Why are Live users music mostly a bit weird??

nickw · Post by **nickw** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 9:57 am

I use live because it lends itself to what it is called - Live work.

It may not be the application that works best for you to put the final finishing touches to a song once the basic shape is in place - that is a decision that you have to make. Use it for things that you find useful, use something else where that is more appropriate. Live doesn't necessarily need to be developed down those lines. There are plenty of applications that are already aimed at doing this.

I find Live refreshing because it enables you to create things in a different way and this can often produce things that you wouldn't have thought of, or bothered to develop in other software as you may not have heard it or it would have been to labour intensive to persue it.

Live gives me is ways of working that doesn't exist in many sequencers. I use it for that. The main one for me is the ability to trigger individual sounds from keyboard shortcuts and or midi with a wealth of options as to how they will behave once they are triggered.

Cheers

Nick w

Mbazzy · Post by **Mbazzy** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 10:48 am

Live is 'just a tool'- albeit a very good one ... and it's not the tool that will hand you those elusive 10% ... that has to come from between your ears ... with whatever suits you best... beit a sixstring, a couple of accoustic rocks, Atari Cubase, ...

Live indeed is a 'mere'loopplayer .... but it only spits out what you feed it ... and I'm 100% sure many/most of us are not the sample cd buying type of people but mix our own íngredients'.

For some experimentalists the genre is an excuse for 'no talent' others it's all well thought out, which makes a big difference to me ...

I had a classical education, can read all solfege keys on the different lines , learned the scales etc ... played a classical instrument etc .... nevertheless I make no straightforward verse verse chorus thingies .... guess I'm an experimentalist, but I stand 100% behind what I make.

I have someone in my family who can't read a note, but can play almost anything two-handed he hears only once on the piano, with no pianotraining or musiceducation whatever .....

... or just look at many/most of the jazzgreats ....

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Sat Dec 27, 2003 3:09 pm

qchapter wrote: Live, like all other instruments, is just a creative tool. What is created with it is strictly, unarguably in the hands of the creative mind sitting behind the CRT/TFT. You don't hear guitarists whining that their Les Paul is lacking some unexplainable 10% that's keeping them from stardom.

You do actually, but then guitarists are twats like that... I should know, I am one

I'd post a reply to the 'be more accesible!'-geezer, but I ain't gonna bother, as it's really bloody stupid - cos A) can I please just make the music I want? and B) How accesible do I need to be to find those elusive 10 per cent that are IMHO down to mixing and mastering, not songwriting - like Radiohead? Like Nirvana? Like Busted or Good Charlotte?

:rolleyes:

-Paws

Benshik · Post by **Benshik** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:14 pm

Guest,
You feel it's Live - the tool - making you less creative? Maybe you are right. You should carefully pick the right tools to come to the results you are looking for and therefore forget about this software.
Yes!!! THE GEAR YOU USE HAS AN IMPACT ON HOW YOUR MUSIC WILL SOUND LIKE.
No!!! This is not ONLY a question of who is behind the instrument.
The lenses you choose for photography, the brushes you use for painting, all these “technical” decisions are important, because THEY ARE ALREADY PART OF THE CREATIVE PROCESS!!!
I am not an experimentalist, I don’t make strictly loop based music, but recently I bought Live (waiting impatiently for my box to get to Moscow

) because I just fell in love with that software and I hope it will help me execute my ideas better. This is not only a tool I bought, this is a creative decision I made, like a film director picking the DOP he thinks will fit his needs best.

Ben

Sarge · Post by **Sarge** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:39 pm

Live is like a piece of plasticine to play with. Very creative tool

Makes a really good guitar effects chain as well.

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:51 pm

Hey Sarge, welcome!

The Master (sarcasm!) · Post by **The Master (sarcasm!)** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 7:45 pm

dpel wrote:i'm curious to know,
if you really beleived what you were saying...
why would you log in as Guest?
step up to the plate and identify thyself!
those are some bold generalizations you're making.

in all honesty, i feel you're close minded ( dare i say narrow minded?)
i use use live to fully realize my musical endevours and get complete satisfaction from it.
i've abandoned MIDI, don't miss it. live gives me more, because i can see what it offers and beyond. maybe , for the time being, you can't see those things.
one of the ways i make a living is by writting music for t.v. commercials.
and if you're familiar with that world you can't limit yourself
to one genre. you have to be prolific. you have to write a funk
cue when the picture asks for it. you have to write rock when the picture asks for it, electronica, jazz etc etc. you get my point
i use live exclusively for this.
"that missing 10 %" you've discovered might equate to a slight case of narrow mindedness. (for now) until maybe one day you'll have the opportunity to expose yourself to a more vast sampling of live compositions. (not just DJ, techno, whateverica etc etc.)

hey man, you asked for it.
regards,
dpel

Ok the difference between you and me is that Im a songwriter and your a jingle writer. While you dabble in some rock, electronica, funk, or whatever else your next radio add needs you are excel at none of them. If you could you wouldnt be doing what you do now (I guarantee it). But I suppose in your case earning a living through music and by whatever means is obviously very important to you. And I dont blame you btw. I would rather do that than dig up roads.

I used to write Jingles a long time ago and compared to what I do now (Creatively speaking) well..there is nothing to compare at all. They are worlds apart.

I have a certain style and dare I say it, Im quite good at it. I can also dabble in other styles and can produce some pretty authentic results. I will even spend time experimenting with really weird stuff. But I know what im good at and I know my limitations.

So did I mean what I said

100%

Yes

Am I narrow minded. Well, your entitled to your opinion which is undoubtedly narrow minded but most of all cynical at missing the creative boat!. Thats why you do jingles.....hey its cool. I gave it up because it turned me in to a sad, lonely and bitter man. My future just seemed to be a never ending stream of elevator music and a lot of which was used on MTV, Audio Cars, Blade, Oh and a few other things. But I still gacve up what many would call a pretty good life. Lets face it, I wasnt writing elevator music, but to my sould it was. erm, Im thinking you havent had great success in teh ad/soundtrack world yet?

[/quote]i use use live to fully realize my musical endevours and get complete satisfaction from it.

Eh? I dont think you have understood either my post or the original posters at all. I dont use any software or to realize my musical endeavors. That comes from deep within, and I suspect somwhere that doesnt exist within you. . Until you understand the original post Im afraid you will be stuck in Limboland for all eternity.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:51 am

this is getting rediculous, first of all, you cant blame software for not being able to finish your song, thats just your own lack of inspiration. second, you have to have the right tools for the job. live is not logic or vise versa, just like a synth is not a guitar. you have to know the strengths and weaknesses of all of your gear, and it helps to know your gear inside out(i have always been annoyed by people that have a million pieces of gear but they barely know any of it) lastly, why the fuck are you coming in here disrespecting the other users? everyone here has their own musical vision and ideas, experimental or not. if one can finish a track completley in live then great, i personally need to use live in conjuction with logic along with some analog gear because thats how i get the sound im looking for, there is no right or wrong way. if its experimental thats great to, salvador dali didnt sit around with people telling him what to paint because his work was too surreal. so dont do that with the other users in here. there has always been experimental music and its something that music needs to progress and evolve. in fact most music is experimental unless you are painting by numbers. whether its the beatles, pink floyd, led zeplin, jimi, the cure, depeche mode, chem bros, underworld or nin, its all experimental to a very large degree. i really think you should do one of two things, either take your head out of your bloody arse(ass) or see if you can go write some music for the next beyonce album and leave the people that are trying to pioneer the sounds that poseurs like you will be plagerizing tomorrow be. i dont mean to sound rude but you come in hear with this insulting atitude towards everyone and trying to be the critic and you dont even know what your software is for. is that missing 10 % actually actually you lacking 10 % of your braincells? im just curious

smutek · Post by **smutek** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:32 pm

I have always been fascinated with sound, ever since I was a child. The music I appreciate tends to lean more towards "experimental" and I have always sought out music outside the mainstream. To be absolutely honest I had absolutely no idea what the hell Ableton was and bought it mainly because it was endorsed by richie hawtin. (thanks btw)

I seriously doubt I will ever release a record and my music is not very good in comparison to my influences. I find myself sometimes sitting for hours getting completely lost in Ableton - with one loop, adding and tweeking effects, layering, whatever. I'll sit for hours building a layered synth line in reason, pouring on effects, tweeking delays, etc. etc. then kick it into Ableton and do more of the same, just experimenting with the sounds and having fun. I have a lot of stuff to learn, and that is one of the things that makes me so happy.

I'm a relatively poor dude and am grateful to have the minimal studio setup that I have. Were it not for technology like Ableton none of this would be possible for me. With Ableton and reason, and a couple of controllers I feel I have more then I need at this point. I sometmes consider getting Reaktor, but only so I can make more ugly noises!

Anyway, my point is this, I don't know where my "music" will end up taking me, and I don't really care. What I do know is I will be doing this till the day I die, and when I sit down and boot up Ableton I am trully happy. Thankyou.

Verne Andru · Post by **Verne Andru** » Fri Jan 02, 2004 11:08 pm

It seems participating in this thread is a sure-way to get flamed, but it’s a holiday week – so what the hey.

I see valid points on both sides. The original post suggested:

A] Most of the stuff he’s hearing coming out of Live is a bit “weird”
B] Live lack’s the utility to go the last 10%

Others have suggested that their Live work should:

A] Be considered “experimental” and not “weird” and
B] The extra 10% should come from the artist, not the tools

First things first. What is considered “normal” to the “Western/European” ear is credited as being derived from Gregorian chant and [generally speaking] is a combination of a set of voices playing reasonably simple melodic lines. The “complexity” tends to come from the harmony and counter-point used to set the various voices off from one another. Conversely, what’s considered “Eastern” music generally puts the complexity in a few melodic voices. Western music uses a 12-interval scale, while many from the eastern school use 13 or more [or less]. Needless to say, what one considers “normal” depends a lot on what they are accustomed to.

Generally speaking [again] the various “modes” of the 12-interval scale rely on playing the same notes – you’re just starting at a different point along the progression. What gives the different modes their “distinct” sounds – considering they rely on the same notes in the same progressions – has more to do with the mechanics of how they are played. As well, the instrument used has a huge bearing on how a scale will sound since the playing dynamics are completely different between a piano and a guitar and a trumpet, etc. And lets not forget that Live is called a “sequencing instrument” – so it should be considered in the same context as the others, to be fair, and it does bring a unique set of dynamics to the table.

One of the “liberating” features I find using Live, is that it lets me break out of the standard mold of playing by allowing me to, say, record a progression in a major scale but then choose to select sections of that progression that I wouldn’t naturally on the original instrument. It’s not that it couldn’t have been originally played that way, just that playing a chord progression on a guitar lends itself to being played in certain ways because of the dynamics of the instrument – the man-machine interface if you will. Could they be considered “experimental”? Absolutely! Could some of these progressions be considered “weird”? You bet! But not because they are wrong musically, but because they are being played on a new type of instrument – Live – that brings with it a different dynamic just as can be heard between any of thee other “traditional” instruments.

As far as that last “10%” goes – I suppose one could try and “master” out of Live, but it lacks some of the tools – IMHO – to do justice to the job. Its lack of MIDI sequencing is a big drawback for me and I find it isn’t really designed to do that job. I suppose one may be able to master out of Live, but there are a lot of tools that are designed for that job and do it much better than the current versions of Live. OTOH, Live kicks royal butt when it comes to working out grooves and “idea processing” tunes that PT, Logic or Cubase just can’t touch. The Mona Lisa will come out much differently if the artist uses a box of crayons or a palette of oils. The talent behind the tools is the same – but the strengths and weaknesses of the tools will tend to produce quite different results.

You can arm your flame-throwers now….

Cheers – Verne
www.VerneAndru.com

cathochic · Post by **cathochic** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 3:40 am

Music is never moved foreward without someone being experimental.

The Beatles were considered "experimental" when they came out with Sgt. Pepper. And they did it on 4-track. No Logic or Cubase to bail their arses out.

Nuff said.

Peace.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:07 am

On the other hand a George Martin plugin for inspiration must have been quite useful.

claudek · Post by **claudek** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 10:06 am

May I ask what is normal means?..Normal is weird to me..
Weird are the elite, advanced, open minded, creative and intelligent..Normal=boring usually..Open your mind..Live is just that
software for weirdos..

original thread starter · Post by **original thread starter** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:25 pm

Oooh. i didnt realise the thread had grown. I have been away for a few weeks.

I have read all the posts with great interest and I think many have got the wrong idea of what i was trying to say.

I dont expect software to write my song for me as many have suggested. I was trying to say that when I finish or nearly finsih a track, this is the time I find I cant get what Im looking for from live. I think its got a lot to do with there being no midi for my virual synths.

As I said the great thing about Live is that I can get ideas very quickly. But the bad thing is I have a folder with tons of unfinished ideas. I suppose that is a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it. For me its a bad thing to have all those unfinished songs. it sort of bothers me and I always mean to finsih them but never get around to it.

My topic title is not the best choicce of words either and people seem to be focussed on the word weird to much. All I meant was that of all the music I have heard Live users doing I havent found anything that compares with the pro artists I like. Thats not me being fussy or akward its just an honest observation. I want to hear a chemical brothers or a fatboy slim style track done completely within Live that could be released as a record. Im not really in to ritchie hawtin. Is that a crime or something?. yeh maybe im not weird and not looking to push the boundaries of music. i simply want to write (and I do) music that I like. I can play guitar and keyboards quite well so it makes sense for me to play lines myself and then loop them. But the reality is that when I need to findish a track I swicth to another daw. I would like nothing more than to be able to do it all in Live.

I still sort of stand by what I think. Live users music is mostly very left of centre and theres nothing wrong with that. If Live does encourage experimental then fine, but Im no idiot and from the posts I can see that some people sort of knew what I was trying to say.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Sun Jan 04, 2004 12:34 pm

claudek wrote: Weird are the elite.

Theres a 50.000 pound prize every year in London given to a new up and coming artist!!

A few years ago an unknown artists exhibit was a normal double bed made to look like it had just been slept in (meaning the covers were drawn back)

The artist one the prize of 50,000

Art???

another one was a binliner split open with rubbish hanging out. he also won 50,000

These guys couldnt paint a picture if their life depended on it.

No one is going to tell me a bin liner full of rubbish is ART

And neither is anyone going to tell me that 95% of the so called experimental stuff going around is ART.

Im simply not that stupid

Then again theres always someone who will buy it in the name of cool

Why are Live users music mostly a bit weird??

Re: !!!