I doubt this music will ever be popular enough that meaningful requests to facilitate features in Cubase for it especially.
However, thanks to the OP for finding me a piece of music that will offend any neighbours and is cheaper and less poisonous than revving up a motorcycle in the kitchen for three hours.
Or I could stay traditional and annoy them with Witney Houston.
Three hours of either should end in either a gunfight or a court case.
Three hours! What am I thinking!?
Fan base is not huge and Iām sure Fruity Loops would be cheaper. Cubase is written for a diffeent industry.
Iām afraid that is the exact elitist attitude that is all too common in the music industry. āOne style is less significant than anotherā Unfortunately again, your opinon, like so many others I encounter, is totally irrelavent to the request and the arguement.
Cubase is a piece of software for creating music, therefore it should cater for ALL styles of music, not just what a select few deem worthy of being produced on it. Splitter, Extratone, Speedcore are popular forms of music worldwide, maybe not to the extent of RnB or Rap etc, but there is a big following, check out masters of hardcore or hellraiser etc etc etc etc.
Again, this was a seriosu feature request that would not impede on anyone elseās work, unless there was some issue with Cubase that would do so by unlocking the bpm. If that was the case, then I would appreciate Steinberg saying so, then I would accept it and use something else. But for anyone to just dismiss it as they deem this style as āNot real musicā or āSorry but you are not worthy of Cubaseā then I actually pity you and your narrow minded approach to music.
Turn this into a flame war if you want, but I would rather keep this on topic, and the request still stands for the bpm to be unlocked to 999 as is the case in FL, Ableton, Logic etc etc etc. Does that mean also that those DAWās are inferior to Cubase because they go upto 999bpm and could have people creating splitter and extratone on it ? Your whole anti this style argues that point.
As for writing in16thās etc, from a notational side of things, I understand what you mean, BUT, I would ask you to provide me with an example of a 450bpm drum and percussion (Kick offbeat high hat only) that is 1 bar = 4 beats. Music notation is irrelavent, as are time signatures. With the bpm unlocked, the 4/4 signature works perfectly, only the 300bpm limit is hindering the workflow. For a start you would need to set bpm at 225bpm, then write 8 beats to 1 bar ? Why not write at 450bpm with 4 beats to a bar like the other DAWās ? Why should people be forced to learn about time signatures, quavers, semi quavers etc when its availible in others. I just feel that Cubase is lacking in this area, and would hope for official word from Steinberg to state Cubase is not capable of going over 300bpm without causing problems, which I would happily accept as the case and use something else that can. But I would prefer to stick to a DAW that I like the most out of the others.
I had a quick attempt at this, and it does not work. To get the same result that 300bpm at 4/4 youād need to use 2 bars of 150bpm at 1/4. That is what I am trying to avoid. Unless I am doing it wrong, maybe you could provide me with an example of the two. 300bpm at 4/4 (4 beats to 1 bar) and then your method (1/4 time etc) iād appreciate it.
This is something I hope is also taken into consideration, well put too Brains, it is another thing that Steinberg/Yamaha should be looking to venture into, and that are styles that are completely PC based and that require extreme tempoās. It would be another string to the bow of Cubase and more sales from those who would benefit from using Cubase for this style. And believe me, they are plenty.
I was reading this forum and the whole time I was thinking, āWhy isnāt he just using 64th notes?ā Then I looked up some extratone videos and realized āOh!ā. Cool stuff. Very cool. If the other DAWs go to 999, then Cubase should at least go 1000!
First of all, Iād just like to say that I am of course not against this as a feature.
However, a bit confused by people saying this is ānewā. It may have names I havenāt heard before but absurdly over-sped distorted 909 kick techno has been around for over 15 years.
(I just searched YouTube for āextratoneā, and the very first find was an apparent ā15000 BPMā! (unless it was a typoā¦ personally, I stopped counting after 487 BPM )ā¦
Anywaysā¦ no-one is arguing against the possibility of writing in whatever style you wish, but, never having tried to do anything even remotely approaching this myself, I canāt even visualize the restraints of having to work at a slower tempo base, but using shorter note subdivisions. Do you have the possibility of posting a link to a screen capture, showing how this is done in one of the other DAWs you mention (e.g. what it looks like inside the Editor window)?
I think, from Steinbergās point of view, the main difficulty would be how this would affect all the various other areas of the program with which it is so closely integrated (notably, the Score Editor, for example), the brand-new tempo detection functions, hitpoints etc. I canāt even begin to imagine how fast that would cause the Project window to scroll across the screen!
(but, seeing as you say it is possible in other DAWs, Iād really love to see an example of what it actually looks like).
I think thatās the point (havenāt listened too scared).
As far as I can visualize the request, I believe it is to replace the whole concept of an appegiator, that is the sequencer becomes the appegiation machine.
Not a bad concept really but for someone whoās never looked much at the arranger but can see itās usefulness I do everything manually right down to inserting/deleting silence for 128 beats when necessary.
I take Zendasā words to be of interest (arrangement) hopefully SB will look at that feature as well among others as Iāve recently written about including stuff like the locators/transport that people are now picking up on.
Thatās why Iād like to see a screen capture of this āin actionā. I too was thinking along the lines of a dedicated plugin for this (possibly an extension of Beat Designer, or LoopMash), but, from what the OP posted, I donāt know if heād find that any easier than the currently-proposed workarounds of working at a slower tempo.
I donāt think anything special would be required other than to disable the metronome (donāt know about score) since the ticker is generated post ASIO so would really mess up at that tempo (already it silences about 150bpm from memory).
Just pointing out, with a little light hearted banter about the MUSIC and not YOU, the reason why Steinberg wonāt move on a feature if three people are going to use it. Hardcore music players have used Cubase for years with no difficulty.
This is all to prevalent an attitude that people who write in for a feature request take the attitude that anyone who answers with the less than full enthusiasm for their hobby-horse is somehow being terriby offensive. Iām not, just pointing out the real world.
I have to be non-offensive again by pointing out, as others have done earlier in the thread, that an understanding of how music, notation and Cubaseās utilisation of it does leave options for using it in (at present) unplayable fast music.
The 300bpm limit is for the clarity of the SCORE option not for the recording section as well as the limits for human playability. One can play as fast as you want. The metronome will not slow you down. In fact if Iām playing at my limits I find it helpful to have a half time metronome rather than it sounding like a radio tuning in.
This is why metronomes all over the world and not just in Cubase usually only go to 280.
There comes a point where it becomes too fast to be meaningful. Of course, if you tell me itās machine music then machines donāt need metronomes. They have their own built in.
And if you are superhuman then you need a more superhuman product than the present batch of DAWs to do the job you seem to want.
And, to your next question: āWhy should my imagination / ambition be limited?ā Well it just should be. OK?
Lighten up. And google Jo Jo Mayer.
Myself, I am indifferent to whether Steinberg changes the upper metronome limit, it would neither help nor hinder me, so I hope it is clear I am not against this feature request, and I agree that a software developer should be indifferent to what style of music is made with their product.
What I tried to point out before is that Cubase already provides this ability, without learning anything, if you set the time sig to 4/8. (4 beats to the bar, with the a beat = 8th note) instead of 4/4 (4 beats to the bar, beat = a 1/4). Yes, you are working in 8ths, but itās 4 beats to the bar, and looks that way in the edit and project window.
If you set the beat to the 16th note (4/16 time sig) you have a maximum BPM of 1200.
Exactly. And if anyone looks up WFD or Worlds Fastest Drummer one will see that that is the average contestants fastest BPM. A metronome that speed would just sound like a press roll on claves.
You might keep up with the bar accents. But if you did that you could just slow down the metronome right?
