5 ms·
TFA starts down an important path - identifying different categories of users - but doesn't really get this quite right IMO. There are (at least) four categori
by PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
TFA starts down an important path - identifying different categories of users - but doesn't really get this quite right IMO.
There are (at least) four categories of DAW users:
1. Professionals who are being paid to make music, and for whom time is essentially money. Tools that speed up the production of that music are both financially valuable to them, and also make their overall lives easier (if done right).
2. Musicians for whom making music is a creative act of self-expression. They are not being paid by the hour (of music, or of effort), they are not under deadlines, but they do want tools that fit their own workflow and understanding of what the process should look like.
3. People who just want to have fun making music. Their level of performance virtuosity is likely low, and the originality of what they produce is likely to be judged by most music fans to be low. They want results that can be quickly obtained and are recognizable musical in whatever style they are aiming at, and they don't want to feel bogged down by the technology and process.
4. Audio engineers in a variety of fields who have little to no interest/need for music composition, but are faced with the task of taking a variety of audio data and transforming it radically or subtly to create the finished version, whether that's a collection of musical compositions or a podcast or a move soundtrack.
The same individual may, at different times, be a member of more than one of these groups (or other groups that I've omitted).
The needs of each of these groups overlap to a degree, but specifically the extent to which the current conception of AI in music&audio can help them, and how it may do so, are really quite different.
We can already see this in the current DAW world, where the set of users of DAWs like Live, Bitwig and FL Studio tends to be somewhat disjoint from the users of ProTools, Logic and Studio One.
TFA acknowledges this to some degree, but I don't think it does enough to recognize the different needs of these groups/workflows. Nevertheless, not a bad overview of the challenges/possibilities that we're facing.
- thegagne 3y agoAny recommendations for #3? Particularly with low barrier of entry for kids? Something you can use a midi keyboard and a mic with?
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoSadly, its the group I pay the least attention to. I suspect that today or next week, something browser based might be the best choice, but I can't tell you what. Apologies.
- criddell 3y agoLatency matters a lot. I can’t see a browser-based DAW ever being very compelling.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoDepends. For mixing it barely matters. For performance, if you're playing a MIDI controller live, then perhaps not (though browser latency is not that bad these days). But if you're working with clips & samples, it isn't likely to matter much.
- gooseyard 3y agoI'm a heavy Reaper user since I love the experience of editing with it, but when I'm fooling around writing songs, I use Garage Band specifically because it has so many great instruments and sounds, and also because I find I interact with it much differently than with Reaper or Pro Tools because of the simplified interface and I don't get sucked into fiddling with the details of what I'm making. Before Garage Band, I used Tracktion (I think its now called Tracktion Waveform Free) in the same manner. It's been ages since I used it but if you're a Windows or Ubuntu user I think it'd be worth checking out.
- philjohn 3y agoGarageBand - it's super quick to throw something together, has a wealth of virtual instruments and the user interface is in the same vein as professional DAWs, so there's a growth path if this is something kids enjoy and want to pursue further.
- luwatobil 3y agoI always find GarageBand to be an easy-to-pick-up app that can be used to generate fun sonic blurbs in a short amount of time. It has its own limitations, but the lack of complexity contributes to its ease of use.
- maroonblazer 3y agoI like your taxonomy. I fall into #2. Logic Pro X is the DAW I'm most familiar with and while not "AI", it's "Drummer" plug-in is uncannily good. So good it's indistinguishable from AI. I want more of that. Give me "Bass Player" and "Keyboardist" and "Guitarist", etc, with all the options that "Drummer" currently has, to select style/genre, kit sound, etc. Another wish list item: Let me point the DAW to a 4/8/16 bar section of multitrack original music I've created, and suggest n number of directions to take it, spitting out each of the individual instruments on their own tracks, so I can mix/match/edit. My imagination is limited; that's where I'd like AI to help.
- duped 3y agoThere's a couple other taxonomy of DAW users that you're ignoring, which are people creating audio content that isn't music.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoSee my #4 ... but also feel free to expand the taxonomy!
- duped 3y agoI would say that there's a pair of taxonomies, one being of audio content (social audio, radio, film, multimedia art, music, etc) and one being of the level of user (hobby/beginner, student, pro, academic, etc) and the problem with DAWs are that they generally gravitate towards where the money is, which are pro users in music and film.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI think that's a solid observation. I just like to add a 3rd dimension to the taxonomy, which is the relationship of the user to the finished work (is it for money? is it for anyone else? is it for fun? is it meaningful?) because I think this impacts the user's relationship with the tools.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI think that another axis to take into consideration is the extent to which audio will originate outside the computer. The needs & desires of people recording actual performances on some kind of instrument (even an electronic one) are going to differ significantly from people working, as they say, entirely in the box.
- NikolaNovak 3y ago>> problem with DAWs are that they generally gravitate towards where the money is, which are pro users in music and film. Is that the case though? Ableton and such don't charge per revenue as far as I'm aware. They charge same whether you are scoring a $500mil movie or fooling around after hard day of coding. And I feel in sheer numbers, latter outweighs the formers by several orders of magnitude. All forums I've been to are filled by, at best, "enthusiasts". Thousands upond tens of thousands of us with some disposable income we give to synths and software to tinker with :-).
- delgaudm 3y ago5. People who record, but have nothing to do with music whatsoever. For example, I have literally no musical skills whatsoever, but have at least 15k hours in my DAW. I'm a Voice actor, who worked hard to customize my DAW to get rid of as much music making stuff as possible from cluttering my interface (Reaper FTW) It's a Digital AUDIO workstation, not a Digital MUSIC workstation
- jimmaswell 3y agoIf you're only recording lines, why isn't Audacity a lot more convenient?
- eternityforest 3y agoI use Ardour when I do sound design. A lot of the time you want to be able to automate volume changes, or add a reverb or an EQ(With real-time controls instead of the annoying batch "Change it, then test it" workflow), etc.
- delgaudm 3y agoAudacity is not more convenient. Not by a mile. Voice actors have tons of workflows that only a DAW can help with.
- luxpir 3y ago"Only recording lines"? There may be more to it than you think.
- jimmaswell 3y agoI figured, I was curious exactly what
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y agoI was trying to cover that with #4, but i put too much 'music-y" stuff in there. You're precisely one of the examples I was thinking about there.