Hi, at the moment Cubasis is not the greatest tool when recording several takes of a performance.
In GarageBand, for instance, we can set a loop region and then record a bunch of takes without having to ‘operate’ the software. It keeps all the takes and numbers the, then we can choose whichever version we want to use in the event, delete any specific take, or delete all other takes once we chose the perfect one. It’s also possible to ‘split’ the event and use different takes on each of the new events.
In Cubasis, we can also set a loop region and record several takes, however it keeps playing all the previous takes in the background, which not only uses up more resources, it also tends to be not very helpful. Plus it’s missing a way to neatly manage and select those different takes.
Just as an alternative view, I personally think the opposite and love certain limited workflows within Cubasis. My opinion is that Cubasis forces you to record in a more traditional way. By that, I mean the lack of certain things you would find in a typical DAW, like Cubase, Nuendo and ProToos etc.
I personally believe that Cubasis helps you to get a better performance, because you have to work harder to get it right going in. Again and it’s just a personal opinion, but I feel that many people rely on technology too much. I have been recording for a while and have seen how technology can get in the way of the two most important components, the song and the performance.
I started off on an open reel eight track with FSK sync and CV/gate sequencing. The real cool thing about this was that you had to get things right or go back and start from the very beginning, unless you did a mono guide mix of the sequence parts and switch off the FSK. This gave a lot of discipline to the recording process, and kept the soul and feel in any live parts, especially when using drum machines and synths.
For me, the ability to loop and composite multiple takes and even quantise audio. Takes too much away from the performance, and has many people losing focus on the art of recording and being distracted with worrying too much about the tech.
It’s abviously each to their own, and there is no one size that fits all when it comes to issues and opinions of what constitutes a proper recording. But I think that Cubasis puts the art back into recording performance.
Maybe having options that one person can ignore if they don’t need or see the sense in it, maybe a good option. As those who like to use more tech, could have it if they want. But I believe Cubasis could lose its uniqueness and appeal if started looking too much like Cubase.
I agree with you, in a perfect world that would indeed be the ideal process.
However, I think only a small percentage of Cubasis (and any other DAW) users live in a perfect world or can afford that kind of workflow.
If you’re really serious and committed, and have the means and time to do it, then yes, you should strive for a perfect single take performance.
But then on the other end of the spectrum you have all of us who work on something unrelated for a living, working 8-12h days and getting home late and tired, who can only afford to spend an hour or so every now and then recording music, and that means one person setting up, engineering, performing and recording… and then things change considerably.
Also, not all of us have the technical ability to come out with perfect takes, that doesn’t mean we can’t write songs as good if not better than those of better musicians. Also, we might be recording rough demos and not perfect masterpieces, therefore any tools to speed up our workflow are welcome, and you can always just not use them if you don’t like them.
A preference of certain workflows or methodologies shouldn’t be an excuse to cripple a tool or features that could be essential to others. Everyone is different, that’s why flexibility is the key.
Yes, if all possible options were available, then the end user would have a choice over what was best for them. But for £35 there can be no question about Cubasis not offering the same abilities as a £500+ DAW.
If someone’s abilities are not up to scratch, or they have no concerns about real performance. Then fair enough, but the expensive DAWs would be a better solution for those with less performance and production skills. If someone is using good performances and has got good production skill. Then they are likely to get good results from anything, in which case Cubasis is a brilliant DAW for creating great masters.
My personal opinion is that far too many people rely on the over easy functionality and automation of certain DAWs. Indeed, certain DAW functions do not even require the operator to have even a base level of production awareness or musicianship, with the likes of drum loops, auto riffs, MIDI riffs etc. And this, can and does, lead to very stagnant music/productions.
Why get a computer app if you don’t want to take advantage of the technology? Takes are takes, but the computer allows for no interruption fiddling with hardware between them. Go back to tape if you don’t want to be tempted by the “sins” of convenience and smooth workflow.
Now whether the relatively low cost of Cubasis (or limits of the iPad) justifies a lack of common features is another issue. I can accept limits if that’s the case, but I don’t accept an excuse of, “you’re better off without it.”
Steinberg, please don’t allow this kind of elitist, regressive argument influence your decision-making. You’re creating apps for people who want to embrace the technology, not those who fear it.