2 Sequencers (was: Live Suite Dilemma)

[Tony Scharf]

I am a sequencer whore. I currently use Live, FruiyLoops, very
occasionally reason, and the sequencer on my Korg M3 for writing
tracks.  Lately, its been the M3 thats been my favorite..

I find each has its place depending on what I am doing.  FL studio is
great when I am starting with rhythms and building up noise loops.
MIDI editing in live (have not tried 8 yet) has never been
particularly great so tracks that take a lot of that kind of work are
usually going to be start to finish in cubase, or start in the M3.
Live is the best when I am working exclusively with software
synthesizers.  It seems that as soon as I mix hardware and software,
mixing MIDI and audio (particularly clock) Live starts to falter.

Other members of my band use Acid and Renoise.  To make things simple,
Ive got those on here too, though I would never start my own projects
in either (particularly renoise - it gives me a headache).

Oh, and I forgot I use the sequencers on my Korg EMX1 and ESX1 a lot
(yes, in song mode).  I actually have a few tracks that were almost
totally completed with that pair.

The dominant tools lately, however, are certainly the M3 sequencer and
Live worked together.  I write the start track all in hardware on the
M3 sequencer using Live as my mixer.   I track it all down to audio,
and then bring in the softies (if needed).  At that point, depending
on the complexity of the project, I may dump all he audio tracks over
to cubase for final mixing.  I cant put my finger on why, but for more
complicated mixes, the cubase mixer just seems to work out better for
me.

I tried for a long time to find end-all-be-all sequencer and DAW.  For
me, the search was a big waste of time.  Using multiple products, each
best at the tasks I use them for works out much better for me than any
all in one solution.


Tony


On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:25 AM, James R. Coplin <james at ticalun.net> wrote:
> For me, it's largely a matter of convenience.  If I had to pick one it would
> be Cubase as for me, I just don't feel like I can take a track to the level
> of polish I desire in Live.  That isn't to say it can't be done, just that
> they way *I* think about my music, Live just doesn't do it for me.  However,
> I do really like the immediacy of Live so as a sketch pad and a way to throw
> some sounds around and see what works well together, I really like it.
> Also, I should note, I don't play out.  Ever.  Period.  Isn't going to
> happen ever again... maybe.
>
> My laptop is older and not fast enough to do much more than the basics I
> need for my life in academia (which is eating all my time and keeping me
> from music these past couple of years).  My big system is in the studio.
> Consequently, unless I wanted to run Cubase LE, Live works on my old laptop
> for when I want to go to the coffee house and sketch out a track.  I find
> that I like to be out in the public sphere when I'm sketching for some
> reason instead of in the studio.  Once I actually start working a track, I
> want the opposite.  That point, I switch over to Cubase, move the bits from
> Live and begin doing the heavy bits.  This is also when many plugin parts
> get redone to a "real" synths from my pile.  I'm fairly reliant on a large
> quantity (probably overly many) of vintage analogs that aren't going to be
> leaving the house and can't be replaced by plugins.  This accounts for part
> of the disconnect - the desire to be portable and sketch outside the studio
> and the impossibility of taking some key pieces out of the studio.
>
> If I were to decide to play out, Live would immediately become more
> important to me.  I wouldn't take Cubase out for a gig.  Not because of
> reliability, but because it would be too much like taking a DAT with all the
> background bits.  One of the main reasons I haven't played out, is that I
> loathe watching people "play" their laptops.  If I go out, there has to be a
> significant degree of performance.  While most of the offenders of rocking
> the mouse have been using Live, I still think that ideally, Live is better
> suited to more open ended performances than something like Cubase would be.
> The user just needs to figure out how to make that bridge.
>
> James R. Coplin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: music-bar-bounces at lists.music-bar.org
> [mailto:music-bar-bounces at lists.music-bar.org] On Behalf Of Martin Naef
> Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 6:01 AM
> To: Music-bar
> Subject: Re: 2 Sequencers (was: Live Suite Dilemma)
>
> punkdISCO wrote:
>> I think if a single sequencer does not do everything for you, maybe you
>> need another sequencer?  Sequencers are so complex and problematic, I
>> have no desire to double my troubles with two sequencers.
>
> So which one would you take?
>
> I feel sequencers only become problematic when you want them to do
> something they weren't designed for. Hence, using something like Live
> and Cubase does make a lot of sense, because although their feature set
> now overlaps massively, their original design goals were rather
> different. I'd rather use a few different tools for their individual
> strengths (and ignore their weak parts) than trying to shoehorn
> everything into one...
>
> Martin
>
> --
> http://www.navisto.ch
> http://www.myspace.com/navisto
> _______________________________________________
> music-bar mailing list
> music-bar at lists.music-bar.org
> http://lists.music-bar.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/music-bar
>
> _______________________________________________
> music-bar mailing list
> music-bar at lists.music-bar.org
> http://lists.music-bar.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/music-bar
>