Off-topic reply
The only reply I have to all this is “I play the sequencer and record to stereo”. So rather than derail your topic, I made a thread to discuss techniques for playing the sequencer
3 Likes
The reality is that there are no shortcuts. The process of creating art is, fundamentally, a process of work .
2 Likes
So my workflow has a logical order in the way it’s all connected. My Prologue 16 is plugged into a MPC One, and my MPC and SP2400 8 outs are plugged into a Tascam Model 12. The Model 12 is plugged into my MacBook
First I record midi via MPC and add FX to my Prologue if needed. Drums are all on SP2400. The melodic parts are drafted on the MPC, and then noodle recorded onto the SP2400. Typically across a series of 8 or 16 bar takes.
I then sequence most of the track length in the SP2400, utilising it’s song mode by arranging typically about 15 8 bar sequences. Then track out 16 tracks (8 at a time) to Ableton, mixing live with the Model 12. Leaving out some detailed editing for the next stage.
Final part of workflow is to edit the already EQ’d 16 stems in Ableton. As most of the arrangement has been done in the SP2400, all I need Ableton for is to do some more detailed final edits, add some important mixing FX, add some other samples for intro, FX moments, etc.
Final final part is to master the bounced Ableton mixdown. Although sometimes I just add Ozone9 to the master track if I’m being lazy.
2 Likes
When I am ready (and have automated groove box so it is at the “press play” stage) I record a stereo track then each part on its own (or all at once with overbridge).
I like to get up and get coffee etc regularly so it is easy to hit record and walk off, so I’m not really waiting around on it.
At that point I have my main ideas and I can consider different instruments or arrangements that don’t easily fit into the loop structure.
I know I can finish a track on a single electron but I also know I won’t do that.
1 Like
Pretty much. Grooveboxes make the “riff” part of songwriting easy. Fast to record/program, iterate, and jam on. But all of the other bits (what turns the riff into a song) still takes work
1 Like
What do you do about the send FX on the Elektron boxes, when you use Overbridge?
If I am going itb I’ll usually use itb effects. If I need to recreate a single step plocked effect moment I’ll either do that again itb or record the single part in a separate take.
3 Likes
These days I like to render sequenced parts to a phrase sampler (sp404 or OT) and make an arrangement with those committed loops / parts, kind of an intermediate abstraction, destructive workflow.
9 Likes
Exactly my reason for not using a DAW. The effects play a big role of the sound and I’m too lazy to add them in post or sometimes it doesn’t even make sense.
I guess, it depends on how far you take your tracks on the hardware. If you’re doing very rough sketches, importing them into a DAW is very useful. The more you do on your groovebox, the more cumbersome a DAW will become.
2 Likes
Elektron comes closest to an ideal groovebox-to-DAW workflow thanks to Overbridge, but I have two key issues with it.
The first one is that all sends and summed into one stereo channel. If I later decide that I want to bring down an arp a few decibels, I’m left with an unbalanced wet channel. Then I either have to disregard it entirely and recreate it all in the DAW, which is no fun, or accept the imbalance. I try to avoid this by getting close to a final mix before recording via Overbridge, but it’s a bit of a hit and miss process and it’s about as uninspiring as doing the final mixing in the DAW.
The other issue is that Overbridge doesn’t retain the panning information of my tracks. I find this a bit strange since it would be easy to just transfer the panning information and use it to recreate stereo versions of each track on the computer without adding nearly any data over the USB cable.
A fully unified workflow would be great, and this is why I’m very interested in the Push 3. Then it doesn’t matter if the mix isn’t right because all channels, effects and automations will be retained, and mixing can happen both before and after recording the final jam.
3 Likes
I guess it all depends on what your idea of a “song” is.
To me, DAWs are basically virtual recording studios and follow a lot of the same logic as using a studio to record/track/mix and arrange music. I think this lends itself towards traditional ideas of song based structures and band or multi instrument arrangements.
I think there’s always a problem when trying to use such tools to record/track/mix and arrange grooveboxes, as you’re either compromising the DAW or compromising the groovebox in the process.
I think that’s why I’ve always struggled with DAWs, as I don’t see music the way a DAW kinda wants me to, so I always just end up using it to record a stereo track.
I think DAWs still have a long way to go to really break free of the band/instrument paradigm and become something that really works for electronic music making, rather than songwriting.
22 Likes
I’ve set up a template on Ableton for the A4 and AR where I have the individual tracks via Overbridge, and I use Ableton/third party effects as sends. I also side chain everything to the AR’s kick with Ableton’s compressor. I can also stick all kinds of LFOs and Envelopes and whatnot to Overbridge (until Elektron one day add a second LFO to the Rytm). I’ve also got the Push, and I set it on the Mixer page so I’m not messing around too much with the laptop till I mix and stuff.
Once I’m happy with what I’ve done on the Elektrons, I just record it and then continue on Ableton. Sometimes I’m happy and it’s just minor tweaks, other times I realise it would sound a lot better if I layer a sound with Wavetable/Operator/one of the Arturia synths, and sometimes I hate it all and just do everything on the DAW. It’s all just trial and error I think and I find if I force myself to commit to a certain ethos of working, I’ll just get frustrated and never get anything done. Having a base template for me, which already includes the software, has worked better than just creating on the box full stop and then seeing what happens next. YMMV ofc but I have no interest personally in the whole purely DAWless thing outside of sound design.
3 Likes
I don’t get how you could say that given how many electronic artists work exclusively in the DAW. What do you mean?
10 Likes
I get what he’s saying. The lines are drawn, so it’s a potentially cumbersome extra step to break out of them because it still boils down to arranging vs interpreting. If what you’re doing as an electronic musician is making loops it’s not really an issue and there’s no problem with that from a strategic or procedural standpoint, so I’m not opposed to it, but it depends on your definition of electronic music and in counterpoint your conditions for what constitutes songwriting.
1 Like
Ableton Live is the happy medium between the two worlds. If you get into using session view it’s almost like a hyper-powered groovebox, especially with a Push thrown in to the melee. Then you can ‘track’ it all down to arrangement view for mixing and editing. Took me years to figure out that was the intended way of working with the software as I was so used to the ‘traditional studio in a box’ idea of what a DAW is meant to be. I think it’s an important advance in music software, but I hate the ubiquity of it. Makes me feel like a right plum to be seen using it knowing I’m in the same crowd as the type of person who goes to a café with their Macbook and headphones and sits there banging out da chooonz like a poor man’s David Guetta.
5 Likes
I’d say that most electronic music that’s released is created in a daw or at least finishes in a daw.
And I mean release as someone signs or distributes it because of course anyone can record a jam then upload it without it ever going near a daw.
I like a hybrid mix. Daw for precision and getting exactly what I want and hardware for live and jamming
1 Like
Nice. Just bought this book. The purpose and organization are interesting to me. I like having it in hard copy (not electronic version) Good bedtime reading for short sections, while also having it available in the studio for when I get stuck.
1 Like
for now. if Squarp ever implemented a similar arranger mode i’d think about going back but (1) that’s probably a long way off if ever, given the pace they’re pushing out updates; and (2) with open source for Deluge, i’m hoping the community can add some or all of the MIDI FX that makes Hapax so great otherwise. a week into learning Deluge, it’s very nice if you’re intending to do everything in the box but the MIDI side of it all is still a bit lacking compared to Hapax or Pyramid (imo). but haven’t even gotten to the synth/sampling side of things yet, which may lock me in more to Deluge going forward
Fair enough. I sold my Hapax a few months ago as didn’t really feel any benefit in using it over a DAW. I’m not precious about being DAWless and don’t do any live shows…yet.
This is my issue as well. I want to be able to make sounds on the fly, and then arrange those sounds without a lot of stopping in the process, which I can do with my hardware all synced up in a Midi environment. Using a DAW, the whole thing slows to a crawl, I get bored, distracted, don’t like what I am doing, and walk away. I am hoping Live’s session view can help me solve this problem. I am also hoping the Push 3 as a controller with the “capture” feature will let me do what I do in my boxes, and then more easily capture them for Live’s timeline. We will see, could be a mirage.