why "Live" isn't that good for live performance, I

[drb]

Since Live can't load more than one song at a time we must load all our songs into one set.

okay.

In the real world it's impractical to load all our songs up, since we use different VSTs and effects and track layouts in each one, as we change ways we wish to work over the years. I'm 100% sure the track layouts system you choose now, will change over the years.

So as a solution we end up mixing stems of audio, or just a two track version of the song, and playing that live. Not the same is it?
In the end, not nearly as much ability to change the music as if we could load the original "source code" of our songs, and not these crippled mixdown or stem versions.

This is fine if you use prewritten snippets of audio, but to create full tracks of release quality music, and then try to play these files in a set is not very practical. (very simple music is an exception)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could load a song, exactly as we wrote it, VSTs effects, everything, then load a second one and have it in the background waiting to be played?

Just like loading up two documents in Word. Different fonts, no big deal. Switch to next song when ready..

Can you share one audio and MIDI interface between two separate copies of Live running on the same machine? Not really.

Of course, the simple solution is two complete versions of Live loaded and running in sync. You need two laptops, and two audio interfaces, and tow MIDI interfaces and a giant mixer. Not really that practical.

If anyone has a better way to work, I'd love to hear it.

[j2j]

Well, you know.......


You kinda have to work with the limits of the technology available to you now. Anyways, Daft Punk, was doing live shows with cubase 2.0, like... Back in the day....


I want to learn max, but not because I think live isn't good enough... just cause, well, its getting at the time for me, and I feel almost ready for max...

Try that www.cycling74.com

cheers

[drb]

Well, you know.......

You kinda have to work with the limits of the technology available to you now. Anyways, Daft Punk, was doing live shows with cubase 2.0, like... Back in the day....

Yes, but back then loading a new sequence was simple because files were tiny. You could load a new MIDI based song in 1 second. Try loading an Ableton file onstage. 15 seconds is an eternity.

That's why we need the ability to preload a second file in the background.
Ideally I'd like to preload a whole set, and switch between "active" pages.
Inactive pages would not use any CPU..

I'm saying that while Live is very cool, it's still *very* limited in the most basic functions you need to put together a large set to play a "live" show.

[hacktheplanet]

Is this a joke thread? Live is great for live performance! I couldn't fathom using anything else.

Most of us Live users have figured out how to incorporate more than one song into a single set. It just takes some planning and creativity.

[Angstrom]

pfffffft.
I used all early versions of Steinberg in a stage situation, from using pro 16 to using those versions of Cubase which were before CubaseVST

I can tell you that it felt like a hundred years to load any song. Never, ever one second. Of course the data was small, somewhere around 90k per song usually, but it loaded it off a floppy and s.l.o.w.l.y.

Every gig was like having heart attacks waiting for the atari to finish the load-up of the next song.
not fun.

[beats me]

+1 for background set loading, but it seems most of the people on here are too busy distracting the Abes by demanding more DAW oriented features than performance. I personally think if this was a feature of Live 8 it would be a huge selling and upgrading point.

[Tarekith]

Shit I remember the days of frantically loading floppies into the S3200xl in between songs, while holding a key on my keyboard no less.

Kids these days...

[Michael Hatsis]

as others have said working within limitations help build technique. Also, with racks and clip envs you can easily and flexibly set up multiple inst and effects layers per set.

Would me great to see tabbed sets though. Would save lots of time when trying to merge songs...

[Baron von Case]

Important question here is, what's better?

[Homebelly]

Would me great to see tabbed sets though.

Ooo!! I like the sound of that.

[kenporter]

Or you could just set "Allow Multiple Instances" in the Live Preferences and open multiple Live instances with different sets loaded and switch between them. I think that's why they offer this preference, no?

Ken

[sparklepuff]

And that preference is located where?

[Johnisfaster]

Or you could just set "Allow Multiple Instances" in the Live Preferences and open multiple Live instances with different sets loaded and switch between them. I think that's why they offer this preference, no?

Ken

there aren't any problems with 2 programs using the same audio/midi drivers at the same time? seems like there would be.

you'd certainly need an up to par computer to pull something like this off smoothly of course. but then you should have an up to par computer if you're planning on making music live

[kenporter]

And that preference is located where?

Under "look and feel" on the PC version. I just noticed that Mac's don't have this preference, but you can copy various Live instances to different folders and start them all as separate programs (real copies, no alias). The only warning you will get on the PC and Mac side is that there is already an open Rewire master, but that's OK, it will still load your plugins...



Ken

[drb]

Will two copies share one MIDI interface?
Will they share one sound card?