Is the DAW biased?

[morganwable]

I do think the paradigm of midi "regions" that can be copy and pasted does tend to prioritise a certain compositional approach, even when EDM or other music that relies on repetitive eight-bar patterns is not the goal. Rather than a "bias" I might call this something like a "structural path of least resistance".

This is exactly why I moved from FL studio to Reaper. I desperately missed "MIDI regions" because the EDM-driven "patterns" paradigm from FL was useful when I was writing video game music, but surprisingly restrictive when trying to move back to symphonic work.

A concrete example I've experienced of how UX design can influence my own workflow.

Man, I miss Logic. But I simply cannot afford Apple hardware.

 

[Jeremy Spencer]

Man, I miss Logic. But I simply cannot afford Apple hardware.

I hear you! When I had the $$ for a computer upgrade last spring (from a 2013 MacBook), I almost went back to PC running Cubase (from Logic). I priced out a 2020 iMac and a custom-built PC comparable specs.....and it wasn't substantially more for the iMac (which I bought and love). I also have an Apogee Element interface (Mac only), so I had to factor that in as well. At the end of the day, if you are a professional (even part time), get the tools you really want and be done with it IMO.

 

[Michaelt]

Looks like I'm a dumbass. I think that the quote in question may not have been part of the post originally, but it's definitely there now.

It's definitely been there from the start! It was what made me respond in the first place. I'll await your apology for that "projecting" misinterpretation. (just kidding) (but really)

 

[Pier]

This is exactly why I moved from FL studio to Reaper. I desperately missed "MIDI regions" because the EDM-driven "patterns" paradigm from FL was useful when I was writing video game music, but surprisingly restrictive when trying to move back to symphonic work.

I've never used FL Studio but this guy on Youtube seems to be doing fine:



Maybe he puts up with it because there are other benefits?

I've read many times people raving about the piano roll.

 

[dhmusic]

I've never used FL Studio but this guy on Youtube seems to be doing fine:



Maybe he puts up with it because there are other benefits?

I've read many times people raving about the piano roll.

I think he likes that it's a bit of an underdog/underestimated DAW from what I remember from an interview I saw. I can def appreciate that

 

[Trensharo]

It's quite simple to change meter or temperament in the DAWs I've used. It seems absolutely ludicrous to conclude that the default settings in a DAW imply that other musical systems do not exist or are of lesser value. Holy shit.

Like default language/time being region-based, if there are sweepingly common enough musical methodologies to define the most typical needs of composers in a certain area, by all means, make those the defaults the DAW opens with in that area. That seems entirely reasonable. And I sincerely hope for the ongoing health and value of civilization that people using those DAWs can remember that the default settings do not encompass the entirety of human musical practice.

The example was exaggerated - likely to drive the point home (in a mediocre manner) - but the premise is spot on. The biases of the developers shape the DAW's development and affect what/how features are implemented and how feature requests are triaged in project management.

Pro Tools developers are going to triage recommendations from Recording and Mix Engineers higher than those from Composers and Producers, because the software was developed with a heavy bias to that market - which has affected its development to such a degree that the areas prioritized by multiple other segments of the market have been retarded.

This also applies to other software markets, but I think Music Production Software displays this more than many (if not most) other market segments due to the diversity of the medium and how it is created via the software.

It's why we have DAWs with such heavy biases to certain use cases:

ACID Pro
FL Studio
Ableton Live
Pro Tools
Digital Performer
Maschine

These are all DAWs, but they all bias to a different market segment by virtue of design and development over the years - even though their feature sets overlap heavily.

The whole point of developing a software package is that you get to do it the way you'd prefer it to be done. That is the nature of a capitalistic software market...

Some DAWs, like Cubase and Studio One, have been more successful at developing into pretty vast "generalists" without esoteric user experiences (e.g. Digital Performer), but they are more the exception to the norm, IMHO. Most DAWs are pretty easy to compartmentalize based on design and feature set biases.

Default Settings is never something I care about because the first thing I do after installing any software is go through all of the settings and set that stuff the way I want it. I change the defaults immediately, and never really encounter unsavory defaults when I start a new project /shtugs/

 

[Trensharo]

I've never used FL Studio but this guy on Youtube seems to be doing fine:



Maybe he puts up with it because there are other benefits?

I've read many times people raving about the piano roll.

Usable and Optimal are two different things. Most DAWs are usable for most genres of music production, but also Optimal for certain genres for which their feature sets cater heavily.

You can do orchestral composition and film scoring using FL Studio, but it's Optimal for Beatmaking and EDM.

 

[Pier]

Usable and Optimal are two different things. Most DAWs are usable for most genres of music production, but also Optimal for certain genres for which their feature sets cater heavily.

You can do orchestral composition and film scoring using FL Studio, but it's Optimal for Beatmaking and EDM.

I've never used FL Studio, but if you look at the videos from that channel it would suggest it's much more than usable.

 

[Trensharo]

I've never used FL Studio, but if you look at the videos from that channel it would suggest it's much more than usable.

It's a spectrum because these things are comparative.

I wouldn't say it's "as usable as" - say - Cubase or Digital Performer for that same stuff (mentioned in the post you referenced).

However, it's usable to the point that it is often not worth picking up a second DAW to do this if you already have mastery of FL Studio, or Ableton, or Bitwig, or REAPER, or Samplitude, etc.

Anything is "much more than usable." The only limiting factor is the willingness of the producer or composer to put in the work to reach that breakpoint. If you can do this without feeling like your productivity is suffering, then there is no point considering another DAW (unless you can pick it up quickly and the productivity gaines [FOR YOU] are worth it - though that is often hard to estimate for most people).

However, that work may be surplus over the investment needed by a composer or producer with comparable mastery of a more optimal platform for producing that type of work.

Cubase is "much more than usable" for producing EDM, but there objective reasons why most producers in that genre's market segment are on Ableton, FL Studio and Bitwig...

 

[Pier]

Anything is "much more than usable." The only limiting factor is the willingness of the producer or composer to put in the work to reach that breakpoint.

Well then why even argue about usable vs optimal? That's your original point, isn't it?

Cubase is "much more than usable" for producing EDM, but there objective reasons why most producers in that genre's market segment are on Ableton, FL Studio and Bitwig...

It's really more nuanced than that.

DAWs are really a set of tools. Some of these tools might be better than others at doing genre specific stuff but I don't agree about these categorical declarations you're making.

Live and Bitwig might be better at working with loops and sound design than Cubase. OTOH Cubase's piano roll and arrangement view, that are fundamental to writing any sort of music, are really lightyears ahead.

You're also arguing about popularity which I don't think has a strong relationship with the tools themselves. There are huge cultural implications. Maybe they don't use Cubase because their friends use Live, or maybe because the UI is aesthetically outdated. I know plenty of Live users who haven't even tried other DAWs. And let's not forget Ableton has invested a ton of money positioning its brand in that particular market.

 

[Trensharo]

Well then why even argue about usable vs optimal? That's your original point, isn't it?

I'm not arguing. I stated that something being usable doesn't mean it's optimal, because you stated that someone seems to be doing fine with FL Studio.

What is there to even argue about?

You can paddle a boat with a baseball bat, and it's usable, but a paddle is better. That is my point. DAWs are no different.

Pro Tools is - objectively - a more optimal studio recording solution than FL Studio. Can you "do it just fine" with FL Studio? Yes. Sure... However, we know what even its own users have to say about that.

It's really more nuanced than that.

Which is kind of the premise of my initial statement. It's more nuanced than seeing a YouTube video and saying "this guy gets things done just fine using DAW_01."

DAWs are really a set of tools. Some of these tools might be better than others at doing genre specific stuff but I don't agree about these categorical declarations you're making.

How can you say a DAW can have better tools for doing genre specific stuff, but then say that you disagree with what I'm saying? Those mutually exclusive statements.

Live and Bitwig might be better at working with loops and sound design than Cubase. OTOH Cubase's piano roll and arrangement view, that are fundamental to writing any sort of music, are really lightyears ahead.

The disparity between Cubase and Ableton's Piano Rolls are not in the same stratosphere as the disparity with some of the tools that Ableton has for Sound Design and Loop work that eclipse what Cubase has on offer. Most people would say FL Studio has a better Piano Roll than Cubase, but that doesn't change my statement on the matter (upthread).

What Cubase can do in the Piano roll is generally able to be accomplished in Ableton or Bitwig. What they can do with Sound Design is - in some cases - literally undoable in Cubase without a plug-in.

Which was exactly my point. You can do the scoring stuff in FL despite it not being as optimal as Cubase because there are ways to accomplish the things that Cubase does better in FL Studio. But there are pockets of functionality that give massive productivity or functional gains for the production of certain type of music that isn't possible in some DAW. This is what makes them "less optimal" than others for producing those types of music.

You're also arguing

I'm not arguing. Disagreeing is not arguing. Offering a different perspective is not arguing.

about popularity which I don't think has a strong relationship with the tools themselves.

Popularity has nothing to do with it. I'm stating that there is a reason why those tools are popular in those markets, and if you ask uses the reasons are often not "popularity" but pockets of functionality in those solutions that are weak - and sometimes nonexistent - in Cubase.

For example, many people in the EDM market do not rate the Sampler [Track 2] in Cubase as highly as that in Ableton, FL or Bitwig - objectively.

There are huge cultural implications. Maybe they don't use Cubase because their friends use Live, or maybe because the UI is aesthetically outdated. I know plenty of Live users who haven't even tried other DAWs. And let's not forget Ableton has invested a ton of money positioning its brand in that particular market.

This has literally nothing to do with what I'm stating. Bandwagoning and peer pressure has nothing to do with my aforementioned statements. No projection, please.

 

[chocobitz825]

音楽制作ソフトウェア ABILITY 3.0（アビリティ）｜株式会社インターネット

株式会社インターネットは、作曲・音楽作成・サウンド編集・DTMソフトをご提供しています。

www.ssw.co.jp

Japanese developers crack at a DAW.

UI is not Japans strongpoint and many are used to drop down menus overall. More emphasis is put on the chord track with extended chords because that's common for Japanese music. Less emphasis on loops because 4 bar phrases are not standard. Phonetic nature of Japanese generally requires longer melodic phrases. Also no major emphasis on scales because Japanese songs tend to loosely utilize pentatonic scales. In japan I believe the top daws are logic, cubase, pro tools and studio one. Most of the features that appeal to western music aren't so extensively used and a major determining factor in which daws and instruments are used depend on their multilingual support.

 

[LatinXCombo]

I started off on Cakewalk Pro Audio in 1997. Eventually moved on to Ableton Live and MaxMSP. Then recently to Studio One and Cubase. Through that evolution I could understand that a DAW can be biased. It's baked into intentional an unintentional design. As a visual designer I came to see their bias as more complex that just a set of features.

As a musician I implicitly recognized, and accepted, that these DAWs are also biased towards Western theory as well. Why might some of us care? If we want to explore more music and more opportunities then we need to be aware of the bias. We use Ableton Live for certain tasks. We use Cubase for others. We often recognize how the technology influences us. So we should also consider the Western music theory biases.

I won't dive into many details at the moment. I sort think many people here are aware of this already. I want share a bibliography created elsewhere that contains many articles about the subject.

https://silpayamanant.wordpress.com/bibliography/daw-colonialism/



What are your thoughts on how your music software influences or limits your creative options? Do you restrict yourself to western theory and if so, why?

Is a set of metric wrenches biased?

 

[brainditch]

Is a set of metric wrenches biased?

Yes. Most certainly Metric Wrenches are biased. Get my point?

 

[chocobitz825]

its a simple question with an obvious answer. Does a DAW have a bias? absolutely. We know DAWs have bias by design. Genre bias is baked into many DAWs. Even if they have to the tools to accommodate any style of music, their marketing and design favors certain styles over others. We've seen daws move more toward beatmaking in recent years. We know some daws are better suited for scoring than others. Its obvious and we acknowledge that, but when considering that the non-western cultural elements of music might also be underrepresented, now its some challenge to western culture and supremacy? note I only use the term supremacy since someone brought up the idea that "if western culture is so bad why are talking in English" or some nonsense.

The most popular daws right now do tend to exclude the genres and cultures of music that the western world has simply lumped altogether into the ironically titled genre of "world music". thats a fact. non-offensive fact. still, since DAWs are versatile tools, even though they might not cater to those other genres of world music, there is generally a work around to make a DAW work for what you're doing.

 

[Sugar Free]

A DAW is a tool just like a hammer or a saw. While Western hand saw cuts when you push, a Japanese hand saw cut when you pull. Would you say, they have bias? You pick whichever tool works best for what you intend to do. A modern DAW barely covers the basics of Western music. Any attempt at "tempo rubato" or expressive timing and you are better off with a multitrack recorder.
Your DAW has can't even output a perfectly steady MIDI clock without jitter. In other words, your electric saw can barely cut a straight line, and you complain that it's biased and culturally insensitive? No, it's just a tool, which may be inadequate for most types of music.

If you ask what kind of music a DAW supports best, my answer is: Modern Pop.
Which is not the same as Western Music, which BTW has never been limited to the equal temperament.

P.S. The piano is not tuned to the equal temperament, neither is the violin.

 

[chocobitz825]

A DAW is a tool just like a hammer or a saw. While Western hand saw cuts when you push, a Japanese hand saw cut when you pull. Would you say, they have bias? You pick whichever tool works best for what you intend to do. A modern DAW barely covers the basics of Western music. Any attempt at "tempo rubato" or expressive timing and you are better off with a multitrack recorder.
Your DAW has can't even output a perfectly steady MIDI clock without jitter. In other words, your electric saw can barely cut a straight line, and you complain that it's biased and culturally insensitive? No, it's just a tool, which may be inadequate for most types of music.

If you ask what kind of music a DAW supports best, my answer is: Modern Pop.
Which is not the same as Western Music, which BTW has never been limited to the equal temperament.

P.S. The piano is not tuned to the equal temperament, neither is the violin.

Given that those saws are still made differently today, instead of a universal design that “fits all”, yes you could say there is a bias and cultural influence in their design and application. Ask a person why they’d buy one or the other, even though they both cut, and you’d likely have defenders of both who believe one is inherently better than the other because of its cultural relevance to them.

DAWs were designed to accommodate the needs of modern western pop music, and the rest of us found a way to use the same tools for everything else, even if it doesn’t specifically target other genres as well. I think we agree on that. The shortcomings you mention are an example of bias in the design. Where more emphasis was inherently put on certain needs more than others. It’s why we can have cubase and dorico at the same time. They overlap in many features but they’re designed to accommodate different needs.

I’m still not sure why this is offending people so much. Bias is not an inherently malicious thing. It's just acknowledging the focus or lack of focus on certain things that matter to others. Knowing daws have a bias toward pop, and less toward classical, isn't that relevant to acknowledge so we could expand the feature to better accommodate classical? Couldn't the same be said for making changes that benefit other languages and world genres?

 

[Trensharo]

I can't believe someone found a way to turn even this discussion into a social justice debate...

 

[chocobitz825]

I can't believe someone found a way to turn even this discussion into a social justice debate...

I'm not sure where "social justice" has come up anywhere since your last comment.

 

[Sugar Free]

Given that those saws are still made differently today, instead of a universal design that “fits all”, yes you could say there is a bias and cultural influence in their design and application. Ask a person why they’d buy one or the other, even though they both cut, and you’d likely have defenders of both who believe one is inherently better than the other because of its cultural relevance to them.

DAWs were designed to accommodate the needs of modern western pop music, and the rest of us found a way to use the same tools for everything else, even if it doesn’t specifically target other genres as well. I think we agree on that. The shortcomings you mention are an example of bias in the design. Where more emphasis was inherently put on certain needs more than others. It’s why we can have cubase and dorico at the same time. They overlap in many features but they’re designed to accommodate different needs.

I’m still not sure why this is offending people so much. Bias is not an inherently malicious thing. It's just acknowledging the focus or lack of focus on certain things that matter to others. Knowing daws have a bias toward pop, and less toward classical, isn't that relevant to acknowledge so we could expand the feature to better accommodate classical? Couldn't the same be said for making changes that benefit other languages and world genres?

We agree on most of what you said, except the meaning of "bias".
There are two basic definitions:
1. prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair.
2. a concentration on or interest in one particular area or subject.

The first definition, suggests that the status quo is unfair and should be changed.
The second definition is an objective statement of fact.

The way the original question was phrased reads like the definition 1, which is emotionally loaded, especially today, and that's why it's getting some push-back.
Tools can be generic or specialized, multi or single-functional, well-made or poor etc.
If you simply want a better or a more universal tool, and know how it should work, then just go ahead and make it. The market will reward you.