EnochLight wrote:How is an optional workflow that you don't have to even touch, if you so choose to stay with the "classic" workflow, a bad thing? Sequences and Song Mode is still there.
To be clear, my problem at base level is with locking programs to tracks. The rest is window dressing, both good and bad. I appreciate that it might seem to be jumping the gun a bit to have takes at this stage but like from the second they announced this change I knew it’d be a deal breaker, and everything I’ve seen and read since just confirms that it’s exactly what I understood it to be from the get go.
Don’t need to have tried it to know that it’s the end of loading a bunch of programs and seeing what sticks. Or of creating live sets based on sequences that change up sounds while retaining the same basic structure for easy navigation. And that it logically follows that other basic techniques will be impacted to a greater or lesser extent as a knock on, e.g. track mutes and exploding tracks.
I get that there are workarounds usually involving a bunch of different tracks and/or more complex programs aka “drum tracks”. Which range between absolute dogshit and merely much worse than what we have right now. I’m also pretty confident that some of the worst knock-on problems will be fixed, e.g. track mutes, but the core and most destructive change is baked into the foundations.
On the “DAWless’” thing, I’ve always thought it was pretty much a racket - if you make people believe that the laptop is the problem rather than the fact that making good music is hard, then it’s easy to present buying more gear as a solution. But there’s never going to be a single piece that will miraculously make producing a track a breeze from start to finish and cut out all the hard work studying records, music theory, engineering, just learning the tools. As well as the willpower to push through the blocks that come between jamming out an idea and finishing a track. Doesn’t matter what tools you use, this is really what it’s about.
Don’t get me wrong, I use and appreciate a bunch of hardware and DAWs for their different strengths and processes. I mean, really my point is that the program/track/sequence core is unique and turns out to be a pretty elegant solution to a lot of things other gear/DAWs struggle with. So blowing that up just to work like a DAW at base level seems insane to me, it removes the main reason to pick the MPC over a bunch of other established tools that work the same way only better or more powerful. It’s like Elektron ditching parameter locks because it’s confusing beginners.
Although someone mentioned Maschine and fwiw that’s the only gear I’ve ever owned that I just couldn’t get on with even to the point of being able to get a basic jam going. Just the absolute worst imho. Make of that what you will.
Anyway, also should be clear that like I said just venting. This is obviously where it’s going and there are reasons for this choice, even if I personally wish they’d gone a different way. It’s pretty easy to try it out and then revert to an actual MPC if/when the obvious problems play out as expected.
Certified Beatz wrote:They will complain why the MPC isn't making the beats for them 
Well, this has been the pattern for every single one of the previous latest and greatest DAWless Daw, Ableton in a Box type holy grails, so I don’t see why 3.0 would be different. Hype turns very quickly into nitpicking and complaining. But here it’ll have the added sauce of watching people bumping their heads up against a bunch of problems and limitations that the MPC way is great at solving.
That change to 2.? Was a colour change and a little rearranging from a pc /renaissance point of view. 
