Talk:Ableton Live

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale
Electronic music Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Electronic music, set up to organize and expand entries on Electronic music.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in June 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at /Delete.

Contents

[edit] Differences between Live and most DAWs

I think there needs to be more of a distinction between Live and most DAWs - whilst Live was designed to have the capability of Live performance, it certainly not it's only function. As a writing tool it is extremely powerful it's use of the session view and is one of the few DAWs that truely allows for non-linear music production. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebbi (talk • contribs) 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notoriety

Before adding musicians to the notable users section, please see the Wikipedia page on notability in music. Live users which do not meet these standards (or more accurately, cannot be determined to meet these standards in a couple minutes of searching) will be removed.

Hint: Do not add yourself.

For websites, see the external links guidelines. Usually you should not be adding your own site here. In general links from Wikipedia should be to already established sites, not to sites that have recently been created. (i.e. they should be informational, not advertisements, basically) Scott.wheeler 17:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Real-time processing (Mild hyperbole?)

The article states: "Additionally because of the performance aspect of Live's design, all of the processing is done in real-time, rather than rendering effects prior to playback as is typical in many sequencers and sample editors."

I do not know of any sequencer that prerenders effects, and all of the sample editors I have used now support realtime effect processing to some degree.

That all processing is done in realtime in Live is well executed and how the interface to that processing is produced is an important part of live, so I'm not advocating deletion, rather that the (IMO invalid) comparison to the other programs be removed and the line reworded. I'll have a shot at it later when it's percolated a bit in my head. --Kristleifur 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, not sure I'd agree there, though admittedly, it's been a while since I did a run through of the popular sequencers. Part of what I was trying to say was that there isn't even an option for such, though since that was added in 5.x, that's no longer true. (You can now "freeze" tracks.) Scott.wheeler 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean! I think we're basically on the same page :) What about something like this? It's a bit bloated though: "Additionally because of the performance aspect of Live's design, it is possible to do any audio processing available in the program in real-time, and the user interface is designed to be well-suited to that. " --Kristleifur 00:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Fine with me. Scott.wheeler 22:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Re-alphabetizing

I've just re-alphabetized the list of notable users, so that artists listed under their given names are alphabetized by last name, as is fairly standard. If anyone has any problem with this, or if I broke anything, my apologies.

Additionally, though I don't really have time to add it myself, it might be nice to see the history of Live delved into more - many users are recent, and might want to know more about how the software has changed from version to version; e.g., what features were added when, &c. Just a thought! 66.7.44.148 20:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable users

This keeps getting larger by the week. Would it be worth making a new article for the list and then just leave some of the more famous users there? --Jimmyjrg 13:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • No, I disagree with making a new list article. I think a category would be much more appropriate if you'd like to create a directory of people who use/used Ableton Live. Wickethewok 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right, that is a much better idea. Jimmyjrg 11:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the list is becoming less and less useful. Originally when I wrote it it was simply a list of the artists on the Ableton page. At this point as Live has become increasingly visible it makes less and less sense to list the users. I agree that a category is probably the way to go. This will also remove the need to constantly monitor for folks adding themselves. Scott.wheeler 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What should the category be called? [[Category:Artists who use Ableton Live]]? [[Category:Ableton Live users]]? Thoughts? Wickethewok 13:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
    • [[Category:Ableton Live users]] would be ok. --Jimmyjrg 06:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Done. Listing is now at Category:Ableton Live users. Wickethewok 18:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Forgive me if I sound stupid, but what encyclopaedic purpose does having a list of "Ableton Live Users" serve? It seems as though much of the article along with the list serves as more of a bunch of Ableton propaganda than anything. In my personal opinion, the list itself should cease to exist and a criticisms section should be added to the article which, although well written, contains no criticism of the software whatsoever.

The "New features in Live 6" section, also, looks as if it's just an advert for Live 6 in encyclopaedic format. It even contains the price and information on a student discount :|...

Finally, there needs to be sources cited throughout the whole article. We should look at providing a comprehensive roundup of the software as I understand it is very popular. senex 07:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fade Copy Protection

is it worth mentioning about copy protection that doesnt kick in until months after installation google "fade protection ableton"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forwardjoshua (talk • contribs).

  • Probably not, I don't even see any reliable sources on this. Wickethewok 05:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • How about: My copy stopped working last night and ima punch a hole in the wall if someone doesn't fix this. kthnx - 220.239.249.241 (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Misc. Discussion

I had a note in my talk section from scott.wheeler about the previous information that I had posted under "working with audio clips" about live-ready files. I am re-posting it, without the link that I originally gave (http://dancemusic.about.com/od/reviews/a/DanceDigAbleton.htm -- though I am still not really sure why that source should not have been cited, especially as the ableton live wikipage is flagged under "articles with unsourced statements" ...if someone could explain that to me, that would be great). I think that this is an important addition to the article because the i have found the live-ready files to be quite useful when I use ableton live, and I think that it represents a significant innovation in the overall ableton live service. Bravo November 22:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bravo -- The problem was that the text was copied verbatim from there, which is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy and it also reads like an ad. On those grounds I've removed it again. If you'd like for it to be reposted, please give justification here before continuing. (That's usual procedure when there's a dispute on content.) Thanks! Scott.wheeler 17:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Reading more closely I see that it wasn't an exact copy; sorry about that. However, I still believe that the ad comment is correct, but I'd like to hear from a couple more of the article's editors to see what their feeling on this is. Scott.wheeler 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I have reposted the information about Live-Ready files, but I have edited the text to make it sound like less of an advertisement. If you think that it still sounds too much like an advert, please edit just the text of what I have written, rather than deleting it -- this is a valuable bit of information that not many people know about; and I thought that the point of wikipedia was to provide users with information....Bravo November 23:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the discussion page is the place to build a concensus before adding these sorts of things. I mentioned that in my last post. Please do not re-add these links without further discussion. The links you've added not up to spec with WP:EL in my opinion (as was mentioned in the standard template I used on your user discussion page). Further, the text that you added is factually incorrect. A quick google search revealed that at least 3beatdigital is also selling Live sets (and there may be others; I seem to remember at least one other one being posted to the Live users list a while back) and at least a couple places that offer them for free (usually for a limited number of artists). I'm fine having a generic comment that there exist places offering downloads, but I don't think a list of such stores belongs in WP. A feature article in a reliable source might make me reconsider.
All of that said, seriously, welcome to Wikipedia; I certainly do have the sense that your edits are in good faith. But it takes a while to get a feel for the editorial standards. (Which, incidentally is why this article doesn't have enough sources; I wrote it when I was still new to WP.) Re-adding content after an objection without first reaching a concensus is one of the no-nos.  ;-) Scott.wheeler 00:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. The thing that I thought was most important about the bit I was trying to post was about the "live-ready" files in general. I didn't really care who sold them or whatever... I use Dancetracks Digital to buy my pre-adjusted ableton files, and I have not been able to find them anywhere else, that is why I placed an external link to their site. I checked out the 3beatdigital site and found that they do sell live-ready files as well, you were right. In terms of consensus, nobody else has written anything, so I am not sure that anyone else cares except for you and me (which would it hard to reach a consensus on anything), so i would like to hear more from other users -- though as it is now, after your last edit, I think what is written is adequate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bravo November (talk • contribs) 15:48, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version

Some one update the version, to version 7 please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.109.96.202 (talk) 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Was version 7 released yet? What date? Wickethewok 06:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No, it's still not out. Scott.wheeler 12:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Livelogo.png

Image:Livelogo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved.