The bs of Pro DAWs Vs amateur DAWs

[Jac459]

We hear sometimes in this forum some people mentioning how if you don't use this feature or that function of your DAW, you are not a real pro. And that some DAW are missing "pro" features and you can't work "seriously" without this.

Of course I always thought it was complete bullshit but today I came across a fun interview from Norman Cook, maybe one of the top ten electro artist of all time, and he was explaining how he was still using an ..... atari st!!! I am sure some people would have looked down on him in this forum lol.

[tonymax]

I miss logic/notator on the ST, I seemed to do more on that than I do today...

[ralfrobert]

I remember the times when we used trackers on Amiga, later on PC. For example, check this :



Especially this :



Great times, software that looks primitive today. I think what one ultimately needs is a glorified tape recorder plus talent.

[Crossinger]

I remember an interview in a German music magazine (Keys) at the beginning of the 90s, which they called “Summit”. Because Gerhard Lengeling, Chris Adam and Charly Steinberg took part.
And there was an interesting statement: all participants agreed that the implementation of complex features was more interesting for the passionate hobbyists, while the professionals used their software more as a digital tape recorder. Ok, that was 30 years ago, but still...

[VOODOO U]

Being a "Pro" just means you get paid for your art work. Back in the day, there were "Pros" getting paid recording turntables and a drum machine into analog tape.

[WackyZoundz]

It all depends on what you're doing, what you're aiming at. For composition itself (and certain genres/styles), old tracker software still does the job. But can you record, mix and master everything with old tracker software on an Atari? No, absolutely not.

[osiris]

I've seen on other forums people hating on Pro Tools which is owned by Avid - about as pro as you can get.

[WackyZoundz]

I'm not a fan of Pro Tools either but you can do a lot more with it than with trackers.

[jamcat]

We hear sometimes in this forum some people mentioning how if you don't use this feature or that function of your DAW, you are not a real pro. And that some DAW are missing "pro" features and you can't work "seriously" without this.

Of course I always thought it was complete bullshit but today I came across a fun interview from Norman Cook, maybe one of the top ten electro artist of all time, and he was explaining how he was still using an ..... atari st!!! I am sure some people would have looked down on him in this forum lol.

What software on the Atari ST? I'm guessing probably Cubase 1.0. And that was as "pro" as you could get... in 1985.

The Atari long held a reputation for "rock solid MIDI timing." This legend was proliferated by many electronic bands such as Skinny Puppy. But that was a long time ago. I don't think MIDI timing concerns are a real thing anymore. But for some contemporary MIDI musicians, perhaps using an Atari ST is like using a vintage mic.

However, the Atari ST is not a DAW. Cubase 1.0 is not a DAW. I don't think there is anything that remotely qualifies as a "DAW" on an Atari ST. This is a MIDI sequencer, not a Digital Audio Workstation. You need to be working with actual digital audio for that. I suspect this guy is sequencing hardware synths from his Atari.

Clearly he is not recording and mixing his audio on an Atari ST.
So I don't think this anecdote really makes the point you thought it did.

[jens]

Being a "Pro" just means you get paid for your art work.

No, there's really "pros" - and with them and "the rules" it's always a chicken-egg kind of thing... they'll always be the first to complain that (e.g.) they have to put Autotune on everything 'cause that's what their job requires them to do - and they'll be super quick to execute their order.
Of course these are far from being the only ones making money/getting paid, but they are the hired guns to do whatever job they*re asked to do. That's "pro", isn't it?
I wouldn't neccessarily mind earning some money from the music I make (anyway), but I most certainly wouldn't ever want to be a professional. My passion for music is far too strong for that.

[machinesworking]

These arguments are weird. Trackers are fantastic at step sequencing which frankly most modern DAWs suck at, Pro Tools is fantastic at audio editing which most Trackers suck at. The breadth of difference in sequencers / DAWs is evident and doesn't require rocket science to figure out. If I was to do orchestral and/or work for film it would make the most sense to use the older style DAWs, Cubase, Logic, DP, Cakewalk etc. You can't go wrong with a laptop and modern controllers for electronic music with Bitwig, Reason, FL, or Live etc. Reaper will cover most styles but you have to set it up etc. Luna would be fine for recording your band.

[elassi]

... the implementation of complex features was more interesting for the passionate hobbyists, while the professionals used their software more as a digital tape recorder.

Years ago I worked for a professional marketing agency and the pro graphic designers (editing images for print) used ancient Photoshop versions because they already had what they needed. No bullshit, no bloat stuff.

[Jac459]

We hear sometimes in this forum some people mentioning how if you don't use this feature or that function of your DAW, you are not a real pro. And that some DAW are missing "pro" features and you can't work "seriously" without this.

Of course I always thought it was complete bullshit but today I came across a fun interview from Norman Cook, maybe one of the top ten electro artist of all time, and he was explaining how he was still using an ..... atari st!!! I am sure some people would have looked down on him in this forum lol.

What software on the Atari ST? I'm guessing probably Cubase 1.0. And that was as "pro" as you could get... in 1985.

The Atari long held a reputation for "rock solid MIDI timing." This legend was proliferated by many electronic bands such as Skinny Puppy. But that was a long time ago. I don't think MIDI timing concerns are a real thing anymore. But for some contemporary MIDI musicians, perhaps using an Atari ST is like using a vintage mic.

However, the Atari ST is not a DAW. Cubase 1.0 is not a DAW. I don't think there is anything that remotely qualifies as a "DAW" on an Atari ST. This is a MIDI sequencer, not a Digital Audio Workstation. You need to be working with actual digital audio for that. I suspect this guy is sequencing hardware synths from his Atari.

Clearly he is not recording and mixing his audio on an Atari ST.
So I don't think this anecdote really makes the point you thought it did.

Ha ha. You think my point was about the definition of a DAW, really?
My point was about a tool defining you or not.
I do believe in the general statement that a good craftsman has good tools, but this statement doesn't necessarily means the latest, it means the one that are adequate for you and that you know very well.

As per the taxonomy you mention, I do agree, it is just not my point.

[jamcat]

Well, it's more than that.

Because Norman is using a DAW, as well, I'm sure. And it is probably one of those "pro" DAWs with all those "pro" features. And he probably even uses some of them.

[WackyZoundz]

I would like to know what makes step sequencing so great in trackers. Programming a tracker sequence is slow and unintuitive compared to the step sequencer in FL Studio (for example). Nothing wrong with nostalgia but trackers are very limited as a matter of fact, even when it comes to step sequencing itself.