#1
When artists say "We don't use Pro Tools cause it isn't real" or something like that.. Does that mean there just using some other DAW software or would you think that just means they don't use any DAW type software. Just wondering. I can't think Pro Tools is that different to other software.
Ben Pazolli
-----------------------
Epiphone Dot Studio
VOX Valvetronix VD-30AD
VOX V847 WAH-WAH Pedal
Boss Loop Station RC-2
-----------------------
"The nicest guy you'll ever f............ind"
#2
I think when they say that it is more related to the capacity to artificially construct music within Pro Tools (or any DAW). Some artists probably do not like seeing bands move every instrument into perfect timing, and copy and paste parts to other sections of a song. Its not as "natural." I personally don't care so long as a song sounds good. Sometimes overproduction like this, however, can really **** with the dynamics and make a song uninteresting. Thats probably an even bigger problem for most artists.
Check out Hear the Indie for music reviews, interviews, and more.

Want a review? Send me a PM or email through the contact form on my site.
#4
Digital Audio Workstation, can I get a picture or something? Still don't understand... analogue means=? I'm kinda a "noob" when it comes to naming equipment, I don't even remember my guitar model... I just play..
#5
They are pretty much idiots when they say that.

I know what they are getting at, but it's still an incredibly ignorant thing to say.
The technology didn't cause the lack of talent, it just brought it to the publics eye.
#6
Quote by Zeletros
Digital Audio Workstation, can I get a picture or something? Still don't understand... analogue means=? I'm kinda a "noob" when it comes to naming equipment, I don't even remember my guitar model... I just play..


DAW = Any software on a computer that records music.

Analog = Older type stuff like tapes and stuff like that.
Derpy Derp Derp Herp Derp
#7
The correct term for Pro Tools is actually a sequencer, DAW is commonly (and incorrectly even by myself on a few occassions) used to refer to a sequencer.

A DAW is however, a Digital Audio Workstation and crompises of the full audio setup (pc, interface, sequencer).
Owen - Sound Engineer - Mixing & Editing Available, PM for details.
#8
Quote by bpazolli
When artists say "We don't use Pro Tools cause it isn't real" or something like that.. Does that mean there just using some other DAW software or would you think that just means they don't use any DAW type software. Just wondering. I can't think Pro Tools is that different to other software.


Pro Tools isnt..."Real"?!?!
Well what system have I been touching and recording on for the past few months with a nice digi control console and two rack mount 96 I/O interfaces?

ProTools is just another layout and does everything most high end software will do...
I personally enjoy Sonar 8 Producer and Audition 3 the best but ProTools is still nice if you have a large system to go along with it.
#9
Quote by Beefmo
The correct term for Pro Tools is actually a sequencer, DAW is commonly (and incorrectly even by myself on a few occassions) used to refer to a sequencer.

A DAW is however, a Digital Audio Workstation and crompises of the full audio setup (pc, interface, sequencer).


The two can be used interchangeably.

First things first, a sequencer is usually used to describe an editor for use with MIDI.
This comes from the old hardware pattern sequencers that drum machines and synths would use in the days before MIDI and the sequencer sent out control voltage (also known as CV) to each piece of hardware to tell it what to play.
When MIDI came around, the edit windows in programs like Reason, Logic, and Digital performer were called sequencer windows because they sent out MIDI to outboard instruments as well as virtual ones.

Pro Tools is considered a DAW by Digidesign, and so are Cubase, Nuendo, Sonar, Reaper, etc.
And all of the above programs are listed under "DAWs" in the sweetwater catalog and several other pro sound suppliers.

I'm not going to sit here and argue over semantics, but I know more than a fair share of engineers and producers, and every single one has referred to the softwares as DAWs.
#10
Quote by Rakoro

I'm not going to sit here and argue over semantics, but I know more than a fair share of engineers and producers, and every single one has referred to the softwares as DAWs.


Yeah, it has become a fairly interchangeable term.

Its good to be aware of the technical distinction though, which is why I highlighted that point, not really out of desire to argue about what we should call stuff.
Owen - Sound Engineer - Mixing & Editing Available, PM for details.
#11
"A music sequencer (or just sequencer) is an application or a device designed to play back musical notation."

Guitar Pro, Powertab, Sibelius are sequencers, most DAW's have sequencers built in.
Quote by StraightxXxEdge
Quote by Truespin
you can't use a guitar to replace your lack of charm or social skills.

Worked for Malmsteen.
#13
Quote by Josher.K
"A music sequencer (or just sequencer) is an application or a device designed to play back musical notation."

Guitar Pro, Powertab, Sibelius are sequencers, most DAW's have sequencers built in.


The original kind of sequencer is now known as a step sequencer to distinguish it from the modern kind, which records a musician playing notes.
[...]
As the technology matured, sequencers gained more features, including the ability to record multitrack audio, and the ability to control virtual instruments known as plug-ins


So we have modern sequencers and step sequencers, Guitar Pro being a step sequencer and Pro Tools being a modern sequencer.

If we look at the article for DAW:

A computer-based DAW has three components: a computer, an ADC-DAC, and digital audio editor software.


However, as aforementioned, DAW has since become fairly interchangable with just the software element.
Owen - Sound Engineer - Mixing & Editing Available, PM for details.
#14
I don't agree with the whole philosophy that DAWs are fake. I think there's a distinct difference between recording in a studio vs playing live. When recording, it's about the music and playing it the best that it can be played. It's like art work; fixing mistakes and making those perfect lines in a drawing. As for live, it's about the humanistic feel to the song along with the energy, almost like as if it's the band's interpretation of the music they wrote. That's where I feel that auto-pitch correcting and such do not belong and would be fine if people called that "fake". It's hard for me to describe the distinct difference properly but I hope that makes some sense about my opinion on it.
#15
Agreed. Recording and mixing is about exaggerated reality most of the time, people want things to become bigger, more powerful and warm. Failure to fulfill these obligations will often result in direct criticism. It often strips a layer of humanity away from proceedings because in our minds we dont want that, we want our guitar players to nail every note of the solo, our drummers to be impeccably timed, our vocalists to be exactly in tune.

Modern techniques have found ways to facilitate such wants to an even greater extent, and to the the degree that many find the music too superhuman, people like things that they can aspire up to and hold in high regard, what they often don't like is something that is never realistically attainable.

Mixing has become a process of making a song into some sort of super-reality, whilst trying to keep it believable. Sometimes mixers have to make a compromise in lower level recordings between super unrealistic or a genuine musical failure, given the two options the public will never accept the latter, but will often begrudge the former.
Owen - Sound Engineer - Mixing & Editing Available, PM for details.
#16
i see where they are coming from, you can make music so precise there is no "feel" to it, it's just too in time. there's really no right or wrong way, it's preference.