Er... yeah, I know. I'm not quite sure where we're going with this.

I don't think anyone's said she can. I do think this thread is starting to underline my point about knee jerk reactions to mainstream pop acts, though.

John T


Er... yeah, I know. I'm not quite sure where we're going with this.

For one thing putting Spears and Aretha Franklin in the same sentience is a sin.

Spears is a concept created by producers. She is not real. Without modren audio manipulation there would be no Spears. She is the perfect example of taking a sow's ear and making a silk purse out of her for prepubescent children.

I dunno, this feels a bit like I've fell into a time machine. Studio trickery has been being used to make great records with extremely limited musicians and singers since time immemorial. That's one point. Secondly, technical ability is not always that important, depending on what you're doing. Ever heard a Robert Johnson record? Couldn't sing, appalling guitarist. Absolutely mesmerising records. Surely these aren't bleeding edge ideas in the year 2011?

I'm really not promoting anyone as a singer. Honestly. This is, like I say, knee-jerk stuff. People are arguing against points I've not made. Where I started with the Aretha Franklin comparison was explicitly saying that Britney Spears is NOT a comparable singer.

It actually boggles my mind that somebody might not have heard of Public Enemy. They're like the black Sex Pistols in terms of their initial impact, and like the black Rolling Stones in terms of their longevity.

great! And your clients were not shocked or concerned not seeing MACs in your studio?

It's their studio. I just supplied the DAWs.

post edited by Desperate Dan - 2011/08/23 12:39:42

I think one thing that many people forget is that most major recording artists don't actually record themselves. In fact, most major pop albums are recorded in multiple studios using multiple producers and likely multiple DAWs. 
You can go into any big studio and expect to find one of two DAWs, Pro Tools HD or Logic. Most big pro studios also have a least one DAW engineer that operates the DAW, usually under the guidance of the producer. 
With that said there is nothing that you can't do in any of the major DAWs including SONAR that can't be recreated in some manner using a different DAW. Thanks to OMF files, projects started in one DAW can be moved relatively easily to another one for final mixing. 
I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that it doesn't really matter which DAW a project starts off in. If its destined to be a big hit, it will probably wind up being converted to Pro Tools or Logic format at some point. However, it is not necessary for it to start off in that format and most decent studios are prepared to handle projects that don't originate in their studios native format.

-e.B

LJB


What the hell... I never said Oakenfold OR Public Enemy were obscure. I actually posted that comment before that statement came in, but the forum what it is placed mine later. Probably because I'm 8 hours ahead of you gyuyts or something. My comment was about the restoration of the Butterfly example. And I stand by it. And Brandon, now's a  bit late to get in on it. Go test something :O)

Hi Ludwig,

Bub was the one who said Oakenfold was "obscure" so my comments were in reference to those, not yours.

FWIW: Terry Howard (R.I.P) did a lot more than restoration. Many recordings were made in SONAR as well. The (mostly-private) studio itself in LA used SONAR as their main DAW.

John T


Yeah, very good point. Being an efficient ProTools operator is fairly important if you want an actual *job* in one of the major studios. If you operate independently, it doesn't matter at all. Everything I work on that comes from elsewhere comes to me as audio files. I don't think I've ever been asked what software I use, apart from in an idly curious sort of way. It never comes up when pitching for work.

It's exactly true. If you want to work as a house engineer in a major studio (numbers dwindling all the time so think real hard before embarking on this path) then knowing how to use PT is pretty much a pre-requisite. But if you work in your own personal studio (numbers growing everyday) or in a smaller boutique studio then you can use whatever you think works best for you or whatever the facility itself favors.

Many many recording projects these days pass through any number of DAW's before they are finally delivered.

I find the desire to use what everyone else is using to sometimes be an issue of insecurity. And sometimes it's a way to get around doing any real personal research. "Oh that's the industry standard everyone uses? Ok it must be good so I'll use it too". Sometimes it's a necessity to have Pro Tools - at a bare minumum for commercial studios to be able to import and export PT session files, or because clients and/or visiting engineers request it.

I'm one of those who has generally tended to run screaming from what the herd was using, doing, listening to, etc. In most cases there has been something that suited me better once I did the research or got a little experience in the subject.

Brandon Ryan [Cakewalk
]

 "Oh that's the industry standard everyone uses? Ok it must be good so I'll use it too". Sometimes it's a necessity to have Pro Tools - at a bare minumum for commercial studios to be able to import and export PT session files, or because clients and/or visiting engineers request it. 


Sometimes my clients ask "What's that DAW?'. I answer "X1, it's just like the PT but more advanced". They're always happy and just keep on staring how quickly I can do things with it.  In factI have inspired many of my clients to purchase SONAR! 
My studio has not been chosen only *once* during the past five years because I did not have PT. After that I bought the cheapest PT Mbox and added 'Pro Tools' to the web site.  I didn't install it, though... 

Thank ya kindly SteveC, ol pal

 
You're quite welcome.  Besides, I figured it would be a nice break from the Brittany vs. Aretha discussion.    
 
But for those who don't know...  yorolpal did a swell remix of Peter Gabriel's Shock The Monkey a few years back that was both very well done and hilarious (IMHO) at the same time.  From what I can recall the background vocals really nailed it.
 

John, may I ad to that and say that certain feature sets make certain software packages attractive. If you need a feature from another DAW to get the job done, then nothing wrong with that. I got PT for two reasons - reliability during live concert recording and elastic audio. When X1 gets the audiosnap across 14+ drumtracks really really right (and easy), I may well stop using PT again.
But fixing performances is so much part of our daily job nowadays, I just got tired of wasting time with a tool that wasnt quite what I needed. X1 again has so many killer features and included instruments, plus is super user-friendly, I don't know where I would without it. I'd love to say this or that is perfect and just get on with it, but no software package is ever perfect. PT 9.05 is busy downloading on my other PC - that means they too have bugs to fix.

There is an awfull lot of DAW snobbism (dare I say biggotry) everywhere, and I think it hurts people's chances to learn something new and hopefully create better art. You get this kind of thing on other forums as well, as I'm sure you know. It never hurts to check out the "other side/dark side/far side" :O) How many of us read the other DAW tutorials in Sound On Sound etc? I do - it's so cool to see what these cats get up to. It's challenging and inspiring.

But then, I'm just a PT-lovin, Sonar-usin, long-haired bassplayer from darkest Africa :O)

LJB


John, may I ad to that and say that certain feature sets make certain software packages attractive. If you need a feature from another DAW to get the job done, then nothing wrong with that. I got PT for two reasons - reliability during live concert recording and elastic audio. When X1 gets the audiosnap across 14+ drumtracks really really right (and easy), I may well stop using PT again.
But fixing performances is so much part of our daily job nowadays, I just got tired of wasting time with a tool that wasnt quite what I needed. X1 again has so many killer features and included instruments, plus is super user-friendly, I don't know where I would without it. I'd love to say this or that is perfect and just get on with it, but no software package is ever perfect. PT 9.05 is busy downloading on my other PC - that means they too have bugs to fix.

There is an awfull lot of DAW snobbism (dare I say biggotry) everywhere, and I think it hurts people's chances to learn something new and hopefully create better art. You get this kind of thing on other forums as well, as I'm sure you know. It never hurts to check out the "other side/dark side/far side" :O) How many of us read the other DAW tutorials in Sound On Sound etc? I do - it's so cool to see what these cats get up to. It's challenging and inspiring.

But then, I'm just a PT-lovin, Sonar-usin, long-haired bassplayer from darkest Africa :O)

Can't argue with any of that. However, I believe its paramount to learn the tool one is using. Know it well then see what is out there. I Have used Logic (loved it until Apple got hold of it) Cubase and PT I have Reaper and Studio One as well as FL Studio.  I work only in Sonar. Even when I was a Logic lover I used Pro Audio to do simple stuff for it that was not as easy in Logic. I fully support the you are coming at this. Its not the same as if "so and so uses it I have to too". You have very valid reasons to use PT and I can think of others.

If you check out this forum you will notice a lot of basic questions that should have been answered from reading the manual. Often its about not knowing about a feature that has been in Sonar for a long time.  However, I do learn stuff almost every day here. We are very lucky in that so many are happy to give of themselves and impart a lot of solid knowledge here.

konradh

       
Sorry, I have to run now to catch my limo full of Victoria's Secret models who will be fawning over me as I cut yet another platinum LP for Sony—and then I'm off to do a quick cameo in a major motion picture (which I will also score). 

gush I 'm jealous...good to be a pro