfectly cover those DJs, I think. It's rather tool for the producers who also need to perform their song in live, and for DJ's who need 'additional' tool for their existing gears for DJing.

The reason why I have been saying they should split the session view is on this very spot. They can develop new software purely for DJing without need to bother daw paradigm.

Is this really your vision of a live act ? you scare me there... :/

[pencilrocket]

There are unequivocal gap between complete song which are carefully refined and mixed by producer, and quick sketch or quick improvisation. It would be okay to play repetitive loop over and over with some FX if it was realtime performance. But not so many people will buy such 10min over song from the internet to play ther DAP. If we seriously think to produce song to make a living we have to produce complete song. If we seriously think to make a living by DJing we have to learn DJ technique. Live's performance capability isn't intend to perfectly cover those DJs, I think. It's rather tool for the producers who also need to perform their song in live, and for DJ's who need 'additional' tool for their existing gears for DJing.

The reason why I have been saying they should split the session view is on this very spot. They can develop new software purely for DJing without need to bother daw paradigm.

Is this really your vision of a live act ? you scare me there... :/

I told nothing untruth. To became famous DJ is not easy. They have their selling point. Extreme turntable technique, infinite knowledge about existing songs, producing his original good songs and etc.

[UncleAge]

The reason why I have been saying they should split the session view is on this very spot. They can develop new software purely for DJing without need to bother daw paradigm.

For some of us the bottom line is that Live allows us to do WHATEVER we want without having to be pigeonholed into a specific workflow or use separate softwares.

I think the underlying sentiment in these two statements are definitely conflicting views. We all see the tool differently and we all think it should be seen as we see it. Maybe these were the type of discussions that led some of the programmers to leave Ableton and start their own thing.

[headquest]

The reason why I have been saying they should split the session view is on this very spot. They can develop new software purely for DJing without need to bother daw paradigm.

For some of us the bottom line is that Live allows us to do WHATEVER we want without having to be pigeonholed into a specific workflow or use separate softwares.

I think the underlying sentiment in these two statements are definitely conflicting views. We all see the tool differently and we all think it should be seen as we see it. Maybe these were the type of discussions that led some of the programmers to leave Ableton and start their own thing.

I doubt it, because they are billing Bitwig Studio as a tool suitable for "Music Production, Performance and DJing"... so they seem to have taken away the exact same vision for their own product as the one they were previously being employed to help on. They've not just taken the ideas, innovation and most of the Ableton GUI - they've taken the entire vision with them and set up shop a short way along the street...

Personally I suspect this is a very human story that has little to do with trying something different, and everything to do with personality conflict and people wanting more of the limelight. I see nothing here in terms of different vision or strategy to suggest that there is a legitimate basis for rejecting Ableton and going their own way.

[Ryanmf]

Personally I suspect this is a very human story that has little to do with trying something different, and everything to do with personality conflict and people wanting more of the limelight. I see nothing here in terms of different vision or strategy to suggest that there is a legitimate basis for rejecting Ableton and going their own way.

Because talented developers love being mired in bureaucracy and having their life's work stuck on the same version for three and a half years.

If I were them I'd be glad I left when I did and took my talents somewhere that I had an opportunity to use them.

If all the "vision" remains on Ableton's side, they'll crush Bitwig. I suspect the facts will reflect otherwise. I suspect a few guys wanted to take an opportunity to act on their vision, to be agile and not have features squashed because marketing isn't having it, or there's a conflict with a "strategic partner," or any of the other potential pitfalls of attempting to be creative within the confines of a large organization.

[edit: Incendiary comment retracted. I don't agree with you, that should do it.]

There are legal protections in place to prevent Bitwig's developers from reusing code and visual assets. If Ableton thinks they have a case, they'll take it to the courts. Otherwise, you can't patent ideas, only implementations. I, for one, remain pleased that there will be more than one implementation of the clip-centric DAW available on the market.

[mholloway]

What's wrong with Live being a Performance tool AND a Daw? I like having both in one program. Also Daw's are expensive. If you're going to spend that sort of money on an application it preferable that it can be put to different uses.

Nothing inherently 'wrong' with it, it's just that Live is a great composing tool, but I just don't see it as "surgical" like Logic, Cubase, DP etc. There are old school ideas that are great in many cases, but have little to do with electronic music or live performance that Logic and DP etc. have: SysEx, Event editors, Notation, tools, comping, destructive audio editing, advanced MIDI transform features, multiple automation write styles (Latch, Touch etc.), the list goes on. None of those features are important to a live performance, but some if not all are great for composition and mixdown. Thing is Live has a competent amount of those features now, IMO if you want the rest buy another DAW, otherwise it's this never ending wait for them to implement 'some' of those features. A better idea is IMO for Ableton to develop the live performance aspect of Live, to implement the good ideas from Kore and Mainstage and get into advanced Follow Actions for instance. Otherwise we'll see Bitwig realize this and become far more advanced as a live performance tool, since neither is going to 'beat' the features of the old school DAWs it's a redundant race to compete on that front IMO.

This is perfectly fine reasoning but the bottom line for me is that not everyone (myself certainly included) has the same attitude toward a multi-DAW approach to song production as you do. The "go buy another DAW for that stuff" attitude just presume a multi-DAW workflow works for everybody. And while I know a lot of people can work that way, I simply despise working that way. Thus, I absolutely want Live to function as a full featured DAW in addition to having the special tools it has performance wise. I think it's almost there; the notable missing part for my needs is an actual native sample editor and offline fx processing.

-M

[jer_mcclain]

Thus, I absolutely want Live to function as a full featured DAW in addition to having the special tools it has performance wise.

agreed

[massenmedium]

As any coder will tell you, the code goes much faster -- and the quality is much higher -- the second time you write something from scratch I could totally see three serious have-no-life coders writing this from the ground up in three years if they'd already written a similar app in the past. At the low level that DAWs operate at, there are *huge* learning curves to get over in terms of multithreading, timing issues, sync, dealing with 3 gazillion different audio devices, etc. If they've already got that bit out of the way, and can sit down on day one with a good architecture design that they *know* will work, that probably saves them a man year or two...

Exactly right. And this is why I also hope Ableton have been able to take the time to rewrite the Live code, something which is likely even less work in that case as the devices are all built.