7 ms·

If it makes you feel any better, Ableton Live's interface is also not particularly intuitive, though at least it has the advantage of tooltips. It does seem lik

by least 4y ago

If it makes you feel any better, Ableton Live's interface is also not particularly intuitive, though at least it has the advantage of tooltips. It does seem like something you have to use for a while to figure out the workflow, though some of it is a bit easier for Live users. I think it is to Live what GarageBand for iOS is to Logic — a stripped down app that lets you build ideas on the go that can be exported to the main application to complete/further flesh out the idea.

adamhp 4y ago
Pretty much all DAWs are that way though. They're very feature rich pieces of software. It's quite difficult to design something that can be usable by a layman and professionals at the same time. It's kind of like your grandmother (assuming she's not a developer) complaining that VSCode or a JetBrains IDE is confusing. Of course it is. She doesn't know what half of it does, not because it's poorly laid out or designed, but because she doesn't have the domain knowledge. She's not the target audience.
- PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
  There's an even bigger (or at least, more on-point) problem with the audience though. In the pre-DAW days, "audio engineering" was a specific task and skill set that was quite distinct from "playing music". Many DAWs were created to assist with audio engineering, assuming usage by someone who understands that domain. Fast forward to recent times, and there's some widespread belief that a DAW should be a tool for musicians, even for musicians who don't know anything (or at least, not much) about audio engineering. "I just want to record my ideas". So then someone cooks up some relatively simple DAW-like application for such people. They start using it, and within a few weeks or months, they find themselves unavoidably learning something about audio engineering. They want more from the application, and within a relatively short period of time, they need and/or want the full DAW. The same thing is happening, to a lesser degree in the podcasting/radio production world.
  - bryans 4y ago
    Every audio engineer is also a musician. Every DAW has been developed by audio and software engineers who are also musicians[1]. Every professional musician understands the basic concepts of audio production. DAW UIs mimic the interfaces of real world devices, of which all musicians interact with on a regular basis. Suggesting that musicians weren't meant to (and shouldn't even be allowed to) use DAWs is beyond nonsensical. This holier-than-thou argument you're trying to make is baseless. [1] https://twitter.com/JustinFrankel/status/1582430125941198848 https://twitter.com/JustinFrankel/status/1582430125941198848
    - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
      > Every audio engineer is also a musician. Absolutely untrue. Since you used the word "every", I only need one example to disprove this. Geoff Emerick, the engineer for the Beatles "late" albumns, was not a musician. I could name dozens more, spread across decades. Susan Rogers, Prince's audio engineer: not a musician. Chris Lord-Alge ... not a musician. This is just so wrong. > Every professional musician understands the basic concepts of audio production. I know hundreds of professional musicians. Most of them know almost nothing about audio engineering other than a few buzzwords. DAWs used to mimic mixing consoles, but increasingly do not (because their functionality has expanded into new realms not touched by mixing consoles). Plugins used to mimic hardware units, but increasingly do not (because (a) skeuomorphism comes and goes as a fashion statement (b) they do things never implemented in hardware). Very, very few classical musicians interact with an EQ or reverb unit on a regular basis. Very few drummers ever use stomp boxes or EQ. Very few singers have any knowledge about mic or preamp technology. Then there's this little chestnut: > Every DAW has been developed by audio and software engineers who are also musicians You don't appear to be aware of the fact that I am a DAW developer, and over the last 22+ years of being in the field have gotten to know (a little) the other people that you refer to. You're just wrong about this. Sure, most of the companies have audio engineers and musicians on staff, but most of the actual coders are not musicians. Justin is probably one of the exceptions to the rule, although even he concedes that (a) he isn't a very good musician (b) he doesn't know that much about audio engineering. You can hear him say this on the 2.5 chat we had at http://adc.equalarea.com/2022/02/07/adc1/ http://adc.equalarea.com/2022/02/07/adc1/ I have no idea what I said that made you believe I was suggesting that musicians should not use DAWs. My point was that it is very difficult to design tools that work well for both musicians and audio engineers (unless they happen to be the same person), and that when you design one that works well for musicians, there's a tendency for it experience pressure to be more "engineer-y".
CaptWillard 4y ago
"I think it is to Live what GarageBand for iOS is to Logic" That's what I was thinking, and I think in both cases this capture/export pipeline for musical ideas is a brilliant use of mobile technology.

by least 4y ago

adamhp 4y ago

Pretty much all DAWs are that way though. They're very feature rich pieces of software. It's quite difficult to design something that can be usable by a layman and professionals at the same time. It's kind of like your grandmother (assuming she's not a developer) complaining that VSCode or a JetBrains IDE is confusing. Of course it is. She doesn't know what half of it does, not because it's poorly laid out or designed, but because she doesn't have the domain knowledge. She's not the target audience.

PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
There's an even bigger (or at least, more on-point) problem with the audience though. In the pre-DAW days, "audio engineering" was a specific task and skill set that was quite distinct from "playing music". Many DAWs were created to assist with audio engineering, assuming usage by someone who understands that domain. Fast forward to recent times, and there's some widespread belief that a DAW should be a tool for musicians, even for musicians who don't know anything (or at least, not much) about audio engineering. "I just want to record my ideas". So then someone cooks up some relatively simple DAW-like application for such people. They start using it, and within a few weeks or months, they find themselves unavoidably learning something about audio engineering. They want more from the application, and within a relatively short period of time, they need and/or want the full DAW. The same thing is happening, to a lesser degree in the podcasting/radio production world.
- bryans 4y ago
  Every audio engineer is also a musician. Every DAW has been developed by audio and software engineers who are also musicians[1]. Every professional musician understands the basic concepts of audio production. DAW UIs mimic the interfaces of real world devices, of which all musicians interact with on a regular basis. Suggesting that musicians weren't meant to (and shouldn't even be allowed to) use DAWs is beyond nonsensical. This holier-than-thou argument you're trying to make is baseless. [1] https://twitter.com/JustinFrankel/status/1582430125941198848 https://twitter.com/JustinFrankel/status/1582430125941198848
  - PaulDavisThe1st 4y ago
    > Every audio engineer is also a musician. Absolutely untrue. Since you used the word "every", I only need one example to disprove this. Geoff Emerick, the engineer for the Beatles "late" albumns, was not a musician. I could name dozens more, spread across decades. Susan Rogers, Prince's audio engineer: not a musician. Chris Lord-Alge ... not a musician. This is just so wrong. > Every professional musician understands the basic concepts of audio production. I know hundreds of professional musicians. Most of them know almost nothing about audio engineering other than a few buzzwords. DAWs used to mimic mixing consoles, but increasingly do not (because their functionality has expanded into new realms not touched by mixing consoles). Plugins used to mimic hardware units, but increasingly do not (because (a) skeuomorphism comes and goes as a fashion statement (b) they do things never implemented in hardware). Very, very few classical musicians interact with an EQ or reverb unit on a regular basis. Very few drummers ever use stomp boxes or EQ. Very few singers have any knowledge about mic or preamp technology. Then there's this little chestnut: > Every DAW has been developed by audio and software engineers who are also musicians You don't appear to be aware of the fact that I am a DAW developer, and over the last 22+ years of being in the field have gotten to know (a little) the other people that you refer to. You're just wrong about this. Sure, most of the companies have audio engineers and musicians on staff, but most of the actual coders are not musicians. Justin is probably one of the exceptions to the rule, although even he concedes that (a) he isn't a very good musician (b) he doesn't know that much about audio engineering. You can hear him say this on the 2.5 chat we had at http://adc.equalarea.com/2022/02/07/adc1/ http://adc.equalarea.com/2022/02/07/adc1/ I have no idea what I said that made you believe I was suggesting that musicians should not use DAWs. My point was that it is very difficult to design tools that work well for both musicians and audio engineers (unless they happen to be the same person), and that when you design one that works well for musicians, there's a tendency for it experience pressure to be more "engineer-y".

CaptWillard 4y ago

"I think it is to Live what GarageBand for iOS is to Logic" That's what I was thinking, and I think in both cases this capture/export pipeline for musical ideas is a brilliant use of mobile technology.