+1
Bringing Cubase into the 21st century with these types of features would be a good move.
7 Likes
I’m one of those people, so let’s talk.
First of all, MIDI CC Modulation and MIDI effects being compared to an entirely different workflow paradigm is a major false equivalency on your part.
Many Cubase users like to work a certain way, they don’t want the focus of the program, its development resources, and structure pulled into a different direction and then needing to make GUI changes, protocol changes, etc to facilitate that different direction.
That’s a valid position, I’m failing to see how it related to Modulation or MIDI FX, of which Cubase has had for decades before Ableton or Bitwig existed.
Do you believe EDM and DJs began on Ableton and Bitwig? You do realize there’s a very long history of EDM decades before Albeton and Bitwig existed right? You do realize people were making EDM in Cubase long before Ableton and Bitwig right?
You must be very very young to believe that somehow all this time, EDM was born out of Ableton?
Have you ever taken a look at Steinbergs artist roster?
No one here has ever mentioned anything about genre… Perhaps because it has nothing to do with genre and more to do with work style. This is a non-existent contention you’ve fabricated in order to push your own opinion on the future direction of the DAW. It’s just ad hominem
Not sure what you’re talking about here to be honest. Firstly, how is the modulation in Bitwig not a totally different workflow to create sounds and come up with ideas. That’s one of the key selling points and unique features of bitwig, which I started using when it first came out years ago.
Next up, who exactly is saying cubase users can’t continue to work in the exact same way as before, it’s your daw, use it how you want. How’d you even know how it would be implemented to talk like it would be a hindrance. What about the “many users” who’d like the flexibility of both workflows, like bitwig, should we only copy everything else from x daw, just not the EDM DJ session view crap people get super weird about 
.
As a bitwig user, you already know it can be done without being "pulled into a different direction ", if you want session view in bitwig, press tab, want linear view ,just like cubase, do not press tab, simple stuff.
I don’t see any Logic users saying wtf Apple, why’d you give us Live Loops, do you?
The much more valid position is many cubase users use another daw, even you do, bitwig right 
So why do you also use Bitwig than?
So people, would it not be super cool to have the coolest features and workflows professional musicians turn to every day in one daw we all love with excellent audio features and functions? Am I saying something so nuts here? That could be cubase but this crazy push back all the time I’m sure puts the devs off doing it. Hopefully I’m wrong and this is part of cubase 12 
Lastly, we’re not in the 90’s, who cares that people started making electronic music on an Atari ST with a black and white cubase, not sure what your point is, technology moves on. Ableton session view changed the music creation game, period. As far as artist rosters go, be interested to know how many of them use Ableton or bitwig on the side and how many left cubase, logic or pro tools for Ableton or bitwig because of the insane creativity those daws offer, via session view. That tells a much more interesting story.
If session view was more synonymous with band music, real guitars, amp models and drum kits, and not dance floor music, this wouldn’t even be a debate, we’d have had it implemented already 
2 Likes
Not necessarily talking about the modulation in BitWig, there can be different implementations of modulation. You can use a MIFI LFO in Cubase to modulate a fader elsewhere.
Yeah, us DAW users seem to think that coding and making changes to software is as easy as making a generic 4/4 beat. The point is, we don’t want Steinberg taking Cubase in a direction it really doesn’t need to go. If you like Bitwig, use Bitwig. If you want modulation patch making, get Reaktor to use in Cubase. simple. We don’t need the devs wasting an update cycle on implementing essentially, a fancy version of a loop pedal.
I don’t, I use Reaktor.
Not really, I was doing Ableton on loop pedals probably before Ableton existed. And with Ableton came generations of boring loop based music we are still stuck in. Arguably EDM got worse not better, go listen to some Aphex Twin mate.
It’s unfortunate we aren’t.
Like the other thread is. We need Cubase to be more Cubase, not more Abelton. More linear composer workflow enhancements, improved editing, and UI protocols and behavior for what already exists.
I also did start with the black&white Cubase on Atari ST, but I would love to see an Ableton Session View kind of thing in Cubase and global LFO.
2 Likes
This.
So is Logic no longer Logic with it’s Live Loops?
The problem is there’s little logic to the push back, take this that and the other from x daw but if it’s anything to do with a DJ, we’ll push back on it 
1 Like
The logic has been thoroughly explained to you.
Cubase users don’t need Live Loops or Clips or whatever to make good music and scores - we’ve never needed it. If you don’t know, coding even a very seemingly simple feature can take a lot of time and testing to get it to work right. Many of us who can make great music without a fancy looper, would rather those resources go towards other features that facilitate us making great music without the crutch of a fancy looper. And you know damn well, if they did add it, people would then be in here complaining that it’s not good enough and that it needs all sorts of improvements and additional features and now pandoras box is open - a bunch of resources will be put into something most of us don’t want or need.
What is there not to get here?
This is what I consider a vastly more important feature request:
They were referring to “Logic” as the DAW, which has had live loops added. Does it make it any less of a DAW for the addition?
There has to be marquee features added in order for people to pay for updates, and bring new users on board to maximise revenue. Just the way of the world I’m afraid.
There would be a huge amount of users interested in live looping, but track height limits? Not something you put in the shop window is it?
Personally, I’d be happy (stupid?) to pay for a ‘fixes only’ update. Would love to see a whole year spent on correcting current issues with no new features added - but it isn’t happening, as people seek more for their money, and most fixes should be seen as part ongoing maintenance, not a premium benefit.
1 Like
Read their second sentence/line.
You’re not looking at in the right way because you’re just looking at the feature on it’s own, you need to look at it from a bigger picture. Track Height Limitations has an effect on the presentation of the DAWs arranger/session window and the look of it does sell people.
What also keeps current users coming back and paying for updates, is creating a DAW that is easy to use and look at.
Would Clips bring a lot of new users? I’m not really sure. That’s up to Steinberg to do market research on. Most Ableton users are just going stick with Ableton… I had a friend who was working linearly in Abelton and I couldn’t even get him to switch. It was painful and stupid watching him work, I lost IQ.
Yes, massive appeal to users. Combined with no need for a dongle it makes an ‘old dog’ very relevant.
125k+ viewers on a single ‘how to’ video within Logic:-
Love it or hate it, it’s a popular feature for (as some refer to it) ‘non-musicians’.
5 Likes
My contention wasn’t whether looping was popular not, it’s whether or not it would bring a lot of new users to Cubase. Those are two different things.
The guy pronouncing ‘Measures’ like ‘Majors’ drove me nuts.
It looks like there’s a lot to be improved with Logics Live Loops… maybe all the Logic users pissed Logic is focusing it’s resources on Live Looping will comes to Cubase 
Something to be said about just doing you, ie, Cubase doing Cubase.
Honestly. it’s probably just as quick if not quicker in the long run to work linearly. There’s something about that looping that is very limiting.
Okay so Logic added Live Looping, and it’s sort of half-baked. So now what? They have to spend resources on improving it, or they abandon it as is.
But honestly, I think the best compromise in this debate is from the anti-abelton thread - - - Have Groove Agent at the core remain a great sampler, but expand its instrumentation use beyond drums/kits and expand on its already existing patterns system to become more of a mini looping DAW with some sort of record to Cubase functionality
Well Ed Sheeran has managed to carry popular guitar music through the mainstream with it. So where the limits are I’m not sure what kind of record sales you’re aiming for?
The whole concept of looping a piece of music is not the innovation, It’s the ability to mix and match and play with different sections and ideas in a compositional sense which you’re really not comprehending.
For a singer songwriter it’s equivalent of commanding a pre-recorded drummer, bassist, guitarist & keyboard sections as they were session musicians while you sing/play over the top.
For EDM’s it’s about seeking unique blends of sounds and loops, mashing up ideas and uncovering happy mistakes.
For composers it’s about trying out different string sections on top of base layers.
For video work it’s about ‘playing’ pre-defined idea pieces to see how they fit any given scene.
The scope is wide, and more an enabler than limiter.
It’s not the best compromise as live looping/clip launching needs to encompass external MIDI, VSTI’s and Audio assets. Running a single GA instance and then running a highly convoluted routing to other tracks is the polar opposite of a simplistic and fast workflow to jam and flesh out ideas in a live sense.
You’re knocking something you don’t understand, and doing your best to act as though it’s in some way ‘below’ a position of being worthy on that basis. I really don’t buy elitism and gatekeeping in a creative space, it goes against the concept somewhat.
I mean look at the judgement, it’s pathetic tbh:-
4 Likes
What’s your point? Ed Sheeran probably could have used anything, no offense to him. Ed Sheeran isn’t writing the next batman score. Look at a band like Radiohead, OK Computer was produced and recorded to tape.
Never said it was? There is looping in Cubase.
All can be done in Cubase easily, without Ableton stuff.
yadayadyada
Or it’s limiter, because unless you are 1% who can actually do something interesting with ableton… the sooner you break out of “the loop”, the better.
Why the f did you partially quote me and take it completely out of context to reply to? Clearly I wasn’t talking about GA in its current incarnation…
Actually, I understand it very well. My foray into recording was recording onto loop pedals, and then from that, I patched them into my 1/8th soundblaster card to be able to record the ideas onto Windows recorder.
I then I got FL Studio, and continued to work in a loop/pattern based style.
And then I got Cubase - because - I wanted to escape loop hell and work linearly, compose, etc. I’d say, the 1st quarter of my music recording and production was looping and sound on sound based… And it took me twice as long to break out of that mind set and habbit.
Take a joke/lighten up
Truth and you weren’t there, he was also eating my food out of the fridge without asking.
Truth. Is it not true? Have Cubase users not been making great music without the crutch of a fancy looper? I think it’s truth.
Truth. As if music genres don’t become over saturated. You’re telling me rock didn’t become oversaturated with the advent of digital hard drive recording and the DIG002? Most of loop based music is boring, including mine. Don’t be so sad.
1 Like
It has been a fun debate everyone, I think I’m going to go activate the purple bar thingy in Cubase for a bit.
Sincerely,
Tim_Dillon
You don’t understand it at all, As continually demonstrated with your posts. But what’s most disappointing is what drives you into discrediting fellow creatives, I do not get it.
Furthermore, you’re keen to explain how you were doing this with only a soundblaster and windows recorder which is some time ago. You must have an enormous library to share after all these years to demonstrate great music without using such crutches (Your words).
So give us a listen, where can it be found?
3 Likes
One mans discrediting is another mans encouraging, it’s all how you take it
Again misrepresenting what I’ve said, taking things out of context.
It’s of my personal opinion that loop based Abelton music has become boring and over saturated. get the f over it.
And your personal opinion is a valid one to gatekeep features for a universally used piece of software, yes?
You’ve spent numerous posts dismissing other users needs by intimating that they’re only wanting a crutch, lacking IQ, or making boring music.
So come on, what you got to show us after all these decades?
3 Likes