Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MASCHINE Area' started by RobLo, May 13, 2019.
How much of these advanced options can be achieved from the Push hardware though?
Don't know about making tracks but "ideas view" is great for live performance, especially if you have a Jam + regular Maschine combo. I just wish group control could be locked to one or the other, the fact that both Jam and regular Maschine switch in unison greatly diminishes the potential of the combo. And I don't think this sort of thing is even on NI's radar at this time..... if you agree with me, please consider supporting this thread:
Yeah, but (maybe I'm stupid and missed something here) in Live - if I move something from Session to Arrangement - it just copies it to arrangement. Changes made after that in Session isn't reflected in the Arrangement?
Do you mean configuring advanced stuff from the controller itself? Or advanced options that change the controller behavior?
Not many, afaik you gotta mostly tweak stuff in the SW as far as advanced options for scenes/clips go, it might be a disadvantage to have to touch the mouse but after you do, clips can do so much... especially to perform (and record that performance) a clip can play once and stop, can wait X measure before changing to the next, can play X times, can trigger the next clip, randomize stuff, etc...
Oh, that's what you mean by the disconnect.
I am no Live pro, still learning it so I hesitate a bit in making some statements but yes, I think that's is correct and I am not sure if there's a way to have it fully synced, the video I shared about converting a portion of the arrangement to a session scene seems to be a fast fix for that problem tho... It gives you the flexibility of keeping either the edit, the original, or both... you can actually choose.
The fact that Live's arrangement edits don't influence the Session Clips is the main reason it can have a "proper" arranger. The way Machine deals with 2 modes can be cool too but ultimately it sacrifices the ability to easily have detailed linear arrangements.. It's still possible, its just cumbersome and generally requires a billion patterns.
I understand, and sometimes I think it's my programming background that messes with my thinking and understanding of DAW's - like, I don't ever want to have to do something twice, and just copy-pasting seems wrong to me. I still think there might be some way to move Maschines arranging forward without sacrificing this - which could be separate audio or automation tracks that are not at all related to Scenes while keeping the current workflow.
Everything has disadvantages, however, in this context, I think some 'disconnect' makes sense since it opens so many possibilities. A programming analogy would be simple and easy to understand language with depth limitations VS a much harder to learn one but that offers much more depth on what can be done and has higher efficiency.
Think about it like this, if both modes are 100% synced than you can't record a performance because it would be added again to the Session View, by giving the user control, you can perform something interesting to the arranger and if you need it in Session View for some reason you can convert it, in a way it's non-destructive if you will. By leaving Session untouched even after a song is arranged and finished you can still perform it again because you have the original clips, not to mention you can jam for as long as you want then pick the best parts and possibly convert those to Scenes.
They won't ever sacrifice the way it works now IMO, that would piss off a lot of customers, when the day comes where we have a more versatile arranger it will most likely be a separate mode.
All i use is ideas view then export to studio one for arragment.
way easier & quicker than tryring to arrange in Maschine. wish i used this workflow long time ago
I definitely use Ideas View pretty much exclusively. (Similar to Live's session view or MPC sequences imo) I've never really been a linear guy so having a quick overview of all of my scenes/patterns right there is dope. When I want an "export" of my track I most of the time just capture a live performance from whatever I'm using (Maschine, MPC, etc) so it's not a problem. Though..if I do need to lay something out I have no problem with the arranger I think both allow quick layout of ideas depending on what you're trying to do.
That can work absolutely perfectly for many Musicians but the key is "not being a linear guy", for those that are it's really hard to adapt to the pattern/sequence workflow since it kind of requires rethinking your whole method of making music.
Agreed....if I were more linear my main tool would be a more traditional Daw honestly instead of things like Maschine, MPC, and other pattern based tools. I started on drum machines and loop based sequencers so it makes sense to me. Definitely different ways of working for sure. I do think there's ways to merge the two though (MV8800 had a great combination of the two), and if they ever reveal the mythological "song layer" it could be a step in the right direction for a both sides (pattern and linear guys)
Out of curiosity, if you identify as more of a linear guy, what's the typical way you'd approach making music that a timeline style workflow improves on?
I was definitely a linear workflow guy, spent many years on just software, tried and MPC2500 about 15 years ago and absolutely hated it, the Maschine Studio convinced me to try it again because of the more modern features, hi-res screens and the fact it's a hybrid... Now I'd say I am somewhere in the middle and like both approaches.
The thing about linear is it often goes beyond pattern/clip VS arranger, it's also about spending a ton of time micro-programming VS recording manual pads/keys, i just dont have that much skill in the latter, for example: I know how to make a 7th chord instantly on piano roll but on real keyboard I have to think for a few seconds and sometimes count note intervals.
Good example there, do you think that's exclusive to linear though? For example, FL Studio has a great piano roll but isn't strictly linear in its workflow. Could this have more to do with the lack of tools in the platform that make it easier to do things like this quickly within the sequencer?
I know improved piano roll tools in Maschine has been a long standing request for many years as well.
I was exactly thinking about FL Studio like piano roll features when I mentioned that, it's all about the flexibility, even though FL has patterns one can drag and drop them into the Arranger and from then on the workflow can become linear, giving the user choice, If we want to finger drum and record things by hand and deal with pattern restrictions we can, if we want to program with a mouse with little music theory knowledge and arrange linearly we can.. and best of all, we can do both. (Same goes for Ableton, Bitwig and the like)
Our generation (I'm 35) is kind of OK with many limitations since they came from the hardware days where those limitations made sense so they have grown used to them (like you implied in post #30) but anyone with software only experience has a really, really hard time understanding why something like Maschine is so feature lacking compared to something like FL, including me. Some things are acceptable given it's built around dedicated controllers, many arent.
Yeah, Maschine's piano roll and general MIDI editing capabilities are stuck in 2003, that's one of my main complaints.
Yeah I feel that, definitely just depends on your workflow at the end of the day. I think a combination of the two is best (that's why I still think the mv8800 was so dope lol) As far as piano roll, there are definitely some really cool tools out there in other daws for that workflow.
I absolutely hate the idea view. But the reason I hate it is because of how it was integrated into maschine.
I understand why they added it, and its kinda cool, but what I dont understand is why they added it IN THE PLACE of how scenes used to work.
Originally you'd build scenes and then place them in the arrange view, or trigger them from a DAW. Now they are called Sections, and Scenes are parts of this Ideas view. This is idiotic, why did they break the workflow of so many users, when they could have just left scenes as they were, and added the ideas view and made the output of the ideas view be "Sections"?? This would have been a value add to the software rather than changing the existing practices.
Now whenever i work, maschine pushes me to the ideas view, which I dont want to use, and I have delete the Scenes it automatically creates with the ideas view, and now i also have to request my midi notes to change SECTIONS now, not Scenes...
Is there any good reason people can think of (other than trying to force existing users to use the Ideas view) for them to change it like this?
LOL and that's nearly 10 years in advance of the 'automation'
I tend to think it's possibly because of Jam. Ideas view then makes a lot of sense. IMHO when the made Ideas View they should also have made the viewing more flexible because to me it makes no sense unless you can see Idea View and Arrange View at the same time which you can't. Surely they could have made it into a movable overlay.
Yeah exactly, But its a really bad call, what percentage of people have maschine and jam? It happily bet its less than 1 third... so thats the majority of people who now have to work around, or change their workflow because of this 'feature'. Improvements that interfere with long time users workflows are not improvements to me. Thats poor integration.
I get the impression with most things that NI do is that joined up thinking with the end user in mind is far from being their forte or even in some cases an afterthought. Why KK and Maschine were not thought of as related branches of the same tree baffles me. At this moment in time it is easy to think there is getting to be far more wrong with Maschine than is right for most people. They have had a long time to do something about this but have chosen not to until in theory now. We awaited with baited breath but maybe not the highest of expectations as to what may or may not come.