iOS DAW and workflow poll 2019

[Deleted User]

Some nice comments and approaches. Let me explain mine(s) and I hope it helps someone.

Firstly I voted Garageband. I’m in the position to sell my iPad mini (and itrack dock) and maybe the mac mini will go too (but I’m wondering about macbook)

I voted Garageband due music notepad app (translates chords from incoming audio and creates bass and drum lines from the recorded material) so I can evolve musical ideas into songs. Call me a Phisicist this time. Yamaha’s Chord Tracker also plays a role in this workflow...

Also I would like to vote Stagelight... but before BlocsWave. I use it 99% of time with iDevice (one of the reasons to keep an iPhone).
Just build 4 sample basic structure chop/slice workflow or just as backing track for playing keys over it. Then export to Ableton to more physics... or Launchpad app for some chemistry before going Ableton.

Another approach interesting for ephimeral composition (chemistry) but also suitable for bands (physics) is GroupTheLoop. It has the best of loopy plus the best of Ableton in chemistry/physics... since you have song structure live looping and Link.

You can go straight or nuts. It’s up to you. Later you can export those into AudioShare and edit that on proper DAW.
Soon it will be iPhone version so another nail in the iPad’s coffin.

Finally I bought Digitech trio+ which has the chord recognition drum/bass algorythim from bandinabox (similar to apple’s music notepad) plus 5 song parts plus simple looper (1 slot with overdub). It lacks midi and proper export tools but for my needs it’s more than I need. 200€ price new, I get it for 130€ includding fs3x footswitch companion.
I also bought a tc-perform vk processor which has harmony tools and audio/midi incoming recognition so keeps the harmony synced with the backtrack or keyboard playing. Another 200€ new at thomman. Loving it each single day...

So I will go the iPhone route (maybe a big screen one like plus models), macbook (air?) and ditch the iPad and all the regular mess (cck and spaghetti...). Maybe buy something specific for iPhone (irig like), maybe a nektar footswitch for GTL but meanwhile I’m with trio+ stability and holy limitations. Call me a physicist again.

Apple last years fails, like cpu throttling and luxury prices like new macs, made me consider leave the ecosystem. I will keep the minimum necessary until I find replacement. I even consider ditch Mainstage at this point. Too much mess against a simple numa compact 2 which performs perfectly for my needs.

I keep coming audiob.us forum daily but I feel less and less engaged with the whole ecosystem so I haven’t motivation to discover new chemical apps or physical ones neither.
I have all I need and iDevices aren’t the center of my set anymore.

That’s all folks!

McD

A chemist can blow up the house.
A physicist can blow up the world.

You just need to decide if you make house music or world music.

Now some chemist is going to claim a larger blast radius and chemical weapons and
viral mutation and ya-da, ya-da, ya-da... chemists just won't be ignored.

(I'm a chemist in this Game of DAW's: a song of dice and lyres)

Time to blow up the house.

Telstar5

@Rodolfo: Can’t NS2 do that as well , though (Jazz-pop based song AABA structure song arrangements)?

drez

@Telstar5 said:
@Rodolfo: Can’t NS2 do that as well , though (Jazz-pop based song AABA structure song arrangements)?

Not without a sustain pedal!!!

(Note: Coming in next update )

Rodolfo

@drez said:

@Telstar5 said:
@Rodolfo: Can’t NS2 do that as well , though (Jazz-pop based song AABA structure song arrangements)?

Not without a sustain pedal!!!

(Note: Coming in next update )

Although I have not worked much with NS2, I can say that it has one of the best MiDI editors I've seen in IOS. But as @drez mentioned 😄 yes, you need a sustain pedal to play a jazz piano. The dev said the fix is coming very soon.

Telstar5

Lol,truth !

aplourde

@Rodolfo said:

@aplourde said:

@Rodolfo said:
I believe there’s a missing variable in all this and it’s the music genre.
There’s no possible way you can use a DAWless/modular approach (a “chemists” approach as beautifully explained by @tk32 ) if you are into jazz, rock, pop, etc, or in general a traditional genre where you have verse, chorus, bridge, drop, etc, basically different sections with several chords, bass lines, complex harmony, drums breaks, etc.
I haven’t seen any DAWless/modular jams in AUM other than electronic/tecno/ambient type of music, and I don’t think I’ll see any at least in the near future. Maybe now that piano roll apps like Atom are emerging they will be able to add some alternative approaches, more like Ableton with clips/scene mode, but for traditional genres I believe there’s nothing like a standard DAW.
It’s no surprise for me that the majority will vote for AUM since the most active users in this forum are not into traditional genres but electronic/tecno/ambient type of music, so the poll is great but I guess is more indicative of genre and not of a DAW preference.

Genre is an important consideration for workflow, but I disagree that it's impossible to create structure with a "DAWless" approach. The tools available can, absolutely, be used to create structure. That people don't typically use it that way isn't because the tools don't allow it, it's the stylistic choices / limits of the user. Rozeta, Fugue Machine, StepPolyArp, etc. can all switch patterns with remote control, so sections can be created and sequenced from a master source, or triggered on the fly for improvisation.

Indeed for something like jazz where improvisation plays a large roll, the flexibility of a DAWless approach could be beneficial. But even more traditional forms could use this approach to experiment with structure. Obviously it's easier to set up a linear flow in a DAW, but if you want to do a strict Intro, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus, Outro, it is absolutely possible (and pretty easy) to do - and it could be an interesting approach to try if you want to break out of strict structures....

I’ve already tried, but it can take me ages to put together a standard rock song with the DAwless/modular setup. When I hear the music in my head I need tools to make it happen. I can write what I hear in just minutes in a DAW and add numerous arrangements, cut/paste sections, edit MIDI and quickly check that specific section. I honestly see no reasonable workflow for doing it in AUM with the tools available. It would be like traveling 1,000 miles in a bike to go some specific place. You’ll eventually get there, but it’s not the best vehicle choice. You should ride your car or even better, get a plane.
Tools like Rozeta Particles, Scaler, Collider, Riffer, Autony, etc, etc are really great tools for generative music in a modular setup, and very fun to use, but I see no place for them in a standard DAW approach. What would I use Rozeta Scaler for if I can play any scale I need with my keyboard? Riffer for a heavy rock song? Hard for me to imagine when I can use my keyboard and play any note I want.
I insist, the modular/DAWless approach at this moment is specific to a few music styles. I haven’t seen anybody making traditional styles with this modular approach. All videos and most music posted on this forum where AUM+generative stuff is used is specific to a few genres.
I don’t have anything against the DAWless aproach and those wonderful new tools, as I said they are really fun to use (I own almost all of them), but they are not really well suited for a traditional DAW approach.
Hopefully all this hype will generate new tools, new music styles, new paradigms and finally transform DAWs into more flexible tools, or modular setups to something more versatile for all genres, but we’re not there yet.

There's no doubt that it's not the most efficient way! If you're using traditional instruments to make traditional music and you know exactly what you want to play it makes zero sense to use a non-traditional method of composition!

But I was just pointing out that your statement of "There’s no possible way you can use a DAWless/modular approach" isn't correct. You can. You can set up patterns for the intro, verse, chorus, etc. and trigger those (manually or sequencing the sequencers) to your heart's content; creating music with as much structure as you want.

Why would you want to do that? Well "you" probably wouldn't as you can play and you know what you want to record! But consider someone who can't play an instrument: They might have an ear for a good tune, but have never had the time to devote to learning how to play. "Playing" the sequencer is a way to get that performative act for a non-musician and it can be more rewarding than just drawing notes onto a grid.

Also, when random elements are incorporated it becomes akin to jamming with a band. When you play with other musicians, you know the general contour of the music you're all playing, but you don't know exactly what the other musicians will do. When they play something unexpected it can inspire a new approach in you. That's what those generative elements can do for the DAWless approach; inject some unexpected elements to react to.

Ultimately, music comes down to layers of sound that interact and respond to other layers of sound. In a traditional DAW you sculpt that out, playing the instruments track-by-track. In a DAWless approach, you build the systems that create or respond to those interactions and play those systems.

And often, creating the tools is its own reward, even for skilled musicians. The music featured in this video would be several orders of magnitude easier to record traditionally, but sometimes building your tools to play your song is part of the creative process!

Jocphone

Well said @aplourde !

And I might add that the modular approach is not a finished process. There will be much evolution involving the use of played and generated sound and structure. I, for one, hope that we will soon see some kind of bigger picture orchestration to plug into these systems and believe that Michael has some plans along these lines for Audiobus.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

MobileMusic

@Rodolfo said:

@aplourde said:

@Rodolfo said:
I believe there’s a missing variable in all this and it’s the music genre.
There’s no possible way you can use a DAWless/modular approach (a “chemists” approach as beautifully explained by @tk32 ) if you are into jazz, rock, pop, etc, or in general a traditional genre where you have verse, chorus, bridge, drop, etc, basically different sections with several chords, bass lines, complex harmony, drums breaks, etc.
I haven’t seen any DAWless/modular jams in AUM other than electronic/tecno/ambient type of music, and I don’t think I’ll see any at least in the near future. Maybe now that piano roll apps like Atom are emerging they will be able to add some alternative approaches, more like Ableton with clips/scene mode, but for traditional genres I believe there’s nothing like a standard DAW.
It’s no surprise for me that the majority will vote for AUM since the most active users in this forum are not into traditional genres but electronic/tecno/ambient type of music, so the poll is great but I guess is more indicative of genre and not of a DAW preference.

Genre is an important consideration for workflow, but I disagree that it's impossible to create structure with a "DAWless" approach. The tools available can, absolutely, be used to create structure. That people don't typically use it that way isn't because the tools don't allow it, it's the stylistic choices / limits of the user. Rozeta, Fugue Machine, StepPolyArp, etc. can all switch patterns with remote control, so sections can be created and sequenced from a master source, or triggered on the fly for improvisation.

Indeed for something like jazz where improvisation plays a large roll, the flexibility of a DAWless approach could be beneficial. But even more traditional forms could use this approach to experiment with structure. Obviously it's easier to set up a linear flow in a DAW, but if you want to do a strict Intro, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus, Outro, it is absolutely possible (and pretty easy) to do - and it could be an interesting approach to try if you want to break out of strict structures....

I’ve already tried, but it can take me ages to put together a standard rock song with the DAwless/modular setup. When I hear the music in my head I need tools to make it happen. I can write what I hear in just minutes in a DAW and add numerous arrangements, cut/paste sections, edit MIDI and quickly check that specific section. I honestly see no reasonable workflow for doing it in AUM with the tools available. It would be like traveling 1,000 miles in a bike to go some specific place. You’ll eventually get there, but it’s not the best vehicle choice. You should ride your car or even better, get a plane.
Tools like Rozeta Particles, Scaler, Collider, Riffer, Autony, etc, etc are really great tools for generative music in a modular setup, and very fun to use, but I see no place for them in a standard DAW approach. What would I use Rozeta Scaler for if I can play any scale I need with my keyboard? Riffer for a heavy rock song? Hard for me to imagine when I can use my keyboard and play any note I want.
I insist, the modular/DAWless approach at this moment is specific to a few music styles. I haven’t seen anybody making traditional styles with this modular approach. All videos and most music posted on this forum where AUM+generative stuff is used is specific to a few genres.
I don’t have anything against the DAWless aproach and those wonderful new tools, as I said they are really fun to use (I own almost all of them), but they are not really well suited for a traditional DAW approach.
Hopefully all this hype will generate new tools, new music styles, new paradigms and finally transform DAWs into more flexible tools, or modular setups to something more versatile for all genres, but we’re not there yet.

Agree

Rodolfo

@McD said:

@Rodolfo said:
I believe there’s a missing variable in all this and it’s the music genre.
There’s no possible way you can use a DAWless/modular approach if you are into jazz, rock, pop, etc, or in general a traditional genre where you have verse, chorus, bridge, drop, etc, basically different sections with several chords, bass lines, complex harmony, drums breaks, etc.

I agree with you entirely but there is one use case that popped up recently.

There's an "arranger keyboard" like model built around a couple apps that support
song form arrangements:

LumBeats iBassist has chord progressions and a PAD interface to call up sections in a Live context. iBassist serves as the "style" center and links to all the LumBeats Drum Apps (Rock, Future, SoftDrummer (trad jazz), Funk, Afro-Latin, Middle Eastern). The styles between bass and drums are coordinated.

iBassist can output MIDI to 2 chord instruments of your choice with a few rhythm styles.
So, you end up from iBassist controlling song structures for a 4-5 piece band Live.

It also supports Live MIDI Chord in (like the Arranger Workstations) to allow for realtime
chord progressions controlled by a keyboard player.

Another Forum Member has pulled together a similar approach using NaviChords (on sale)
which allows you to prepare chord progressions with song sections and invoke with
buttons I think.

Just for the record. DAW-less "Band in a Box" style use of the IOS systems. I understand
Band in a Box is a very advanced execution of this approach but it's desktop/laptop only and
they collect $100's in upgrades and add-ons overtime so an expensive if powerful approach.

Jazz players seem to be OK with iReal Pro to drill the standards. iReal Pro can export MIDI
so I'm porting into a real DAW is the right next step to build an arrangement from the real book chord charts.

I agree, there are some wonderful “generative” apps that can be used for jamming in a more flexible setup than the traditional DAW.
I own all Lumbeat apps, they are really awesome. I use them in AUM for jamming along with my keyboard, and even with my guitar, but when I find something I like I then record the MIDI generated by the drummers and iBassist into Auria Pro so I can better edit it and transform it into something better. The chords generated by iBassist are fine for a quick jam but they are pretty basic for an elaborated song so I replace them later with my keyboard.
Again, for traditional genres (rock, blues, funk, jazz, pop, etc) I believe most people end up using a DAW. But people into electronic and ambient stuff, DJs, and people that come from the modular hardware arena, a DAWless approach is probably the natural way to go.

Rodolfo

@aplourde said:

@Rodolfo said:

@aplourde said:

@Rodolfo said:
I believe there’s a missing variable in all this and it’s the music genre.
There’s no possible way you can use a DAWless/modular approach (a “chemists” approach as beautifully explained by @tk32 ) if you are into jazz, rock, pop, etc, or in general a traditional genre where you have verse, chorus, bridge, drop, etc, basically different sections with several chords, bass lines, complex harmony, drums breaks, etc.
I haven’t seen any DAWless/modular jams in AUM other than electronic/tecno/ambient type of music, and I don’t think I’ll see any at least in the near future. Maybe now that piano roll apps like Atom are emerging they will be able to add some alternative approaches, more like Ableton with clips/scene mode, but for traditional genres I believe there’s nothing like a standard DAW.
It’s no surprise for me that the majority will vote for AUM since the most active users in this forum are not into traditional genres but electronic/tecno/ambient type of music, so the poll is great but I guess is more indicative of genre and not of a DAW preference.

Genre is an important consideration for workflow, but I disagree that it's impossible to create structure with a "DAWless" approach. The tools available can, absolutely, be used to create structure. That people don't typically use it that way isn't because the tools don't allow it, it's the stylistic choices / limits of the user. Rozeta, Fugue Machine, StepPolyArp, etc. can all switch patterns with remote control, so sections can be created and sequenced from a master source, or triggered on the fly for improvisation.

Indeed for something like jazz where improvisation plays a large roll, the flexibility of a DAWless approach could be beneficial. But even more traditional forms could use this approach to experiment with structure. Obviously it's easier to set up a linear flow in a DAW, but if you want to do a strict Intro, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Chorus, Outro, it is absolutely possible (and pretty easy) to do - and it could be an interesting approach to try if you want to break out of strict structures....

I’ve already tried, but it can take me ages to put together a standard rock song with the DAwless/modular setup. When I hear the music in my head I need tools to make it happen. I can write what I hear in just minutes in a DAW and add numerous arrangements, cut/paste sections, edit MIDI and quickly check that specific section. I honestly see no reasonable workflow for doing it in AUM with the tools available. It would be like traveling 1,000 miles in a bike to go some specific place. You’ll eventually get there, but it’s not the best vehicle choice. You should ride your car or even better, get a plane.
Tools like Rozeta Particles, Scaler, Collider, Riffer, Autony, etc, etc are really great tools for generative music in a modular setup, and very fun to use, but I see no place for them in a standard DAW approach. What would I use Rozeta Scaler for if I can play any scale I need with my keyboard? Riffer for a heavy rock song? Hard for me to imagine when I can use my keyboard and play any note I want.
I insist, the modular/DAWless approach at this moment is specific to a few music styles. I haven’t seen anybody making traditional styles with this modular approach. All videos and most music posted on this forum where AUM+generative stuff is used is specific to a few genres.
I don’t have anything against the DAWless aproach and those wonderful new tools, as I said they are really fun to use (I own almost all of them), but they are not really well suited for a traditional DAW approach.
Hopefully all this hype will generate new tools, new music styles, new paradigms and finally transform DAWs into more flexible tools, or modular setups to something more versatile for all genres, but we’re not there yet.

There's no doubt that it's not the most efficient way! If you're using traditional instruments to make traditional music and you know exactly what you want to play it makes zero sense to use a non-traditional method of composition!

But I was just pointing out that your statement of "There’s no possible way you can use a DAWless/modular approach" isn't correct. You can. You can set up patterns for the intro, verse, chorus, etc. and trigger those (manually or sequencing the sequencers) to your heart's content; creating music with as much structure as you want.

Why would you want to do that? Well "you" probably wouldn't as you can play and you know what you want to record! But consider someone who can't play an instrument: They might have an ear for a good tune, but have never had the time to devote to learning how to play. "Playing" the sequencer is a way to get that performative act for a non-musician and it can be more rewarding than just drawing notes onto a grid.

Also, when random elements are incorporated it becomes akin to jamming with a band. When you play with other musicians, you know the general contour of the music you're all playing, but you don't know exactly what the other musicians will do. When they play something unexpected it can inspire a new approach in you. That's what those generative elements can do for the DAWless approach; inject some unexpected elements to react to.

Ultimately, music comes down to layers of sound that interact and respond to other layers of sound. In a traditional DAW you sculpt that out, playing the instruments track-by-track. In a DAWless approach, you build the systems that create or respond to those interactions and play those systems.

And often, creating the tools is its own reward, even for skilled musicians. The music featured in this video would be several orders of magnitude easier to record traditionally, but sometimes building your tools to play your song is part of the creative process!

I see what you mean, and believe me, I don’t disagree with you. The video you posted is something really beautiful, a true piece of art!

But my original point is more specific to genre. Even considering people that love the creative process and find the reward in the process itself, which is great, I believe that for this specific poll most users (not all, but probably 80-90%) who voted for AUM/DAWless approach are not into traditional genres but electronic/ambient type of music. And this is great too, it’s just that the poll result can be misinterpreted if the variable “genre” is not taken into consideration.