Sitting on the Fence - Push or Maschine

[lo.key]

sure, you have an existing controller thats working well for you. Well done. But its a little absurd to refer to the maschine as somehow more of an instrument than any other controller. Its a bunch of buttons, like many other devices. End of story.

[Guillermo Barrancos]

sure, you have an existing controller thats working well for you. Well done. But its a little absurd to refer to the maschine as somehow more of an instrument than any other controller. Its a bunch of buttons, like many other devices. End of story.

You can say that of any instrument then basically. /shrug

[lo.key]

exactly. Its an absurd distinction to make.

[deva]

Maschine itself is not at all limited to "only 16 notes (basically 1 octave)".

Yes it is... There are 16 pads... That is it. That is exactly what it is limited to. No matter how zealous your advocacy, or how many times you talk about the omniscience of Maschine, it will still have 16 pads and only 16 pads.


That is not enough for me and so I am not interested in Maschine. I am interested in Push because it has 64 pads and a ribbon controller.

[mutant23]

There are to many limitations to music making these days, and technology seems to be the main player in this.

I would think it's the other way around, that people are increasingly paralyzed by too many choices as advancements in technology continue to remove limitations. I find Maschine to be the perfect antidote to being overwhelmed by too many choices and open ended possibilities. It strikes a nice balance between providing a set of constraints that encourages productivity yet still being flexible enough to cater to different workflow preferences.

Everyone has their own point of view, but I feel that when you are constantly being fed solutions you are taking your mindset away from making music and focusing more on the technological aspect of things. Of course these advancements in technology make it easier to control software and customize, but questions like these are only stopping you from making music. Its really a double edge sword.

How so? I agree with the notion that too many choices can be an obstacle that prevents people from being productive and actually engaging in the act of making music. And technological advancements exacerbates that. At the same time, technology also provides tools like Maschine which does strike a good balance between having pre-defined limitations that encourage creativity and still being powerful and flexible enough so that it doesn't have any of the annoying limitations inherent to standalone hardware of the past.

Also, not everyone wants open-ended possibilities that could eventually be achieved with Push through M4L scripts and python hacks. Not everyone is a programmer or even wants to buy M4L or third party scripts. In fact, that is far more likely to lead to "taking your mindset away from making music and focusing more on the technological aspect of things".

[Tone Deft]

I feel that when you are constantly being fed solutions you are taking your mindset away from making music and focusing more on the technological aspect of things. Of course these advancements in technology make it easier to control software and customize, but questions like these are only stopping you from making music. Its really a double edge sword.

you're playing the victim, think for yourself.

oh no, so many questions!! PANIC!!!

rewind 15 years if you're old enough, making music is much easier today. try setting up and maintaining an all hardware studio compared to a complete ITB solution with a USB controller.

[markos]

There are to many limitations to music making these days, and technology seems to be the main player in this.

How so? I agree with the notion that too many choices can be an obstacle that prevents people from being productive and actually engaging in the act of making music. And technological advancements exacerbates that. At the same time, technology also provides tools like Maschine which does strike a good balance between having pre-defined limitations that encourage creativity and still being powerful and flexible enough so that it doesn't have any of the annoying limitations inherent to standalone hardware of the past.

Also, not everyone wants open-ended possibilities that could eventually be achieved with Push through M4L scripts and python hacks. Not everyone is a programmer or even wants to buy M4L or third party scripts. In fact, that is far more likely to lead to "taking your mindset away from making music and focusing more on the technological aspect of things".

The limitations I speak of, are those of the "I can't make a decision" type. Do we really need to sit here and talk about how one may be better then the other? Pointless. Buy one, learn it, perfect it, and prove it to the labels that you can actually produce a good record with it. Don't buy one based on this idea that it will help you make better music.

[markos]

I feel that when you are constantly being fed solutions you are taking your mindset away from making music and focusing more on the technological aspect of things. Of course these advancements in technology make it easier to control software and customize, but questions like these are only stopping you from making music. Its really a double edge sword.

you're playing the victim, think for yourself.

oh no, so many questions!! PANIC!!!

rewind 15 years if you're old enough, making music is much easier today. try setting up and maintaining an all hardware studio compared to a complete ITB solution with a USB controller.

I actually run a hybrid system of analog and digital gear so I understand the concepts and headaches of patching things together and rewiring/routing. I'm actually in the process of building an external mastering rig as we speak because I love the idea of hands on control of my effects and sound. Plus I've recently found a love for analog gear. Its really addictive.

All I am saying is that we let the gear take control of how we make music and thats not what its about. You shouldn't make music because it is now "easier" too. You should be writing music because you want to say something.

[Tone Deft]

cool.

that's why I harp on guitar/piano playing and emphasis on electronic music. if I forgot how to use Live, that's fine. I forgot how to play guitar that would suck. for me, not my wife and neighbors.

that's why I didn't beta test Live 9 very much. meh on the tech, more on the playing.

[mutant23]

All I am saying is that we let the gear take control of how we make music and thats not what its about.

The music we make may not be about the gear but the tools we use do end up influencing the end product in a rather profound way and we should be embracing it.

This reminds me of the old preconceptions of machines (ie: drum machines, samplers, software) as being inhibitive to "genuine" creativity which I think is a remnant of the modernist idea that we humans can control our fates and perfect ourselves and eventually escape death. But the reality is that the composer is just as much a tool as the tool itself, and the music making process is not a one-way process where the tools we use simply bends to our conscious will. The attributes of the machine are just as prominent an influence in the resulting product as the user is. So just as a verbal language facilitates and constricts our thoughts, the musical tradition, language and the factors of its realization(ie. instrumentation, limits of physical ability) are just as active participants in the compositional process as the composer is.

[lo.key]

But the reality is that the composer is just as much a tool as the tool itself, and the music making process is not a one-way process where the tools we use simply bends to our conscious will. The attributes of the machine are just as prominent an influence in the resulting product as the user is. So just as a verbal language facilitates and constricts our thoughts, the musical tradition, language and the factors of its realization(ie. instrumentation, limits of physical ability) are just as active participants in the compositional process as the composer is.

VERY good point.

[onestep]

I could play with Push only for an hour last week at a friend but it looks definitely like an instrument, not a controller like Maschine which only excele at drums.

It is hard to see Maschine as an instrument for me because it only has 16 pads... which is also why many people see it as mainly for drums. 16 is not enough for playing melodic instruments effectively... Maschine is good solid hardware, but the 64 pads on Push is what makes it able to function as an 'instrument' for me

I have to chime in about this whole instrument vs. controller thing. It is hard to see Push as an instrument for me because it only has 64 pads which makes it a controller compared to the 256 pads on my monome.

[daddytang]

I really tried to get into the flow with Machine. In the end its a controller for drum racks.

[yur2die4]

I'm with onestep on this one.

Anything with less than 250 buttons/keys/triggers/valves is useless to me as a real instrument. Even taking dynamic control into account. If it won't play a B-3 or a C11, its a piece of shit.

[lo.key]

whereas i am satisfied with a single note, played with expression yD