If I recall correctly one of their producers is from Linkin Park?

Take a look at the credits for American Tragedy... that is a whole buncha SONAR licenses:






From wiki

Credits for American Tragedy adapted from Allmusic.[51]

Musicians

Hollywood Undead

• Charlie Scene – vocals, lead guitar, composer, clean vocals
• Da Kurlzz – drums, percussion, screams, vocals, composer
• Danny – clean vocals
• Funny Man – vocals, composer
• J-Dog – keyboards, synthesizers, piano, rhythm guitar, bass guitar, vocals, screams, composer, additional production, engineering
• Johnny 3 Tears – vocals, composer

Additional musicians

• Dean Butterworth – drums
• Dorian Crozier – drums
• Will Hunt – drums
• Daren Pfeifer – drums
• John 5 – guitar on "Lights Out"
• Jacob Williams (Channel 12) – additional guitar on "Been to Hell"
• Matt Mayes – vocals
• Petra Christensen – vocals
• Nick Layer- vocals
• Jamie Muhoberac – keyboards
• B.C. Smith – programming, keyboards
• Bart Hendrickson – programming
• Dave Katz – programming, guitar, composer
• Jeff Halavacs – composer
• Jacob Kasher – composer

Production

• Don Gilmore – production, composer
• Griffin Boice – production, engineering, mixing, guitar, bass guitar, drums, percussion, organ, programming, strings
• Ben Grosse – production, engineering, mixing, keyboards, programming, composer
• Jeff Halatrax – production, guitar
• Kevin Rudolf – production, engineering, instrumentation, composer
• S*A*M – production, programming, composer
• Sean Gould – engineering, mixing, guitar, bass guitar, programming
• Ken Dudley – engineering
• Paul Pavao – engineering
• Mark Kiczula – engineering
• Jeremy Miller – assistant engineer

• Grant Michaels – assistant engineer, programming
• Graham Hargrove – assistant engineer
• Sean Curiel – drum engineering
• Dylan Dresdow – mixing
• Serban Ghenea – mixing
• John Hanes – mixing
• Jaime Martinez – mixing assistant
• Tim Roberts – mixing assistant
• James Diener – A&R

Maybe that's the problem these days: music by committee.

Steve i have a question. You mentioned that the music made could have just as easy been made in Fruity loops, garagebank (garageband) or Reaper. I find that a curious comment from this stand point. Digital audio is just that, it does not matter what DAW it came from, once it is in the box it is the same. Numbers. Reaper, GarageBand, Sonar, Cubase, Protools, Logic, What ever can make the same sounding product.

I liken it to a carpenter. I can make the same cabinet with either Dewalt, Hitachi, Rockwell, or Bosch tools, no difference. The carpenter makes the product. The tools are just personal choice. What works with your work flow.

This is not meant for argument sake, just stating a fact, that we all know to be true.

Robomusic says (Firefox is not quoting anything ):

"I liken it to a carpenter. I can make the same cabinet with either Dewalt, Hitachi, Rockwell, or Bosch tools, no difference. The carpenter makes the product. The tools are just personal choice. What works with your work flow."

I think this is not the correct way to view the topic. Bearing in mind that X1 is supposed to be DAW 2.0, the carpentry example is more accurate to compare a hammer and a powered nail driver. X1 is supposed to be the latter, but you don't need a powered unit to simply hang a painting on the wall.

And that is part of my point (and others have confirmed): There doesn't seem to be anything about Hollywood Undead's music that requires a serious DAW program (and the overall sound -- forget opinions about the worth of the music -- is not very impressive).

As someone else said, the company would want to have a heavyweight speaking for the program, and maybe there are other adverts out there promoting varying genres of music. The Hollywood Undead ad is the first one I've scene, and I felt it was a marketing misstep.

Someone said HD has 10,000,000 Youtube views, as though that is a sign of quality. So McDonald's has the best burgers because of sheer sales? I didn't think so. :-)

I think another post perhaps said it best, about Roland spending too much effort trying to look hip; frankly, Ableton Live, FL, maybe Reason have already beaten you to it. X1 may have trouble being taken seriously when its "face" is shout-rap-rock (I wish I could remember who to thank for that genre description) where 64-bit doesn't seem to make a significant difference.

I'm not seeing a reason for this thread except as an opinion thread.  Nor do I see any reason to find fault with a group that no one has to listen to if the don't want to.

That CW is listing this group in an ad is up to CW. Why would anyone get upset with that. It wont rub off on anyone if they don't want it to.

It seems like a tempest in a teapot.

Jeff Evans


Steve you are implying that this band is the only artist representation of use of Cakewalk products. You forget about the artist page here:

http://www.cakewalk.com/Artist/

Check out the artist news as well. Plenty of other people using the product and it seems that quite a few different musical approaches are represented there. This band is only another addition to that as I see it. In fact the music is fine, the mix is great and it basically sounds fine. It just adds diversity to the musical landscape. The fact that not every aspect of the program may be used in the production of music like that (and how do you know many Sonar processes were not used) is not really an issue.

John the streaming rate seems OK to me, it sounds pretty decent at my end.

Well said and I completely agree with you.

I thought I heard some artifacts that I only hear when its a low streaming rate. I could be very wrong. I wasn't listening that close if you know what I mean.

Jonbouy

John


I'm not seeing a reason for this thread except as an opinion thread.  Nor do I see any reason to find fault with a group that no one has to listen to if the don't want to.

That CW is listing this group in an ad is up to CW. Why would anyone get upset with that. It wont rub off on anyone if they don't want it to.

It seems like a tempest in a teapot.

It is an opinion thread, on how X1 is being marketed.

And I'm sure yours is as welcome as any.

Where's the storm?  All I see is differing views. 

Why does any debate here constitute a storm or any other kind of disturbance it's all just the breeze to me?

Are you disturbed by it?

I never said there was a storm.  I was simply noting a lot of misguied passion for a very trite topic.

I also see it as a little unseemly for musicians to put down other musicians. No one has to like the music.  I'm old enough to remember what was done to and said about rock & roll musicians when it came along.

Jeff Evans


Steve you are implying that this band is the only artist representation of use of Cakewalk products. You forget about the artist page here:

http://www.cakewalk.com/Artist/

Check out the artist news as well. Plenty of other people using the product and it seems that quite a few different musical approaches are represented there. This band is only another addition to that as I see it. In fact the music is fine, the mix is great and it basically sounds fine. It just adds diversity to the musical landscape. The fact that not every aspect of the program may be used in the production of music like that (and how do you know many Sonar processes were not used) is not really an issue.

John the streaming rate seems OK to me, it sounds pretty decent at my end.

And there's not one there that has any major international distribution or fame. All second tier artists. If that's what Roland/Cakewalk wants to associate themselves with or that's the target user they're going for that's fine. But for Ro/Cake to legitimately call themselves DAW 2.0 then they're going to have to snag someone major that's long known for using ProTools, Nuendo or Digital Performer (plenty of major names using the latter like Devo). Get someone to say that has that big studio reputation to say: "We used Sonar from start to finish for our new album because we thought it was a better way to work than PT/DP/Nuendo".

Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of Rhetoric 

Did we really need a rhetorical law to point out that we can only have a reasoned discussion when we acknowledge that what we say has meaning?

I don't really know the true definition of this word... but I consider any dialog that is not forged with a desire for mutual understanding to serve as "banter".


best regards,
mike

I think you missed my 


Besides...that thing came out of  one of Arthur Block's books on Murphy's Laws....

I'd argue that point Steve, I think as a trouble maker I do have a certain talent.

Very much so......

FastBikerBoy


I'd argue that point Steve, I think as a trouble maker I do have a certain talent.

   I've opined in the past that your comment about the comment about talent is beneath your generally dignified persona... I personally find it in poor taste that you have semi permanently tattooed such an ugly sentiment into the forum.

  I think we should all be encouraging each other to make the most of what ever we have to work with.

 very best regards,
mike