LIVE 9 : PDC IMPROVED OR NOT ?

[sdfak1234]

Seriously, the people who are fighting for this (who I'm completely behind) would do well to think about their choice of words.

Even if it's not what you mean, as soon as you start saying things like "unprofessional", it comes across as implying that people who don't have issues with it are also unprofessional.

Then then thread turns into a big messy pile of shit.

I'm sorry andydes but surely it's not our problem that some people are insecure about their professionalism. When I talk about Live the program, I am talking about the program, I'm getting sick and tired of people getting emotionally involved in words which have nothing to do with them, these people have trouble looking at things objectively and I'm trying my best to explain things as I see them, I hope people understand what I'm trying to say, but it not my responsibility to protect their emotions or to stop them from misunderstanding things... this is a tough problem, it may help people when they read these messages to remember people saying 'unprofessional' or whatever, these same people are using Live as well, so their words apply to them also... this is so rudimentary and obvious to me, people need to consider the position of the writer, not just themselves.

I don't see how people get offended here, this should be all directed at Ableton, not other users, people are not defending Ableton here, they are defending themselves, their own workflow and their own position, and that's not objective, it's not scientific and it's not helpful.

[OzWozEre]

Ok I can fix this then, it's simple:

LIVE ISN"T A REAL DAW!

There, fixed.

Live is a DAW like Reason is a DAW, it kinda is, but not really.

Sure Live can kinda act as your studio's audio workstation, but it really likes to make music in its box, you know, like how Tom Cosm does it -- operator this, operator that, eq8 this eq8 that ...

So its time to end the charade and to stop calling all the other DAWs "traditional" (which is an insult in and of itself), and start calling Live what it is really is... an-instrumenty-kinda-dawy-thingy.

[sdfak1234]

Alright cheif, and i stand by that, if you think it's a fundamental flaw, that's your opinion. It has never affected one of my live performances, and has been a minor annoyance in production a very small handfull of times over the past few years. hardly seems fundamental to me. please, by all means ableton, fix this shit. but if you really can't use the software the way it is i weep for you.


.lm.

Well I can see you not the type of person whose position can be changed, so I won't waste my time.... but I just want to drop this definition of fundamental, because your writing is almost irritating the way you don't understand what is fundamental and what isn't... enuf.

fun·da·men·tal

adjective
1.
serving as, or being an essential part of, a foundation or basis; basic; underlying: fundamental principles; the fundamental structure.
2.
of, pertaining to, or affecting the foundation or basis: a fundamental revision.
3.
being an original or primary source: a fundamental idea.

[sdfak1234]

Ok I can fix this then, it's simple:

LIVE ISN"T A REAL DAW!

There, fixed.

Live is a DAW like Reason is a DAW, it kinda is, but not really.

Sure Live can kinda act as your studio's audio workstation, but it really likes to make music in its box, you know, like how Tom Cosm does it -- operator this, operator that, eq8 this eq8 that ...

So its time to end the charade and to stop calling all the other DAWs "traditional" (which is an insult in and of itself), and start calling Live what it is really is... an-instrumenty-kinda-dawy-thingy.

Wow, you fixed it. We're done. It's over. ???? not at all obviously.... I'm sorry this is another weird argument outside the spirit of the discussion.... we know what Live is now, we're clearly talking about what we want it to be. am I going crazy here???? this seems so obvious to me.. We're trying to influence the direction of the software, now, what I have a hard time with, and what I continually get annoyed about in these threads is the fact that this is an obvious improvement, there are NO downsides that we know of other than development cost/time.. and it would benefit us all greatly... so why is anyone arguing against this upgrade?? it's soooo weird, it must be this fanboy infatuation turned egoism/insecurity that musicians always have. It's like we're doubting their belief system or something, and they have to defend it because what did they believe in all their lives?

Yeah the only downside I can see to this upgrade is that would prove a bunch of people wrong and prove that their workflow was actually being corrupted all along, and they didn't notice it. I'm objective to know that's what happened to me.

[leisuremuffin]

exactly, its supposed to be a sequencing instrument.

i use it to perform live and mostly improvised music and there just isn't anything else out there that will do that for me. and the PDC issue does not affect me AT ALL in that setting. explain to me how PDC is a fundamental problem for me.


And yes, I'm really sorry, but when i read shit about "pros" it just rubs me the wrong way.

sdfak1234, it's nice you think you are the paragon of objectivity but i just don't see it. you seem to be pretty emotionally involved yourself.

.lm.

[andydes]

I don't see how people get offended here, this should be all directed at Ableton, not other users, people are not defending Ableton here, they are defending themselves, their own workflow and their own position, and that's not objective, it's not scientific and it's not helpful.

Well, also true. But it's predictable behaviour at this point. If you're happy with the way these threads go, then carry on.

I'm out. Play nice, kids.

[sdfak1234]

exactly, its supposed to be a sequencing instrument.

i use it to perform live and mostly improvised music and there just isn't anything else out there that will do that for me. and the PDC issue does not affect me AT ALL in that setting. explain to me how PDC is a fundamental problem for me.


And yes, I'm really sorry, but when i read shit about "pros" it just rubs me the wrong way.

sdfak1234, it's nice you think you are the paragon of objectivity but i just don't see it. you seem to be pretty emotionally involved yourself.

.lm.

You're moving the goalposts. Yeah, if all you did was perform live and improvise music then in that setting it doesn't bother me... can I just remind you what you wrote and what I responded to:

pro's were making hits before pdc.
pro's were making hits before plug ins.
pro's were making hits before digital audio.

now that kinda implies studio work doesn't it?? this is a knockout argument. IMO.

BTW, I'm not claiming to be a paragon of objectivity, I believe I stated early in this thread that I'm deeply emotionally involved in it, and that's what I have been aggressive here, but I see as almost a responsibility to make sure this topic goes in one direction, because I don't see it as a 2 sided debate.. and I want the fix.. it's basically people that want the feature/fix, and for some reason, some other people doubting it, arguing against it, it makes no sense...all I'm doing is trying to be objective, and I'm a damn sight more objective than most. IMO.

[leisuremuffin]

nowhere have i argued against PDC being fixed (please, fucking fix it), i have been arguing about the ridiculous language and trumped up over importance that some are giving this topic.

pro's were making hits before pdc.
pro's were making hits before plug ins.
pro's were making hits before digital audio.

now that kinda implies studio work doesn't it?? this is a knockout argument. IMO.

BTW, I'm not claiming to be a paragon of objectivity, I believe I stated early in this thread that I'm deeply emotionally involved in it, and that's what I have been aggressive here, but I see as almost a responsibility to make sure this topic goes in one direction, because I don't see it as a 2 sided debate.. and I want the fix.. it's basically people that want the feature/fix, and for some reason, some other people doubting it, arguing against it, it makes no sense...all I'm doing is trying to be objective, and I'm a damn sight more objective than most. IMO.

the item you quoted was directed at a post, that you didn't make, that included language that i found to be fucking stupid. it has nothing to do with my argument that PDC isn't a fundamental flaw FOR WHAT I DO WITH THE PROGRAM.



.lm.

[sdfak1234]

the item you quoted was directed at a post, that you didn't make, that included language that i found to be fucking stupid. it has nothing to do with my argument that PDC isn't a fundamental flaw FOR WHAT I DO WITH THE PROGRAM.
.lm.

OK, I think we've reached agreement... you're correct in that context it's fine, it's just a matter of fact that a lot of people have begun to use Live in a studio setting and this one feature would solve a fundamental problem for them...

Going back to the original post, there is this idea floating around about a producer and live mode, but it's almost a Chinese whisper at this point, an idea that's morphed into a different idea that was no longer relevant in the first place, but I just want to make it clear again, that we have absolutely no evidence that performing delay compensation on automation will affect live use in any way.... we have literally no reasons (that we know of) not to want this feature... maybe this idea of an imaginary trade-off has gone viral, but there is no basis to it.

[sdfak1234]

the item you quoted was directed at a post, that you didn't make, that included language that i found to be fucking stupid. it has nothing to do with my argument that PDC isn't a fundamental flaw FOR WHAT I DO WITH THE PROGRAM.



.lm.

Oh shit, I forgot about something.... actually the PDC problem is fundamental for you, if you're planning to use Live9's session automation during live work... yeah, it's kinda big deal.

[merges]

Holy emotional involvement. Yikes.

So, if you're doing digital painting with Photoshop—using brushes for painterly effect—then you might not care if a pixel is off here or there. And you might make beautiful paintings. Excellent!

If you're doing fine pixel-level work with Photoshop—using pencils at a 1px width to detailed mosaic-like effect—you do care if a pixel is off here or there. And your beautiful mosaic work might be ruined.

Just because you don't want accurate and precise automation timing in your work, whoever you are, doesn't mean that others shouldn't. Your music might be different than those of us who care about this. People make different music; making music *the way you do* is not a workaround.

[sdfak1234]

People make different music; making music *the way you do* is not a workaround.

good point, nice turn of phrase too.

[sdfak1234]

Well, also true. But it's predictable behaviour at this point. If you're happy with the way these threads go, then carry on.

I don't like the way they go, but I've got some spare time and I feel I've made a little bit of impact, but yeah, frustrating as hell though. I'd be fascinated by it if I wasn't so annoyed by the problem itself. There is some genuine musical debate in here, I mean I've pondered the question of what is music fundamentally? what is Ableton Live fundamentally? what is a project fundamentally? and thinking about these questions have lead me the conclusions I've shared on this thread.

[sdfak1234]

So, if you're doing digital painting with Photoshop—using brushes for painterly effect—then you might not care if a pixel is off here or there. And you might make beautiful paintings. Excellent!

If you're doing fine pixel-level work with Photoshop—using pencils at a 1px width to detailed mosaic-like effect—you do care if a pixel is off here or there. And your beautiful mosaic work might be ruined.

Sorry I have to remark to this because it irks me a little bit - just want to make a small point. I get the point you make about the painter not caring about a pixel or there.. BUT that's not to say he shouldn't care, I mean, they could be ignorant to the consequences, they may one day go on to make other projects, they may want to recall their old work, they may even change their attitude (I may actually fall into that camp) and suddenly realize I didn't like how the machine changed my work even slightly and now it no longer feels valid, because it wasn't exactly what I wrote... now some may see this as insignificant, but I really feel on a very deep level, it really is, it's not pure expression as an artist, it's my opinion but it's also logical.

[leisuremuffin]

the item you quoted was directed at a post, that you didn't make, that included language that i found to be fucking stupid. it has nothing to do with my argument that PDC isn't a fundamental flaw FOR WHAT I DO WITH THE PROGRAM.



.lm.

Oh shit, I forgot about something.... actually the PDC problem is fundamental for you, if you're planning to use Live9's session automation during live work... yeah, it's kinda big deal.

since we don't know how session view automation and PDC are going to work in live 9 i'd say that's not really something we can talk about now.

and i don't even know if i'll update to 9 yet. 8 works perfectly fine for me. i probably will just because i have upgraded every time since v2 but this time i might be too broke from buying eurocrack modules.


I actually do use live in the studio, too, but i've been aware of these issues and print to audio when i need to get around it.

like i said, i want the shit to be fixed too, but it is not a deal breaker for me and what i do. And while i appreciate the enthusiasm for getting it fixed that you have, i still cannot read, "derp, the pros can't use this to make the hits" without wanting to slap a bitch. (which, by the way, you didn't even write.)


.lm.