LTM

[LiquidEyes]

I think a kind of snobbery has developed over the last few years, as a result of music software becoming cheaper and easier to use. Some artists who have been composing for years seem to be bitter that now "everyone can do it".

 

The most talented artists will always stand out in the end though. If someone writes a classic tune with £39 worth of software and a crappy PC, I say good luck to them.

[LTM]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jun 18 2004, 15:20)

I think a kind of snobbery has developed over the last few years, as a result of music software becoming cheaper and easier to use. Some artists who have been composing for years seem to be bitter that now "everyone can do it". The most talented artists will always stand out in the end though. If someone writes a classic tune with £39 worth of software and a crappy PC, I say good luck to them.

I have no problem with that. It's a known fact that So Solid Crew - Dilemma, that minimal instrumental track which was huge on the underground garage scene was made on Music 2000 on the playstation. I love that tune.

 

I just think it's easier to make music of a releasable standard on Cubase, Reason, Logic or what not rather then Fruity, because there are so many Fruity users but you can't think of many producers out there with records deals using fruity. I think if you're making tunes for fun it's great if you wanna get more serious opt for Reason and Cubase.

Edited June 18, 2004 by LTM

[LiquidEyes]

How can you be so sure what applications people use? There are thousands of artists out there, for all you know there could be shedloads of people using Fruity!

 

I've heard some WICKED tracks come out of Fruity. I have a friend who owns a record label, he spends 80% of his time with Fruity making loops, and about 20% of the time doing the final arrangements in Cubase. His tunes fucking rule.

[LTM]

QUOTE (LiquidEyes @ Jun 18 2004, 23:48)

How can you be so sure what applications people use? There are thousands of artists out there, for all you know there could be shedloads of people using Fruity! I've heard some WICKED tracks come out of Fruity. I have a friend who owns a record label, he spends 80% of his time with Fruity making loops, and about 20% of the time doing the final arrangements in Cubase. His tunes fucking rule.

What is your mats name is he a big shot producer? No?

 

Seriously the well known producers, hardly any use Fruity try checking their websites and looking at their studio gear. Anyone if they have the money can set up a label and release their tunes even if they make them on Ejay hardly a good argument. Reason is the biggest selling music sequencer out there and is professionally recognised as the industry standard all in one virtual studio. I mean fuck it man you can excel on either one of these software like Guyver has done with fruity for his earlier tunes I don't care like someone said good music is good music I'm just saying on a professional level Fruity really is not recognised, cos it's basic as fuck. You'd be doing yourself a favour if you're starting out fresh as a newbie producer with a lot to learn getting Logic, Cubase, Nuendo, Reason instead of Fruity. Because you'll be a better producer for it in the long run cos they are so much more versatile. Even better just fucking use them all if you can. You can create good percussion in Fruity. As a stand alone piece of software it's not very good that's my opinion end of fucking story.

[Guest Don]

How do you know he isn't a big shot? You assume far too much....

[ReBirth]

QUOTE (LTM @ Jun 18 2004, 14:01)

the way fx is used it just sounds like Fruity.

That would be because most amateur producers don't understand the concept of the send/return system when using FX. They put FX on channel inserts, which you can't do in Cubase and Logic..hence no one doing it, lol.

 

Fruity, Cubase, Logic etc all pretty much do the sam thing in the end..it's there to lay down your tracks...It's what you do with your VST instruments and plug-ins, samples etc that coutns at the end of the day..the rest is just laying down the track sequence.

 

I do agree that a lot of tracks sounds similar that's made in Fruity..but that's because as stated above it's easy to use, and you onlt realise it with amateur productions..There's actually quite a few professional producers that use it, but you don't know it simply because there's no differencei n the standard.

 

Below is my remix of Rank 1 - Airwave with this post...made in Fruity. The break ispretty much identical to the original, so doe that mean Rank 1 themselves has used Fruity all this time ??

 

Rank 1 - Airwave (P.H.A.T.T. Remix)

 

Edited June 19, 2004 by ReBirth

[Aaron]

Nice remix!

[ReBirth]

thnx mate

 

In negotiations about releasing this atm..if all things go well it should be out later this year, or early next year.

[Aaron]

Will keep my eyes open for it!

[LTM]

QUOTE (ReBirth @ Jun 19 2004, 18:45)

QUOTE (LTM @ Jun 18 2004, 14:01) the way fx is used it just sounds like Fruity. That would be because most amateur producers don't understand the concept of the send/return system when using FX. They put FX on channel inserts, which you can't do in Cubase and Logic..hence no one doing it, lol.   Fruity, Cubase, Logic etc all pretty much do the sam thing in the end..it's there to lay down your tracks...It's what you do with your VST instruments and plug-ins, samples etc that coutns at the end of the day..the rest is just laying down the track sequence.   I do agree that a lot of tracks sounds similar that's made in Fruity..but that's because as stated above it's easy to use, and you onlt realise it with amateur productions..There's actually quite a few professional producers that use it, but you don't know it simply because there's no differencei n the standard.   Below is my remix of Rank 1 - Airwave with this post...made in Fruity. The break ispretty much identical to the original, so doe that mean Rank 1 themselves has used Fruity all this time ??   Rank 1 - Airwave (P.H.A.T.T. Remix) What? Anyone can reconstruct a breakdown like that the strings don't sound nearly as strong as in the Original either so that's a bad argument there. It's well done tho but it fucking sounds like a Fruity production through and through. Sorry. I do like it tho.

[ReBirth]

QUOTE (LTM @ Jun 19 2004, 22:57)

What? Anyone can reconstruct a breakdown like that

ok, u do it then

[ReBirth]

Guyver posted this link on the Tidy forum...very interesting read..

 

http://djbb.dk/floops/index.php?cat=sf-antialiasing_test

[Ian Cashman]

QUOTE (ReBirth @ Jun 19 2004, 18:45)

They put FX on channel inserts, which you can't do in Cubase and Logic

you can route FX however you please in logic

[Ian Cashman]

QUOTE (ReBirth @ Jun 19 2004, 18:45)

Fruity, Cubase, Logic etc all pretty much do the sam thing in the end..it's there to lay down your tracks...It's what you do with your VST instruments and plug-ins, samples etc that coutns at the end of the day..the rest is just laying down the track sequence.

agreed.

 

(i just hate the fruity interface) Each to their own.

[ReBirth]

QUOTE (Ian Cashman @ Jun 20 2004, 01:35)

you can route FX however you please in logic

Ian : yea, you're right, in Cubase too. I remember now that at SAE they rigged Logic, ProTools and Cubase that way sothat the students could learn to do it the right way.

 

But the point still stands that if you know how to use it correctly, then there's nay difference in how it sounds. If I am to redo my remix in Logic, using exactly the same VST instruments and VST plugins, you won't hear any diference Mr.LTM...

 

I talked to Piet and Benno this morning, and they said that they can't hear any audible difference between the pads of the original and my remix...I just find it interesting that you can hear the "fruity" sound in it, but they can't...