songs are so passe, it’s all about the sketch baby! 
4 Likes
I would say you have two ways of approach that problem, the first one would be using a device with a good enought sequencer that allows chaining patterns or even song mode/arranger… And probably a second one that would be involved recording and then editing. Either way you will need planning, and that’s probably the most important bit, much more than visual reference, as I have already heard saying here, something very problematic when using a DAW, as many people use more their eyes than their ears 
Jamming on my Circuits is great fun. Getting something off them to finish something isn’t.
But now I’m using Ableton Move, I have finished more tracks a few months than I did in a few years on my Circuits.
It didn’t / doesn’t mean having a blast on the Circuits wasn’t a waste of time though. It just depends on whether I was happy jammin or just producing. Both have their merits.
best way to learn about the CT is jamming IMHO.
IMHO, the enormous amount of effort which is required to build a complex arranger with good UX isn’t worth it.
If you want to produce a song, use a DAW. It’s soooo much easier, faster and efficient.
If you want to do a live performance, well, perform. For the parts you can’t perform, use your stems. If nothing substantial changes in a part, it doesn’t matter if it comes from dedicated machines or stems.
1 Like
I’ve done a lot of daw work and I think the m8 is probably more efficient for arranging songs. It’s certainly different, which is what you often look for in hardware: an interesting, thoughtfully different workflow to mouse and screen. The more I use m8 for arrangements, the more I love how it draws them out of you. And it’s pocketable, with a positive button driven workflow.
A year on, this just makes me wish even more that more hardware tried to run creatively at the arrangement challenge.
So many people make only sketches because, I suspect, the hardware isn’t facilitating more than the sketch.
2 Likes
It’s really strange to me how many people defend the lack of proper song modes and act like it’s some huge task. It’s literally just a list of patterns. Just like a sequence is a list of notes. It’s just one step up in the hierarchy of what the sequencer already does. It’s basically an array. It’s especially crazy on machines that let you chain patterns but not save those chains!
Intro, verse 1, chorus 1, verse 2, chorus 2, bridge, chorus 3, outro.
There, that’s ABCBCDCE
It doesn’t even really need to be a multidimensional array unlike the pattern itself.
I’ll never understand why people think this needs some kind of complicated UI that allows for “editing” and stuff like that. To me arrangement is the art of which sounds and instruments are playing and what parts they are playing. What we’re really talking about here is the song’s STRUCTURE, not arrangement. Editing that is incredibly simple, because again it’s just a chain of patterns saved as a list of numbers. A sequencer already lets you edit a sequence of numbers, the song structure itself is just another sequence.
And sequencers aren’t instruments. They’re inherently devices that are made for recording or programming notes and then playing them back. Being able to structure that into a song should always be a part of that process ever since it became technically possible in the 80s.
5 Likes
I got your song mode right here buddy
1 Like
I’d argue that the good ones are.
2 Likes
Add some automatic switching, repeats and multiple options for each step and you have an automatic accompaniment system.
So what grooveboxes can’t do this? Also if a groovebox doesn’t have chain (I don’t know which one doesn’t), why can’t you just record it into audio and press the patterns manually to change?
1 Like
Audio Coloring Book?
Would a device with a dedication to song building draw similarity to an audio coloring book?
Tons of people seem to refer to grooveboxes as sketchpads, but I’ve spent some time coloring on the ipad, and wonder if it would be more in line to have something like an audio coloring book.
The designs (song structures) are done up for you and you just use different modelled implements (synths samples) to fill in the color (notes in a scale, patterns, etc). You can make it fixed so the lines are not penetrable, or take the guard rails off and color all over (allow control over how much the user is responsible for). It’s very nice and peaceful and most importantly, it’s a way of being creative and making creative decisions (textures, color, etc) without necessarily needing to be a great artist and draw the entire sketch myself. I’m doing this just for me and i’ve found that it’s perfect for my needs of relaxing at that time.
So, I’ve wondered why something like an audio coloring book doesn’t exist. Sure maybe it isn’t just picking and tweaking sounds, but maybe it’s also creating patterns but with the overarching song structure, chord progression, etc already planned out. This way you just go on about filling in the details of the song (which might be the most interesting part for you) and still have something at the end of the tunnel.
I do realize this may also be possible with just sketching and removing yourself from the desire to have a completed thing at the end of it, but referring back to the coloring book idea, it’s very satisfying to have something at the end of the process. I think this could be the ultimate song-starter, but also a way to engage with music even if your end goal isn’t to release music or truly produce tracks end to end, you’re just looking to relax and enjoy sounds.
closest I can think of to this, with my experience would be Arranger on the XY (hardware), Logic Pro for iPad and of course DAWs. That said, these are just things that provide a good amount of tools (chord progression, pattern chaining, Session players (logic), etc) but none are truly equivalent to giving you a song ‘template’ and letting you color in the details, just for fun.
2 Likes
I like modular because you can design a custom synth with the workflow you like best.
The Models can’t. OT can’t save chained patterns, you have to program them in with the arranger which I believe was a later addition. I’m sure there are others.
That’s like saying "if your daw doesn’t have automation, just move the faders manually and record your mix live. Well sure, but the point is to be able to work on a song, save what you’re doing and come back to it later to work on it some more. Otherwise why use a sequencer at all, just play the parts and record the audio.
2 Likes
roland gave everyone what they wanted in this realm with the verselab, but the people hate it. the people cant make up their mind!
2 Likes
Well if you own a groove box that doesn’t have it, it’s the only workaround. I have so many groove boxes and they all have song mode or arranger built in. Shrug
Verselab is an interesting device that suffers from its usability.
It’s relatively difficult to learn because there are countless shortcuts, everything is spread out all over the place. I also have an MC101, which I consider to be easy to learn in comparison.
I have the ambition to master the device because it offers almost everything I want from a Groovebox. I mainly bought it because of the vocal track possibilities that the 101 doesn’t have.
I really like it 
2 Likes
This actually what the arranger is about. You can also chain different arrangements.
2 Likes
Which has a better library of patches versalab or mc-101?
1 Like
MC-101, 707 and verselab all have the same set of presets.
2 Likes