| Author
|
which artists produce their music using FL ?
|
ElektroMagnetik
Started Topics :
2
Posts :
4
Posted : Jul 8, 2005 20:31
|
Quote:
|
imo FL is for non-musicians. it's a simple drag'n'drop aplication and you don't have 2 have any musical knoweledge 2 build the track.
|
|
I understand you are just expressing your personal opinion and all, but I beg to differ.
Have you actually used FL (Studio) before? If so, are you aware there are much more options then just drag n dropping presets/samples into the sequencer?
Granted, pretty much anybody can pump some wave signals out of FL, but honestly, making GOOD music obviously requires much more musical knowledge and advanced technical knowledge of the software.
Please don't feel offensed. I'm just expressing my opinion. 
/LM |
|
|
mubali
Mubali
Started Topics :
71
Posts :
2219
Posted : Jul 8, 2005 21:44
|
I have used Fruity on multiple occasions and I do feel that it is one of the more simpler programs to use in regards to how to get from point a to point b with the least amount of steps. Making good music requires lots of knowledge no matter what you use. But at the same time, if the user interface is easy to use, then the user can spend more time on the design of the sounds rather than trying to figure out how to make the sequencer do what you want.
I feel more comfortable with other sequencers than Fruity, but whatever's clever... It doesn't matter what you use as long as you use it well. And of course everyone who uses whatever sequencer will defend their product to the death.
 An Eagle may soar, but Weasels don't get sucked into jet engines. |
|
|
|
The_Guardians_Of_Truth
Atma
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
379
Posted : Jul 9, 2005 10:40
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-07-08 21:44, mubali wrote:
I have used Fruity on multiple occasions and I do feel that it is one of the more simpler programs to use in regards to how to get from point a to point b with the least amount of steps. Making good music requires lots of knowledge no matter what you use. But at the same time, if the user interface is easy to use, then the user can spend more time on the design of the sounds rather than trying to figure out how to make the sequencer do what you want.
I feel more comfortable with other sequencers than Fruity, but whatever's clever... It doesn't matter what you use as long as you use it well. And of course everyone who uses whatever sequencer will defend their product to the death.
|
|
100 % right
With Cubase, for example, it takes too much time only to sart a track (to add effects, upload samples, make all the setings...) than somethimes i loose my ideeas or i simply get bored and quit working..
That's the only reason i use Fruity. There is nothing that Cubase can do and Fruity can not. The result is almost the same.
Sooo...i chosed the easy part |
|
|
|
Unique(Shlomi)
Unique
Started Topics :
5
Posts :
140
Posted : Jul 9, 2005 11:20
|
imo cubase is very much easy and better than FL.
but like mubali say
"It doesn't matter what you use as long as you use it well."
and this is actually the most important thing, if the final result is good so thats really dont matter. |
|
|
|
illusions
Erebus
Started Topics :
40
Posts :
626
Posted : Jul 9, 2005 13:39
|
agree with what mubali said. i had started off with fruity loops myself and feel that it helped me stick with production, because it was easier to use than cubase/nuendo.
although atma - i think cubase does have quite a few functions that fruity loops doesnt, things like send fx, group channels, certain audio processing etc... or maybe i just did'nt look hard enough ? |
|
|
|
psypox
Psypox / Bufo
Started Topics :
53
Posts :
768
Posted : Jul 9, 2005 15:14
|
|
diskonekt
Fat Data
Started Topics :
37
Posts :
1112
Posted : Jul 9, 2005 17:17
|
Quote:
|
although atma - i think cubase does have quite a few functions that fruity loops doesnt, things like send fx, group channels, certain audio processing etc... or maybe i just did'nt look hard enough ?
|
|
hehe you didn't look hard enough for sure 
You can always group channels in fruity - rerouting them to another channel - and ofcourse there are sendFX (only four channels though )
Peace, Love, Death metal |
|
|
|
shamantrixx
Started Topics :
7
Posts :
549
Posted : Jul 14, 2005 18:30
|
[quote]
On 2005-07-08 20:31, ElektroMagnetik wrote:
Quote:
| I understand you are just expressing your personal opinion and all, but I beg to differ.
Have you actually used FL (Studio) before? If so, are you aware there are much more options then just drag n dropping presets/samples into the sequencer?
Granted, pretty much anybody can pump some wave signals out of FL, but honestly, making GOOD music obviously requires much more musical knowledge and advanced technical knowledge of the software.
Please don't feel offensed. I'm just expressing my opinion.
|
|
No, why should i feel bad? And yes, i have acctualy used almost any available sequencer software since ReBirth, Cakewalk, FL, Cubase, Reason, Vegas, Ableton Live... Even had a chance 2 work with Pro Tools for six months in studio.
Like somebody mentioned... it's not the tool that counts. If you get people on the dance floor dancing than the matter of tool used for creation is not relevant at all.
Did you know that some ppl still make 64kb music on Commodore and Amiga. I don't think of their music any less valuable than music made with Pro Tools. But than again... they're not trying to convince the world that C64 and Amiga are side by side with Cubase and other modern sequencers. And just to remind you... it takes really a lot of musical and non musical knoweledge to create a track on 64 Kb of ROM memory.
So my point is... any tool is as good as you are in working with it. Best tool are of no good if you're unable to be creative and express that creativity. If you want to limit your self working with just one tool... fine by me. But i find that to be a major hendicape that producer can have.
Hope you won't feel offenced eather
"It occurred to me by intuition, and music was the driving force behind that intuition. My discovery was the result of musical perception"
Albert Einstein, speaking about his theory of relativity |
|
|
|
psypox
Psypox / Bufo
Started Topics :
53
Posts :
768
Posted : Jul 14, 2005 21:43
|
Quote:
|
On 2005-07-09 10:40, The_Guardians_Of_Truth wrote:
There is nothing that Cubase can do and Fruity can not. The result is almost the same.
Sooo...i chosed the easy part
|
|
i have to say that you are wrong!
since im making every sound to audio from my synths, cubase make my life alot easy'er because SX 3 is amazing when it comes to audio editing
www.myspace.com/psypox |
|
|
|
The_Guardians_Of_Truth
Atma
Started Topics :
16
Posts :
379
Posted : Jul 15, 2005 00:30
|
|
Yes, you are right on this part !!! but i was talking about sequencer part !!! As a recording studio, and wave editing i prefer Sf Acid + Sound forge( wave editor) ! More easy and secure than Cubase. At least, it is for me ! |
|
|
|
jaramogi
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
15
Posts :
918
Posted : Jul 15, 2005 09:18
|
|
Electrypnose |
|
|
|
sy000321
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
46
Posts :
1142
Posted : Jul 15, 2005 13:27
|
FL is KILLLLARRRRRHHHHHHH
roll a joint or STFU :) |
|
|
|
LiquidSpaceGermany
Liquid Space
Started Topics :
102
Posts :
175
Posted : Jul 15, 2005 16:25
|
|
day.din
day.din/xenical
Started Topics :
12
Posts :
42
Posted : Jul 15, 2005 17:35
|
use what you like to use, for sure ... i also feel more comfortable with cubase than any other program. i even think that some functions are much more easier to use with cubase or logic than with fruity loops!
@atma: maybe try to set some autoloads if it gets on your nerves loading always the same basic plugins and configurations, like everyone does. i think that's why cubase is more professional, because it tries to fit to every kind of audio productions.
www.daydin.com
www.myspace.com/daydin |
|
|
|
