Ableton Live 4 versus Cubase

[SJ_Digriz]

Strange, you know, but I never knew that playing professionally was the qualifier for being a traditional musician. All this time I've been misled.

I could care less really about Live, but it's sad to see people preach that living in a box is somehow more authentic than any other choice in life.

I agree that Cubase shouldn't be confused for Live, but I have to admit this is the first time I've ever seen anyone suggest Cubase was designed with musicians in mind. And seen as the "grand piano" of software. Ha, what a hoot.

And to preempt: yes I play a "real" instrument (several in fact), yes I've been trained to play them, and yes I think that arrogance masquerading as worldy experience is really just arrogance.

Cheerio,
Steve

wtf? I never said any of that. I'm saying that it seems that people who prefer Live seem to prefer an alternate musical style. The creation process that DJing goes through is totally different than what someone who records off of a score goes through. I never said one was better than the other. It was a serious question. Because it seems the communications gap is musical genre based to a large extent to me. I also said I would like to really find out if I was mistaken. So take that arrogance crap and stick it.

And just to be clear, Cubase WAS designed for studio use to manage instrument profiles. It got audio in the mixer simulation style later. It was NOT designed for necessarily for musicians.

[SJ_Digriz]

And to be quite clear. Lets say your job is to work as a recording technician at a concert venue. The purpose of your job is to multi-track record and manage a moderate to large number of feeds. Are you going to buy Cubase/Logic/Nuendo/Samplitude/Protools? or are you going to buy Live, Tracktion etc.... to do this work on a nightly basis.

I'm pointing out that these tools are entirely different. They serve a different purpose. They have similarities because they share the idea of track sequencing, but the layout and feature set have different goals.

[kuniklo]

This is a total guess on my part. But it seems to me that most Live users don't tend to be traditional musicians. So out of curiousity, how many of you that use live are musicians? And I mean that in the have played and studied a real instrument and played it in professional live situations? Not in the DJ sense. I'm very very curious. If I'm totally wrong I'd like to know it.

I agree with you that Live and Cubase are pretty different and have different strengths. I don't think anyone's arguing that point. The objection is that you seem to be insinuating that Live isn't usable for making real music. If so, I guess it would be fair to ask if someone who's never made any *real* electronic music if they really appreciate Live.

By that I'm not taking a dig at your music (which I haven't heard), but asking if a lifetime guitar player really gets electronic sound design.

[drez]

Can I ask you drez... What style of music do you ussually write? Maybe Live just doesn't really fit my 'genre', whatever that is. From the tutorials it seems that you create 'sections' and arrange them in a more formatic way. Is that correct? I can't see the ease of using this system in complex arrangements, and ever changing sequences.

Please correct me if I'm wrong... And I'll dive back into this demo to see if I can pull back a few more layers.

Hey Goa, click HERE for a sample of what I am working on. I don't play guitar or anything...I create my guitars with synths in Reason or Live, so I don't use any "acoustic" instruments...but I do like distortion

Yeah, I just jumped back in this thread after a page or so (my kid is sick ), and I've read more about how you work. I'd have to say, to me, the Live "advantages" are less imporatant for you.

When I write, I write a snippet and go on. Its not until I start putting together the linear song that I start changing it. My ideas are NEVER 40 seconds long...I can't think for 40 straight seconds so I just put together my best creative moments and then expand from there. When I start assembling those ideas, that sparks the creativity for the linear progression.

Is Live a loop tool? If you held a gun to my head then I'd have to say ...yes it is! Now please put the gun down!

BUT, I only use it that way at the start. Then I start changing things to longer phrases after I dump it into Arrange view. At that point, I can really develop the ideas, sequence the automation, etc. With the audio parts, I can start seriously messing with clip envelopes and warp markers over the entire song to change the feel...

but I primarily start with snippets of ideas. I guess you can call them loops if you'd prefer, but I don't think of them as loops when I write them, I just think of them as an idea for a sound or phrase.

[shamann]

Well I wasn't addressing only your posts, as the only specific reference to you was at the beginning and the end. But since you brought it up, shocking that I might catch a whiff of self-aggrandizement from:

So out of curiousity, how many of you that use live are musicians? And I mean that in the have played and studied a real instrument and played it in professional live situations? Not in the DJ sense.

Some might suggest that DJs are in fact "real" musicians, that the qualifier to become a "real" musician is to make music, that the term isn't a merit badge, and that a tool like Live should be considered a "real" instrument. To suggest otherwise would also suggest that somehow your use of one form of technology has a greater claim to authenticity than someone else's use of another technology to reach the same end.

And if my point still eludes anyone, I'm curious whether you actually understand the English language, I mean really studied it in academic setting and use it to make a living. I'm just asking, that's all, but I suspect you really don't.

See, that kind of stuff just isn't very neighbourly, now is it?

So take that arrogance crap and stick it.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Cheers,
Steve

[Goa Head]

Can I ask you drez... What style of music do you ussually write? Maybe Live just doesn't really fit my 'genre', whatever that is. From the tutorials it seems that you create 'sections' and arrange them in a more formatic way. Is that correct? I can't see the ease of using this system in complex arrangements, and ever changing sequences.

Please correct me if I'm wrong... And I'll dive back into this demo to see if I can pull back a few more layers.

Hey Goa, click HERE for a sample of what I am working on. I don't play guitar or anything...I create my guitars with synths in Reason or Live, so I don't use any "acoustic" instruments...but I do like distortion

Yeah, I just jumped back in this thread after a page or so (my kid is sick ), and I've read more about how you work. I'd have to say, to me, the Live "advantages" are less imporatant for you.

When I write, I write a snippet and go on. Its not until I start putting together the linear song that I start changing it. My ideas are NEVER 40 seconds long...I can't think for 40 straight seconds so I just put together my best creative moments and then expand from there. When I start assembling those ideas, that sparks the creativity for the linear progression.

Is Live a loop tool? If you held a gun to my head then I'd have to say ...yes it is! Now please put the gun down!

BUT, I only use it that way at the start. Then I start changing things to longer phrases after I dump it into Arrange view. At that point, I can really develop the ideas, sequence the automation, etc. With the audio parts, I can start seriously messing with clip envelopes and warp markers over the entire song to change the feel...

but I primarily start with snippets of ideas. I guess you can call them loops if you'd prefer, but I don't think of them as loops when I write them, I just think of them as an idea for a sound or phrase.

Cheers Drez, will listen to your tunage tomorrow morning. Gotta get back to the elipse.

[EnzymeX]

Here's a test for you, go to a club and record a jazz combo with 32 mics with Live, then do a multi-night merge to create a single best version with bits and pieces from each night? I would rather shoot myself in the head than use Live for that.

Totally agree with you on that point, for three main reasons: Control Surface Support, PDC, & Track Folders. In other words, Cubase and Sonar are appropriate tools for high volume tracking and serious mixdown tasks. Note the "engineering", not "musician" focus in this scenario.

When I record guitar, I usually play for anywhere from 30 to 40 seconds, to several minutes without stopping. I never go back and turn it into clips.

In Live, your take is already a "clip", ready for realtime arrangement. No extra steps.

I really don't use quantize either. When I record guitar, I usually play for anywhere from 30 to 40 seconds, to several minutes without stopping. I never go back and turn it into clips. I don't change the speed of the track unless I'm going for an effect.

When I play keyboards and record the MIDI track, I use very very loose quantizing 128th at the least if I even turn it on. I DON"T WANT it quantized. I want it how I played it. I don't go back and clip it up. I play again anywhere from 30 or 40 seconds, to several minutes without stopping. I then might go back and add automation to the instrument being played by the MIDI track. But I do VERY minor adjustements to the track itself. Usually nothing more than slight note length changes, or get rid of a clunker.

OK, that's great. There is nothing inherent in either platform that forces you to work otherwise...

Cubase is better for those that actually play the instruments they are trying to record.

In fact LIVE makes it HARDER to record in a traditional instrumental model.

So, in my opinion, if you are a guitar, keyboard, drummer etc... who wants to record your band, or write songs where you play the songs, I would recommend Cubase, Logic, or Sonar..probably in that order. If you want to loop and play around without being bothered by the old school instrumental model of recording then Live, Acid, Tracktion are probably your boys. There are more apps of both kinds and all of them cross over somewhat.

OK, consider my situation. I've been playing for 30 years, and have owned linear recording equipment for much of that time. I currenty own Cakewalk Sonar 3 PE, WaveLab, and Live 4. I play keyboards, Guitar and bass, and I write all original music. I do not use commercial loops in my compositions.

Bottom line: For a musician working alone, Live 4 is the closest thing to having a good engineer "following your takes" through the creative compositional process. There are very few steps needed to get tracks recorded, and likewise it is rare to even have to hit "stop" between takes. It's really that simple. Live 4 just disappears and lets you record quickly.

After you are done recording all your parts, Live then allows you to play them back in any order, in any combination, in realtime, just like improvising the arrangement with real musicians. Nothing else does that, period.

In other words, the first time you play back your parts the way you hear them in your mind, you have already created the rough arrangement!

That's the stage when I MAY whip out Sonar and rewire for mixdown, not a second before. To be honest, sometimes I just stay in Live, bouncing to stem mixes and then rendering to stereo. Then, Wavelab takes the composition from stereo mix to redbook CD.

My point is that many of us wear multiple hats on this forum: composer, performer, arranger, mixer, mastering engineer. The first three hats are Live 4's domain IMO. It appears that you have inflamed other composers, perfomers and arrangers that can appreciate the strengths of Live 4 by suggesting that they have to don their "engineering" tools to be "real" musicians. Anyway, as I stated before, I do agree in part with your thoughts on the strengths of Cubase. I hope this helps clear up why Live 4 is considered so indispensible to many of us.

[olafmol]

With the play order track and audio warp function in Cubase you could do partical the same.

I was hoping that these new features in Cubase would close the gap but they're not even close. You can't switch between play order sections with the keyboard, there's nothing like Live's global quantize. Warp in Cubase is *much* more complicated.

If you think these features are equivalent you haven't spent enough time in Live.

I'm using eXT in cubase for such things.
The playorder track is very powerfull but not as live as Live. It has another concept of marking regions of musical sequences. It's less isolated and also less compulsive to force you into loops; it gives more room for structuring.
I tried every Live demo with every new version and I really don't see what others seem to see in it.
In my eyes it' a very one way directional concept.

one simple thing: in live4 you can hear what you're doing while you're arranging...cubase doesn't offer this, and it's the single most powerfull aspect of live imho....

and i've used a lot of stuff over the years, 8bit trackers on amiga, Cubase on Atari ST, Cakewalk on windows 3.1, cubase on Windows, Acid Pro (got my first release offer with a song created in acid), Reason, yamaha RM1x, Yamaha RS7000, and now Live4...........you can compare Live4 with the realtime access you have on a hardware sequencer, with the big difference that you can record *everything* you do and come back to it to edit it ..

i agree though that for serious multitracking and audio editting a "classic" lineair-based DAW might be better suited, if only because Live4 doesn't have audio crossfading......but still: you *can* do lineair multitrack recording in Live4 if you want to.....

but for me the best part of Live4 (and again: i've used all of the "big" DAW's in all kinds of settings, both for electronic music and band-recordings) is that you can easily turn a rough sketch/idea into a complete arrangement without switching from "listening mode" to "editing engineering mode" .......the same reason why a lot of (electronic) musicians swear by hardware sequencers...

the statement above that live4 works as your favorite engineer is very much how i feel about it!

Olaf

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[quincy]

All this stuff about "the process a DJ goes through when making music is different to a REAL musician...." blah blah is all arrogant bollocks.

Some people need to realise that just because something has been established longer doesn't make it better, more "professional" or anything else.

If anyone tried to tell me to my face that i wasn't a "real" producer because i didn't use one of the "big 4" i'd have to use some pretty vile language to make it understood how much i hate that kind of snobbery.

And thats what it is, its snobbery.

And that "cubase is the grand piano" metaphor is probably the biggest pile of shit i've ever heard. You really that far stuck up your own ass?

If anyone out there still thinks that Live is only capable of being a toy, then you're a f**king idiot.

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]

[pHz]

hey quince ... relax ...

... no need to get so uptight when youre right ...

slainte rob

[quincy]

If anyone out there still thinks that Live is only capable of being a toy, then you're a f**king idiot.

Looks like you and I just became enemies

Not at all mate

Just had an irritating morning, and sometimes get fed up of musical snobbery. Not aimed at you personally, jsut some of the comments here demonstrate how small-minded people can be.

"I use cubase, therefore i'm more professional/a real musician" - f**k that!!

[ObsoleteAcc99]

[DELETED]