Ableton Forum

davepermen wrote:

3phase wrote: no no..just about sequencers work and how improvisation with sequencers works..especially under the unideal stage situation...

its rather user interface design... these nerds are too trained to do work after a list.. so when they do musicsoftware it allmost is inevitable that this turns out to be closer related to a spreadsheet calculation than to a perpetum mobilee.

okay, there you could maybe help. but it's hard to satisfy user expectations there, as, as you say, they expect perpetuum mobilees. which, as you know, can't exist.

its enough when it acts like one.. still can need the energy of the user.. that wouldnt be a flaw

i personally don't see how they should care to support such old hw that no vendor has support for anymore anyways. it's a nice to have, but not really the main focus they should have. your view is different, based on having too much old stuff to rely on, obviously.

thats not the point.. there was an evolution in live sequencing.. and ignoring that just means to repeat mistakes of the past and reinvent good stuff decades later.. we still have only linar sequencing in live.. the 80´s sequencing style was interacting .. nonelinear ..conditional sequencing.. ..in ways with smaler memorys more complex than one can do with live.. ok..with mfl that has changed.. but since this will reach the user it will be 4 decades after the invention of this type of sequencing


there is a nice video about robert henke explainig his way of doing life sets.. with his fancy controler.. in the beginning he states that he wasnt sure wether having 5 or a rows..... he decided for 5 because HIS tracks never have more than 5 scenes..

later he tells that he latly discovers thats fun not to work in scenes thats nice to just click a clip and try..

a little contradiction..

i was laughing.. the inventor of the software a decade later finaly getting to that point.. just wasnt his way of working before..

if the apc would have been developed at a later point it probably would have had more than 5 rows...


Thats the main difference between improvising and a ready composed set.. you dont need much buttons for a ready composed set.. as soon it gets to improvisation the user interface design gets much more demanding..

thats the main reason wy a guitar dont looks like a spreadsheet calculation

but one trick is, too, to move away from legacy. it's one point that you seem to have problems with, being very much focused in the past. sometimes, a fresh head, not riddled with all the errors people have done is exactly what is needed. (right now, it's needed in about EVERY industry existing, as most are stagnating instead of innovating).

trying things from new will always mean compatibility issues, but it, too, means progress. if it's progress into the wrong direction, it will fail, and be listed as a failed try. if not, it will be 'the next big thing'.

live doesn't do the same errors that where done in the past. the whole world changed since then, computers have completely different physical laws than hardware devices. no need to limit to a certain amount of 'tracks' or 'clips' (using live's terms) anymore. no need to have a stepsequencer fixed to 16 steps at max or something, etc.

but anyways, live does quite well, and even tries to fix your problems.. and you still always try to make them feel bad for everything... hope that changes one day. but i know it won't

LoopStationZebra wrote:

Dennis DeSantis wrote: If Live is as awful for you as the majority of your posts seem to suggest, perhaps you'd be happier with another solution.

3phase, even Ableton is now basically telling you to fuck off. lol.

oh the did that even more directly after i started questioning the stabilty of L8 last summer.. actually i ve taken this invetation in the oposite direction.they called me a ranter.. ok..than i might well be one..ther is enough to rant about .. and nobody doing it...

even nobody able to find the most obvious bugs because the y are all so happy that guys like mr cosm teached them to use the program... happy happy happy ..they can make electronic music now..and it sounds exactly like the stuff they allways wanted to sound like..

thats really great.. i wish it would be so easy for me..i allways run against the limits of the program.. maybe the reason its so easy for me to find bugs...
anway.. i ve to admit that many limits of the past are gone by now.. its defently developing..
thats out of question

3phase wrote:no no..just about sequencers work and how improvisation with sequencers works..especially under the unideal stage situation...

even i think you are talking a whole lot of shite in this thread, i have to agree here with you, i don't know i feel that ableton does not work closely enough with 'normal' artists who are not super big names and can't often choose ideal conditions together, i mean loads of things you mention to them, you feel they simply don't listen/ignore, well they have to pay the price for that behaviour, maschine is about to become a real thread, it's there own fault. they could have listened to average users more.

they need to move.

and make a clear decision, DAW or Live application in the future... seeing maschine now, i think i need to change my mind and say they should now go all the way DAW to make it into the bigger studios (which i was always against!) but they missed the 'Live' train big time.

or they surprise within the next 3-6 month... who knows? but any later...

my2cents

3phase wrote:thats not the point.. there was an evolution in live sequencing.. and ignoring that just means to repeat mistakes of the past and reinvent good stuff decades later.. we still have only linar sequencing in live.. the 80´s sequencing style was interacting .. nonelinear ..conditional sequencing.. ..in ways with smaler memorys more complex than one can do with live.. ok..with mfl that has changed.. but since this will reach the user it will be 4 decades after the invention of this type of sequencing

please elaborate..
I'm interested to hear why Live isn't a non-linear sequencer..

davepermen wrote:but one trick is, too, to move away from legacy. it's one point that you seem to have problems with, being very much focused in the past.

past? i have the sequencer museum next to me and still take things like SQ10 , pro one, 303 808 with me on stage and can compare 1:1 how they behave against a APC40 Live combo...

ther are certain things in the design of the old machines that just work.. and thats probably not by accident..
of cause that cant be translated 1:1 and of cause ableton life, fruity loop or reason are close to that..but ther are important parts missing..

the first time i tried reason.. i treid to wire it the way i would do with real hardware to perform the standard sequencing tricks...

impossible.. you can do everything.just the few little standard tricks... it was obvious that the creators of the program knew the original machines..but not the tricks involved using them..
Same applies to natives machine.. nice done.but some essentials missing ..so i ambetter of with a real drummachine...
sometimes its funny that developers ignore tradition totaly... that is not how instrument designworks.. instruments are beeings and development is some kind of evolution.. it shouldnt be like it is now wher one generation has no arms and the next one no legs instead.. its rather frankensteinerei than evolution

too bad

ok ..what i call standard tricks just gets rediscovered by the new pro electronic producer guys that switched all to analog modular systems.. so perhaps reason will learn that one day aswell and i might use it..

3phase wrote: past? i have the sequencer museum next to me and still take things like SQ10 , pro one, 303 808 with me on stage and can compare 1:1 how they behave against a APC40 Live combo...

ther are certain things in the design of the old machines that just work.. and thats probably not by accident..
of cause that cant be translated 1:1 and of cause ableton life, fruity loop or reason are close to that..but ther are important parts missing..

the first time i tried reason.. i treid to wire it the way i would do with real hardware to perform the standard sequencing tricks...

impossible.. you can do everything.just the few little standard tricks... it was obvious that the creators of the program knew the original machines..but not the tricks involved using them..
Same applies to natives machine.. nice done.but some essentials missing ..so i ambetter of with a real drummachine...
sometimes its funny that developers ignore tradition totaly... that is not how instrument designworks.. instruments are beeings and development is some kind of evolution.. it shouldnt be like it is now wher one generation has no arms and the next one no legs instead.. its rather frankensteinerei than evolution

too bad

ok ..what i call standard tricks just gets rediscovered by the new pro electronic producer guys that switched all to analog modular systems.. so perhaps reason will learn that one day aswell and i might use it..

as i thought. you don't get my point. i don't say the old stuff doesn't work anymore. but it still is old stuff. and if i create, right now, a new product. why should i create the same old crap? it's allready existing. why not something new?

and yes, all that new stuff will be in big parts a copy of old stuff, redone in a new way, with new ideas etc.

just like music. you can't just create 100% innovative music that sounds like nothing that existed yet. you always built onto existing stuff you know, and create something still fresh and new.

legacy is a big issue, and for most people, even understanding how it is one, is the biggest part of it.

davepermen wrote:as i thought. you don't get my point. i don't say the old stuff doesn't work anymore. but it still is old stuff. and if i create, right now, a new product. why should i create the same old crap? it's allready existing. why not something new?

totally agreed, as long as the new thing is really better and not just there for the sake of doing something new... then i rather go back, important is what works better... why reinventing the wheel, when it rolls perfectly fine...

just saying about your statement / opinion, i don't think ableton has not brought something new and really better... but they got now somehow stuck,
i think.

well, in my opinion it's the fact that they tried to serve the studio/production crowd as much as the player crowd.

that went somehow wrong. i said that already a very long time ago...

SubFunk wrote:

davepermen wrote:as i thought. you don't get my point. i don't say the old stuff doesn't work anymore. but it still is old stuff. and if i create, right now, a new product. why should i create the same old crap? it's allready existing. why not something new?

totally agreed, as long as the new thing is really better and not just there for the sake of doing something new... then i rather go back, important is what works better... why reinventing the wheel, when it rolls perfectly fine...

just saying about your statement / opinion, i don't think ableton has not brought something new and really better... but they got now somehow stuck,
i think.

well, in my opinion it's the fact that they tried to serve the studio/production crowd as much as the player crowd.

that went somehow wrong. i said that already a very long time ago...

I think they mainly went to arrogant because of the success and startet to many big things at once.. like share and mfl ..

instead focussing on a handfull of key features that would please the studio crowd and of cause the stage crowd..

I think its unavoidable to dance on booth weddings.. but sometimes unshiny structural features do a much better job there than the shady promiss of unlimited possebilitys.. in realty the possebilitys are very limited.. no mfl will change that.. the limit is time.. therfore sometimes easy to use machines with a limited feature set become in practical applikation truly unlimited.. the legendary wasp syntheziser from electronic dream plant is a good example for that. or the good ol 303..


also a good example where generation of copy cats just hold on missing the main features..because they guys never dared to write a 303 on stage.. who hasnt done that just dont knows the machine.. and its advantages..because its absolutly impossible to perform this stunt with any of the clones.. (ok..its rather difficult with the real one aswell..but possible !!!)
so the old limited primitive sequencer is in practical stage application less limited than the super duper emulation..

is that really progress?

3phase wrote: but sometimes unshiny structural features do a much better job there than the shady promiss of unlimited possebilitys..

totally, it is way more important. fancy features are from rather small use, solid structures and ease / workability gets you much further.

especially if we talk about a stage tool.

SubFunk wrote:

3phase wrote: but sometimes unshiny structural features do a much better job there than the shady promiss of unlimited possebilitys..

totally, it is way more important. fancy features are from rather small use, solid structures and ease / workability gets you much further.

especially if we talk about a stage tool.

but they dont sell as good in the advertising.. rather the opposite.. if you advertise age old sequencer standards as new features people might get rather amused... maybe that the reason they wait so long to touch this..
They wait up to the point the old generation has died out..than they can sell the old standards as new features without looking funny..

SubFunk wrote:but they got now somehow stuck..

facts or it didn't happen..

you two berlinettes are constantly claiming Live went all wrong and such but do you realize Live' core is exactly the same as at the time you hoppped on and thought Live was absolutely fabulous?

No, it cannot serve us all at the same time equally but imho saying Live got stuck or went all wrong actually means you got stuck yourself..
Not saying there isn't much to achieve for Ableton but they're not claiming to be the app you guys want it to be..
You pretty much know Live' limitations, MFL provides you the option to overcome a lot of them, the rest will follow in time..

Poster wrote:

3phase wrote:thats not the point.. there was an evolution in live sequencing.. and ignoring that just means to repeat mistakes of the past and reinvent good stuff decades later.. we still have only linar sequencing in live.. the 80´s sequencing style was interacting .. nonelinear ..conditional sequencing.. ..in ways with smaler memorys more complex than one can do with live.. ok..with mfl that has changed.. but since this will reach the user it will be 4 decades after the invention of this type of sequencing

please elaborate..
I'm interested to hear why Live isn't a non-linear sequencer..

in case you conveniently chose to ignore this..

better make it good..
with personal projections of where and when Ableton took a wrong turn and what you think the ultimate non-linear software sequencer that can serve 1000's of different users at the same time should look like..

Poster wrote:

SubFunk wrote:but they got now somehow stuck..

facts or it didn't happen..

you two berlinettes are constantly claiming Live went all wrong and such but do you realize Live' core is exactly the same as at the time you hoppped on and thought Live was absolutely fabulous?

No, it cannot serve us all at the same time equally but imho saying Live got stuck or went all wrong actually means you got stuck yourself..
Not saying there isn't much to achieve for Ableton but they're not claiming to be the app you guys want it to be..
You pretty much know Live' limitations, MFL provides you the option to overcome a lot of them, the rest will follow in time..

wrong wrong wrong
1)
sure it can.. a good instrument might have a learning curve but it serves generations to come...and only physics itself can strike the limits...
2)
they are allways claiming that they are exactly the app us guys want..and actually they are not too far from that..up to live 3 it looked really good..but after that its quite a struggle.....sometimes it seems that they are a littel stupid..other times they appear as marketing sharks.. its rather likely that they are marketing sharks.. limit the product to enlarge the life span.. slower development but long term sales.. only the L8 debacle screwed that plan...

3)
true..mfl seems to be the answer to many problems..but not to the structural ones.. besides..the learning curve of max measures in month and the time to do a patch in days.. i rather would prefer the program itself to develop in the wright driection instead allowing the user to develop it themself..

thats a mistake logic has done in the mid 90´s by intruducing keycommands for everything without developing an own standard.. resulting in a situation a few years later wher you wasnt able to operate another studio without your setup disk ..

i am not sure if that is ideal for a life tool..and for a daw ? its actually a third level. no live tool ..no daw.. a modular developing enviroment.. not uninteresting at all.. but this has opened a third frontier..

so instead dancing on 2 weddings..they are dancing on 3 now... actually that makes it a bit symphatetic to me.. maybe i should get mfl

Poster wrote:

Poster wrote:

3phase wrote:thats not the point.. there was an evolution in live sequencing.. and ignoring that just means to repeat mistakes of the past and reinvent good stuff decades later.. we still have only linar sequencing in live.. the 80´s sequencing style was interacting .. nonelinear ..conditional sequencing.. ..in ways with smaler memorys more complex than one can do with live.. ok..with mfl that has changed.. but since this will reach the user it will be 4 decades after the invention of this type of sequencing

please elaborate..
I'm interested to hear why Live isn't a non-linear sequencer..

in case you conveniently chose to ignore this..

better make it good..
with personal projections of where and when Ableton took a wrong turn and what you think the ultimate non-linear software sequencer that can serve 1000's of different users at the same time should look like..

this i tell the people that take part in my sequencer lecture... i think 500 euro per person is ok for this type of industrial lectures..or?