Long-term user... disenchanted...

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 11:04 am

some good points in that post

Steve Christian · Post by **Steve Christian** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 12:09 pm

To each their own and you should compose with whatever you feel comfortable composing with. For me though, I like Ableton and use it as a rewire into Logic. The problem is that I never got that "play" the keyboard and jam to my tunes vibe with it. I always found myself doing less musical composition and more digging through folders for premade samples to throw effects on and warp when putting together tracks. It's why I use Logic as my main DAW and Ableton as sort of a really cool Audio plugin for my bounced sections.

mbenigni · Post by **mbenigni** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:30 pm

I never considered Live a DAW, per se, though I've come to realize over time that it is one. I first started using it with the most limited applications in mind - I really just needed a VST host with a good UI and comprehensive routing, and Live was the first thing to deliver. I didn't even plan on recording with this product, so obviously it more than met my expectations. Live was a perfect platform for putting together performance sets.

I've since been blown away by Live as a creative tool in the studio, but despite any of Abe's marketing angles, never came to expect it to take the place of a full-featured DAW. And frankly, I hope it doesn't. Or, more fairly, if it does, I hope the enhancements that make this so remain safely out of my way. For the moment, the leanness of Abe Live keeps me from making the same terrible mistake that resulted in 0 significant recordings over the course of many years - trying to wear the writer's, engineer's, producer's, mastering engineer's, and performer's hats all at the same time. Because I don't expect to hear a "finished" recording (or even the final performance, typically) out of Live, I don't get hung up on polish - I keep thinking like a musician instead.

As for cliches, I'd say it's always going to be up to the user/artist to avoid the obvious. You can't say a product is deficient because it's capable of executing your bad decisions; you can only fault a product that fails to rise to your better ones. For instance, my brakes work; I could easily have stopped my car in 60mph traffic this morning.

Implicit in all this: I guess I also agree re: pricing. If I were doing any serious music production, I'd be hamstrung except that I also happen to own Sonar. This makes for a lot of $$$ in software. I don't really think Abe has reason to lower the price tag, necessarily, because I consider Live to be an absolutely premium product. (I've never encountered any single piece of software that I admire as much. I guess I'm a "fanboy" LOL.) But I do think that introducing a seperate pricing structure for Sampler, Operator, and EIC was a bit much, not to mention confusing as hell. IMO it could have been a win-win just to throw it all in in the interest of boosting core Live 6 sales. Now, of course, they're painted into a corner.

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:41 pm

Thanks for the feedback.

Just to clarify, I am NOT disenchanted with Live as a composing/jamming/etc environment at all - I still love this software to bits!

The point I am making is that I am disenchanted with it as a replacement for my full-on audio/MIDI DAW software. I own both SONAR Producer and Mackie Tracktion... but have been moving towards using JUST Live for everything. Ableton have portrayed it as capable in this way, and until just recently I believed that.

However, for the reasons I gave, I am realising that I need to use Live AND another DAW more suited to multitrack production stuff.

It seems from the signatures of people who appeared to disagree with my post that in practice they agree - most people here are listing Logic and/or another full-on DAW as something they use alongside Live. I guess they are doing that because they, like me, have found Live is not quite there are a full DAW yet...

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:55 pm

But what is a full daw?

An application so loaded with features that you go looking for something more refreshing. Like Live........

Urgh... It's futile...
I could make this case if Live was still a sequencing instrument.

But the Ableton marketing department really screwed users like me with their "complete music production solution"...
Now Ableton are pretty much obligated to make Live become a "full daw".
The developers tell a different story though. I'm looking forward to the Live 7 beta cycle next summer. Then we'll know for sure which direction Live is headed to..

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:03 pm

and if I may add to that;

don't people first use demo's before they buy something?

really..
alot of complaints and dislikes I hear are from people who obviously had a quick read on the box..

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:08 pm

mbenigni wrote: As for cliches, I'd say it's always going to be up to the user/artist to avoid the obvious. You can't say a product is deficient because, it's capable of executing your bad decisions; you can only fault a product that fails to rise to your better ones. For instance, my brakes work; I could easily have stopped my car in 60mph traffic this morning.

I'm certainly NOT trying to fault the product (only, perhaps, some of the way it is now being repositioned/marketed...). And I do agree with you in general, although perhaps this is an over-simplification...

Whether or not it is possible in the long term to continue producing music that eschews cliches while using a loop-baswed approach is obviously debatable, and for that matter it is quite possible to use Ableton without looping any of your clips.

Then again, may of us have found that Live inspires creativity by offering specific features and workflow. We have shared and discussed techniques for getting the best out of it. So we should not be too suprised to find that in many cases it inspires us to use similar techniques, or that the creative urge takes many of us in similar directions creatively.

In the same way, it is inevitable that there was only a certain amount of mileage in Ritornello Form, Serialism, Fugue, or 12-bar blues. The only question is when to *call time* and move in a new direction...

...

headquest · Post by **headquest** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:09 pm

Poster wrote:and if I may add to that;

don't people first use demo's before they buy something?

really..
alot of complaints and dislikes I hear are from people who obviously had a quick read on the box..

Not sure who you aimed that at (maybe just a general point?) but hoffman2k and I have both been using Live quite thoroughly since version 2

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:14 pm

Some great points on both sides. My two cents:

I came from Sonar and SX. I've used lots of other hosts, and to me, Live is the fastest way to work. And I do most of my work in Arrange, while session is just to get a few skeletal ideas together. After Live 4, I just couldn't deal with multiple windows and lack of elegant UI/workflow. When I see multiple windows and 10 clicks for simple tasks, it literally freaks me out. And the audio and midi routing is without a doubt the best implemented in Live. It actually works like a real mixer should...take audio from one track and mix it into another in real time while tweaking FX...so simple, so nice.

Now it's true there are grips with Live, but most every gripe has a workaround. Moreover, I'm not tied to any one paradigm. I can perform with it, create in it, produce with it (rock bands, lots of tracks, electronica, mashups, you name it), and even master in it. With that kind of flexibility, all other tools just pale in comparison. Do I want to utilize my CPU above 70%? Of course. But without that option, I can still freeze. Just one of many examples of how you can get by until the Abes fix it.

Bottom line is that I feel your frustrations. For me, I live with them because the benefits of using Live as my main tool are just too many. There is no other option for me. So technically, that makes me a fanboy, I suppose.

pulsoc · Post by **pulsoc** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:16 pm

Mr-Bit wrote:
hoffman2k wrote:I bought Live for what it said on this box:

They're loosing track of that concept.

...nodding head. If Live kept to that ethos it would be used more specifically as an instrument and performance tool in conjunction with other daw's.(the way I started using live)The general direction of DAWing Ableton allthough very usefull seems to be stunting the live side, a shame.
It's been mentioned before but perhaps Ableton needs a Live/Daw switch to select the appropriate setup and toolset for performance and arrangement usage?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Ableton-Live-1-New- ... dZViewItem

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:19 pm

headquest wrote:
Poster wrote:and if I may add to that;

don't people first use demo's before they buy something?

really..
alot of complaints and dislikes I hear are from people who obviously had a quick read on the box..
Not sure who you aimed that at (maybe just a general point?) but hoffman2k and I have both been using Live quite thoroughly since version 2

yep.. general point..
but I have to say that some points of your initial post suit my comment as well..

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:21 pm

yeah, well, my points are bigger than your points.

Poster · Post by **Poster** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:23 pm

nebulae wrote:yeah, well, my points are bigger than your points.

that's because you're used to inches..
I do the millimeter thing..

nebulae · Post by **nebulae** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:27 pm

Poster wrote:
nebulae wrote:yeah, well, my points are bigger than your points.
that's because you're used to inches..
I do the millimeter thing..

Freakin' Europeans...don't you realize that an inch is much bigger than a millimeter?!?!?

sweetjesus · Post by **sweetjesus** » Fri Feb 23, 2007 3:36 pm

i think if u look at the front cover of the live 6 and live 1 boxes u will notice that they are a perfect metaphor for the differences between the original concepts and where it's at now.