Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

It's amazing. When I upload a loopy piece of crap synth song that takes 10 minutes to compose it'll get votes that average 4.0

When I upload a real piece of musical work, complete with orchestral melodies and counter melodies it gets votes that average 1.75

I think most voters couldn't recognize a real song if it jumped up and bit them in the ass. I'm pretty much done with this site. It's been pretty much a waste of time. This whole experience points things is fucked up as well. Your vote counts more because you spend a lot of time voting? WTF??? I could even vote on my own stuff and push the numbers up... That's fucked up as well. You know there are guys padding their voting scores just so they can up their rating. Goofy ass system.

Have fun guys... it's been real! A real waste of time.

At 12/27/07 05:14 PM, cheesebizkit wrote: ladies and gents i ask you

Who has the better username?

cheesebizkit

vs

EvilerBowser1001

They are both pretty damn lame. It's like voting for Hillary or Mit Romney. Who gives a shit?

At 12/27/07 06:35 PM, TheMaster wrote: Where there's an explosion, and everything goes quiet and in slow motion for a few seconds, then there's a whistling and everything speeds up back to normal?

Does that happen in real life, or not?

Personally I haven't had the pleasure of being blown up... so I wouldn't know. But if you can find someone on here that has been blown to smithereens I hope they still have hands so they can tell you about their experience.

Quit being such a marshmallow! Dude... this is just puppy love... actually its just hormones! You'll forget about this one just as soon as you find someone that gives better head.

At 12/27/07 05:10 PM, Kaabi wrote: If you could get with the girl you love, and stay with her for the rest of her life, but her life would be cut short by 20 years, would you get with her?

Sure... You'd be ready to trade her in by then anyway.

At 12/17/07 06:35 PM, stupidcarrots wrote: found it, it was benny hill theme song. XD sorry for the confusion

Hey... that is a good one for a chase seen.

At 12/22/07 09:00 AM, preffertobedead wrote: The user makes the sequencer proffesional or not....if the synth sound weak to you..is probably cuz u suck at mastering...=D !

Well maybe I do suck at mastering, but that's beside the point. The synthesizers in Reason, while are not bad , they are still kinda weak sounding. Any of Native Instruments softsynths kick it's azz. And next to my Korg Triton Extreme they sound like a toy.

Another poster made the point that Reason is not a stand-alone piece of software. It makes more sense to look at it like that, then it doesn't have to live up to as high a standard. As a tool for generating some really cool sounds it's quite impressive. Because of the sequencer I can see some uses in a production oriented environment. I think it's biggest problem being considered a professional piece of software is it's learning curve. People making music want to make music. They don't want to spend a bunch of time learning another crappy piece of software. So if it isn't intuitive and easy to use without always refering to a manual, don't expect a pro to use it. Besides being easy to use, how well it integrates with the users existing tools is probably the biggest deciding factor a pro will base his/her decision to use it or not.

1. End product (Quality)
2. User friendly (Easy to use)
3. System integration (Can it be used alongside and in conjunction with existing software)

These three things are the major determining factors any pro will go by to decide whether or not to use a piece of equipment or software. The third consideration is the least because if a user really likes what a particular software can do but it doesn't run along side another program well, then there is usually a way around that, such as dedicating another computer to run just that application so there is no resource conflict.

I still don't think I have a use for Reason other than just playing with it.

I can see an atheist standing before God on judgment day. It goes something like this.

The atheist finds him standing before the creator of the universe, God himself, Yahweh, The big Kahuna.
God: asks, (not like he needs to ask, he knows all anyway), "What have you done with your life?"
Atheist: Anything I want, what's it to ya old man?
God: You show little respect for the creator of the universe.
Atheist: Hahahaha... that's a good one. No one created the universe.
God: Where do you think it came from?
Atheist: Uh... well... Ok, well if you are God I have one question.
God: I'll entertain you, go ahead and ask.
Atheist: Could you show me where the Islam guys are? I want to find some virgins.

Meh, I hope the Hindus have it right, I feel like seeing this world through the eyes of an eagle. Or if that fails, Norse mythology is pretty damn cool too. In any case, I don't get the point of your little story.

Uh... what's to understand? It's just a stupid joke. Lighten up dude. If I have to explain the punch line I will. You see Islamist believe if they are good little terrorist's they will go to heaven. And when they get to heaven they will be greeted and rewarded for their sinister deed's with 70 beautiful virgins all to themselves.

Evidently, these guys never quite thought this doctrine through. Ok, after you've gone through all 70 virgins what do you have then? 70 nagging wives with about 2 dozen of 'em on PMS at any one time. That doesn't quite sound like heaven to me. Maybe the other place instead.

Now if any of you flash artist had your act together you'd quit arguing about shit and use this stupid joke for a cool cartoon. Starting with an Islam suicide bomber carrying out his little deed. Then he ends up in Islam heaven before Allah. He is given his brides and has quite a fling. He's all happy for the first couple of months. And then the reality of the situation sets in and he becomes hen-pecked to death by 70 nagging brides. Then he goes back to Allah to complain about the wives he was given. And then Allah sprouts horns and is actually the devil, who laughs at the suicide bomber and tells him, "Did you really think you would go to heaven after killing all those people?... hahahahahahaha"

And since it's my joke and my idea you ought to at least let me do the sound for it. Any takers out there?

At 12/22/07 08:34 AM, Kagoe wrote: Religion and science.....hmmmm. It's hard to say, i mean, the world is full of different views of life. So you can't change people beliefs. You shouldn't spend your time worring what people think, because at the end of the day, they can beilve what ever they want.
Besides, religion is only there to give people a direction in life. Science is only there so people can have an explination for everything. But religion can lead everyone in the right direction and science can't exsplain everything. So it's hard to decide which path to choose. But I think science makes more sense.

Wow... some deep thought honesty. I'm impressed. I agree about the time spent on this subject. I was beginning to become quite bored of it myself. I was having fun watching the knees jerk so hard their feet were bouncing off their foreheads though. You don't have to choose between science and religion. That's just it. There is room for science in religion and there should be room for religion in science, but that seems to be less the case across the board. This is what peeked my interest when I saw the topic heading "Science vs Religion." I thought to my self, "this should be fun."

And I had a blast watching you all foam at the mouth over such ridiculous discussion. Scientific atheist are so funny, they struggle so hard to disprove God exists; and many have tried. All in vain, though. The very nature of nature baffles the atheist. How can such order evolve from chaos? It leads one to explore a plethora of possible theories, and theories that should be explored. But because they are atheist they don't allow themselves to explore what just might be the answer to all their questions. Hmmm. Well maybe not. After all they are atheist.

I can see an atheist standing before God on judgment day. It goes something like this.

The atheist finds him standing before the creator of the universe, God himself, Yahweh, The big Kahuna.
God: asks, (not like he needs to ask, he knows all anyway), "What have you done with your life?"
Atheist: Anything I want, what's it to ya old man?
God: You show little respect for the creator of the universe.
Atheist: Hahahaha... that's a good one. No one created the universe.
God: Where do you think it came from?
Atheist: Uh... well... Ok, well if you are God I have one question.
God: I'll entertain you, go ahead and ask.
Atheist: Could you show me where the Islam guys are? I want to find some virgins.

That is a stunning assertion and I think it speaks far more about your mindset towards science and religion than it describes reality. whatever Quantum Theorists and Evolutionary Biologists and Neurologists are studying, they're way smarter than either of us, and it's astonishing for you to dismiss any of their work as 'bunk'. When religion is as peer reviewed as science, then they'll be on an equal footing.

Ok... let's see if we can't list a few here. Global warming caused by humans. The Mount St. Helens eruption in the 80's put off more ozone depleting gases in one day that would have taken us humans hundreds of years to produce at our present rate of consumption of petroleum. And now they say cow farts release more gas than automobiles. There's gotta be some bunk science in here somewhere.

Evolution is a good one here, since it seems to be at the center of the topic. Cross breeding is not evolution guys, your ignorance runs amok if you think this. Where did the different breeds come from to cross anyway. The theory of evolution begins with some sort of chemical reaction SOMEHOW (ie, bunk science) becoming organic and becoming a living amoeba (one celled animal). Than that cell SOMEHOW surviving and developing into something more complex. And through more changes SOMEHOW grew into another creature. And the only way to explain all these different species is this must have been happening simultaneously with millions of amoeba's all SOMEHOW morphing into something different. And then one day one... no... had to be more than one of these evolved creatures that was breathing in water managed to crawl onto land and survive long enough to adapt to its new surroundings. Then one day all of this evolution just stopped. Guys there is no scientific evidence in nature that supports this type of theory. Many scientist have tried to no avail. All the evidence shows that plants and animals degenerate a bit after each generation. Mutations in nature almost never improve an animals ability to survive. With these kinds of odds mathematically it is just so highly improbable. It's all just bunk science.

'God did it and He is Magic' is as good an explanation as anything else you can pull out of your ass, but it doesn't conform to the materialistic study of science. Science doesn't dismiss God, but the more we discover about the origins of life and the Universe, the more unlikely God is, and the more impossible any Abrahamic faith seems.

Wow... with the answers to simple question becoming more and more complex as we discover the universe and everything seems to remain in some order beyond chaos it seems that God is more likely to exist. Oh well, whatever.

The main issue with God, of course, is that it doesn't answer anything. "What made the universe? Why, something infinitely more complex than the universe, that existed forever.' Any confirmed atheist views this explanation as deeply wanting.

Scriptures say he made everything in the heavens and the earth. If you believe that as most faiths do, it's easy to understand. Strange how an atheist can somehow put a limitation on a being he doesn't believe in.

It is the spiritual that brought the natural into existence. When God made the first big majestic tree, he probably made it big and strong and tall with 500 growth rings. Even though it would appear the tree was 500 years old by counting the rings it was in fact only one day old on the first day of creation.

You have ZERO evidence to back this up.

You totally missed the point. I wasn't providing evidence. Only a possibility that science totally ignores as a possibility, just like the chicken and egg dichotomy. In fact I think everyone missed the point of the post. So let me make it perfectly clear. There is just as much bunk science out there as there are bunk faiths. But science that refuses to acknowledge a possible truth is operating with one blinder attached. So anyone that professes to be a scientist and then approaches each experiment with a fore gone conclusion is no scientist at all but merely an activist with an agenda.

The point of the chicken and egg problem is to demonstrate to the neo-scientists (don't know what that means but it sounded good) that they have a problem that they can't solve with science. Faith doesn't struggle with the question. It all makes good sense from a faith based perspective. But a simple question like "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?", has science completely befuddled because they don't know where to start because they ignore the obvious.

If science ignores this as a possibility it will struggle with it's ability to make correct analysis. How accurate can carbon dating be if the Earth was made to appear 6million years old when in fact it was made only 6,000 years ago. Bottom line, science is limited by our finite minds. We are only able to comprehend a small portion of the infinite possibilities that exist in the universe.

But SOO many scientific dating methods ALL date the world as far older than 6k years.

Need I say it again??? Totally missed the point. This discussion is all about possibilities. If God indeed made the earth 6million years on the day he made it... how could any dating method be accurate? I didn't say he / or she did, I said IF. <--- possibility ---- get it? Prolly not!

And another thing, even if a supernatural being exists, why do you think that is your god?

Wow... a lot of presumptions in this last question, especially for being so short. When did I make a statement that a supernatural being was my god? And if there is one supernatural being, don't you think there is more than one? If there is nothing beyond the natural then it should be simple for the scientist to answer the question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" All science has to do is examine the natural evidence and draw natural conclusions. But the question poses certain problems to the natural explanation. Enough question that you would think it might warrant a deeper study into the supernatural, but "Nay" say the scientist, "don't confuse me with facts."

I'm absolutely amazed that science can ignore such a simple question. It's an easy one guys. Answer the question if your science is so good.

Thanks everyone for your posts. Some good stuff. I actually am pleased it didn't turn into a "Hey my software is better than yours" war. Kinda surprised me I must say.

I guess this whole issue really does revolve around what you are doing. Personally I don't understand using loops that you don't make yourself. I find it much easier and quicker to just record what I want and loop it myself. I use Adobe Audition. Excellent software. Great FX, easy to use. It's one of the deepest DAW I've experienced and one of the easiest to figure out. I rarely ever have to look at the manual to figure out how to do something. It will manage your files and compile your CD.

I was just hoping someone might be able to defend Reason enough to peak my interest about it. But from listening to the feedback, I'm not really missing anything because I'm not the kind of musician to make much use of the Reason way of making music.

I have to admit that some of you do some nice things with Reason. But for the most part the end product sounds phony, or should I say artificial. Even good electronica should grab a listeners interest. All too often I find myself really bored really fast with most loop based material. But once in a while some of you guys come up with something that makes me listen to the whole piece. Those pieces usually have unique sounds that move in a way you just want to hear what they are going to do next. The pieces have movements as well. Just because you have a loop based software please don't pound the same loop at me through the whole 5 minutes. That's all I ask from you loopers.

Remember the 'ol brain twister question, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"

This is a good one for the science only people. Explain it with science. Kinda hard to do since you need a chicken to hatch the egg. For the creationists it's easy, God made the chicken and then they started hatching their eggs.

The moral of the story is this. Science that ignores religion is not science at all. Science needs to examine all possibilities to be real science. To make the assumption that God does not exist and base all your theories upon that assumption without proving it will result in nothing but error if God does exist.

Another thing, Science has proven that there is something that exists beyond the physical. A scientist, (sorry I can't remember his name, learned about it years ago in science class,) in the early 1900's developed a very sensitive scale for weighing things. It could measure extremely small units of weight. With the permission of several terminal ill patients they were placed on this scale. At the time of death they lost weight. The weight was always pretty much the same amount of weight and was significantly more weight than could be explained by just exhaling the air from their lungs.

The explanation of the experiment raised some questions. Did the spirit of a human actually have mass and when it left the body take that mass with it, thereby causing the patient to weigh less without it. We've all heard stories that some have people actually seen something leave the body at the time of death.

My point is this. Science that ignores the spiritual is in error. The spiritual is apart of the natural; they are interlocked. It is my opinion that the spiritual is more real than the natural. It is the spiritual that brought the natural into existence. When God made the first big majestic tree, he probably made it big and strong and tall with 500 growth rings. Even though it would appear the tree was 500 years old by counting the rings it was in fact only one day old on the first day of creation.

If science ignores this as a possibility it will struggle with it's ability to make correct analysis. How accurate can carbon dating be if the Earth was made to appear 6million years old when in fact it was made only 6,000 years ago. Bottom line, science is limited by our finite minds. We are only able to comprehend a small portion of the infinite possibilities that exist in the universe.

To argue Science only is foolish. To argue blind faith only can be just as foolish, even more so because the possibility exists that your source of information for your faith is a lie. And that is not a far stretch since the Christian faith believes in a deceiver that wanders to and fro seeking to devour whom he may devour. This is a built in red flag waving and screaming watch out for those that will lie about true faith. If the blind follow the blind, both fall in the ditch. Christians read this warning and automatically assume that they are not blind to the truth. Then they turn around and celebrate Easter. Easter is the English transliteration of the word "Ishtar." Ishtar is a pagan fertility god, and yet the first commandment of the Christian faith says "thou shall have no other gods before me," and yet they celebrate the death, burial, and resurrection of their lord and savior in the name of some strange god.

Remember Jack Nicholson in the movie "A Few Good Men" with Tom Cruise. "You can't handle the truth!" This is my message for most Christians.

I keep seeing in posts people saying that a lot of pros use Reason. I've messed with Reason and I don't see the allure, nor do I see where a pro might be drawn to it. Sure it has some cool synths in it but all of the synths sound weak. The FX in it are ok, but hardly professional quality. I found the sequencer very clumsey to use and very limiting. Perhaps the latest version has improved on these short-comings but they would have had to do a lot of re-engineering to do so.

I also thought the way you stacked gear was fun to play with, it turned out to be quite the resource hog for the CPU. They compensated taking away from the audio so the eye-candy wouldn't be sacrificed.

The "Pros" most often use Pro-Tools, Ableton Live, Studio Logic, and now Adobe Audition is making it's way into major studios. Some pros might use Reason if they want that cheezy light artificial loop sound but for the most part Reason is just a cool toy.

If you bought Reason and love it... well great. You should love it. It's a nice toy to play with. But Come on people.... PROFESSIONAL??? Not yet anyway.

There are some great soft-synths out there to choose from. I'd spend $400 on anything from Native Istruments long before I'd consider buying Reason. I already have good FX units and a nice synth and some cool soft-synths, all of which sound very phat and rich. Why would I want anemic and poor?

Here's your chance Reason fanboys... what's so great about Reason that would make me run to the store to get it?

Um... actually, going back to the gold standard is one of the few ideas of his that are really bad. Without the flexibility necessary for a global economy, our currency would stagnate and become even weaker on the global stage. Our inflation is under control, and has been for some time now. It's nothing we need to worry about at the moment. The Fed is doing a fine job keeping our economy relatively stable during the credit crunch. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Total friggin ingnorance!!! Our economy would be the only stabble economy on the planet if we had a gold standard. Global economy??? WTF??? Why should we be concerned about a global economy when we can't even balance our own budget. And what are we spending all that money on anyway. I don't believe in isolationism but I don't believe in mixing oil and water either. And that's what is happening in our country when we try to mix capitalism with socialism. We attempt to tax the rich so the poor can have a little more. But what ends up happening... the poor get hit harder by the taxes because they don't have as much financial cushion between them and bankruptcy. So redistributing the wealth just doesn't work. How about removing the social regulations that keep people from being successful in business.

And without an IRS taking most of our profits we wouldn't need the exhorbitant interest rates to stay afloat. Afloat just long enough to capsize. Private enterprise would once again be private. Who wants the friggin government looking in our financial books anyway... it's none of their business. We no longer live in a free society anymore, Ron Paul's ideas if implemented would just be a start in getting back to a lifestyle that is actually free. Freedom is dead in this country. We only have priveledges anymore... if you think that is a conspiracy theory you are just plain ignorant. The largest problem with the American way of life today is that if you don't conform you get locked up. That is not the definition of freedom... that is the definition of tyranny.

I live in Oregon and we passed an assisted suicide law. I don't agree with it but the state voted and it was implemented. Then the Federal government took our state to court to get the law revoked. WTF??? Read the friggin constitution guys... that is against the law. States have rights to pass their own laws. How can the federal government dictate to the states what they can and cannot believe? Because we are so ignorant to our own laws we allow it.

So all you idiots out there I have this to say. Stupid people usually will remain stupid by choice. They are all too often too lazy to research the facts and just parrot what they have been told by ignorant people with agenda's. Sometimes those people aren't ignorant... they perfectly understand the power of propaganda and know that if they repeat the lie long enough the blind public will start to believe it as truth.

It all comes down to people desire to control other people. And the most powerful way to control other people is with their livelyhood. So if you can convince people they need to be taxed then you will control how they will behave. Because if they don't pay, they don't live free. But they aren't truly free if they have to pay to live. I don't know if I can put it in any simpler terms than the last few sentences.

All I have to say to you idiots that think the Federal Reserve shouldn't be abolished is "UP YOURS!!!" The FED loans money at an inflated price and then charges interest to pay it back. There is no way we can get out of our national debt by borrowing money to pay it back. The gold standard would force everyone to live within their means... especially the government. But the best part about the gold standard is while the price of oil can fluctuate with interest rates a gold standard puts a crimp on how interest rates affect the dollar. Because guess what guy's... it can't! You won't pay $50 for $20 worth of oil... but that happens everyday with the FED. Why? because interest rates affect across the board... everything goes up! Built-in inflation. A gold standard kills inflation. Now the $20 worth of oil is artificially valued at $50. Then someone tacks on interest to that and sells it for $60. Get it? No?... not yet? Now the same oil that sold for $20 seems like a real bargain at $40 because interest rates have already made it look like it was worth more. So when we say that interest rates have been cut and the $60 valued oil is now sold at $40 we feel good about our business sense for saving money when in reality we just got took cause we just paid $40 for $20 worth of oil. That's how the FED works guys... you friggin idiots!

At 12/17/07 02:57 PM, glitchcore wrote:

At 12/17/07 02:49 PM, HookerRoad wrote:

Maybe I'm just a little slow...

correct. He means, buying a cable to hook his other keyboard into OR just buying a midi controller that comes with software AND CABLES.

I use my Korg Triton as a midi controller for my soft-synths. But with the Triton... I hardly use the soft-synths, Althought the Korg Wavestation software I have is really cool too.

At 12/16/07 08:18 PM, WritersBlock wrote: Heh, you got the ol' writer's block. (Not my fault though)

Then when you start, go through it systematically, come up with a nice progression, and if nothing's coming to you, scrap it and try again, just work on getting all those issues out before you move on to putting a melody in and layering it all into place. That way, the room for error is limited and even if you're not feeling at your most inspirational, you can still create some semi-decent music.

To add to this... changing your method often helps. Jump around from instrument to instrument, inspiration usually just comes from something new. Your writers block is probably because everything you are doing sounds the same as what you just did. Sometimes I start with a bass line. Sometimes the melody hit's me first. Good solid songs always have a strong chord progression and solid beat, these are both places most artists start with, but you got to jump around a bit to keep from getting stale. And if it's the Prozac that's got you down... try smoking pot.

At 12/15/07 08:25 PM, squirrelboy1313 wrote: Im trying to decide if i should buy a MIDI controller that comes with software or if i should just buy a cable and download software, Leave your opinions

Maybe I'm just a little slow... but don't you have to use a midi cable to plug your midi controller in?

At 12/14/07 10:16 PM, wisthekiller wrote: There will be a contest held by me on who can remake Midnight the best.

Rules:
must be you playing
can be accoustic electric or even bass
try your hardest

Prizes
1st place gets to know their awesome
2nd place gets to hate someone thats better than them
3rd place will learn how to practice

good luck, this ends in a week(12/22/07).

WTF??? This is either a dumb ass joke or you just want someone to redo it for you so you can use it because you can't play it. If you think you can't get sued because someone else other than Satriani performed the version you use you sorely underestimate BMI and ASCAP.

At 12/17/07 12:18 PM, stupidcarrots wrote: I cant remember what exactly the name of the song is. its made up almost entirely of horns, and is perfect for chases. once i can come with more clues i will. i really need this song for a flash i am making and would like to remember what it is so i can get it.

Let me guess.... Flight of the Bumble Bee

At 12/15/07 04:25 PM, Rucklo wrote: you're banned, don't really know why. its possible that the mod banning you thought that the material wasn't yours. was all of it really? oh well, when the new mod-tools gets introduced, you'll get unbanned. dont know when they will, though.

So what? If your stuff sounds too good it might get mistaken for non-original material and you'll get banned??? I hope these guys don't take themselves quite that seriously.

At 12/16/07 12:06 AM, nal1200 wrote: Did they abide by the Audio Portal rules? If you're 100% certain they did, the mods or whoever approve your first song might be busy. Give it awhile more I guess.

Well how long does it normally take? You'd think 2 weeks is more than adequate time to get approved. I've done the same. I've submitted a couple. If they aren't going to check 'em maybe they should quit requiring approval and just let everyone add them.

I'm not exactly sure how you get these flash guru's to notice you. It seems this site is more for competing against one another than learning from one another. I don't think that was the original intention but it seems to be. Just from reading some of the posts many seem to be disenfranchised because the voting is somewhat easy to manipulate. Oh well. Back to your question.

I got on myspace.com and did a search for filmmakers within a certain radius of my hometown. I got connected with several amateur filmmakers. A couple of 'em were impressed enough with my work to allow me to score their next project. Most of these projects are very low budget so if you are willing to work for free you get the job. It gives you practice and if the project makes money than everyone makes money. It'll also give you something for your portfolio so you can land a real job. I worked it for just a couple of weeks and I have a full length feature film, a short and a TV series for myspace that will be about 20 ten minute episodes, all this will probably hit me this summer.

So good luck with it... there are lot's of guys and gals out there that need our services. Thanks to the obtrusive copyright laws and the corporate bullies that make sure they are enforced, the indie filmmakers are forced to search out people that can write their own stuff. Kind of an end-around the system. That makes those of us that can actually write music a hot commodity. Even some of these midi geeks do some pretty good stuff these days. But if you have real gear they can't really match your quality.

I suggest buy a cheap computer, and invest in a good soundcard (M-Audio) and a good keyboard. You can cheat with soft-synths... there are a lot of good ones out there but you will find you really need to have two computers to do it right, one for your soft-synths and the other for your DAW.

Good luck!

This thread is not even about GB anymore. :D Seems to be moving to a logic pro/logic studio thread. Yeah and I know I'm contributing to that. :)

Yeah... to bad for that. Some guy was obviously just trying to converse with anyone that was familiar with the software he uses and it turned into a friggin free-for-all let's bash Garageband. What's up with that. If GB get's the job done than it is a fine program. I've never used it. I cut my teeth on a cheezy program called Power Tracks. It's a reasonably priced software $50 that is a decent DAW. It's a bit combersome and has some inherent bugs. I did some pretty cool stuff with it, because it has some nice waveform editing features and good fx. It began to slow me down because it's sequencer is sub par and it's midi gui is awkward to use when trying to score midi from the staff page. I didn't use midi that much so it was no biggy for a long time. But the sequencer is what got me to start searching for a better DAW.

I finally settled for Adobe Audition 2.0 and am happy I did. It is easy and fast to use and it works great with loops or direct audio recording. The editing features are top notch. It does things even Sound Forge can't do... at least that's what Keyboard Magazine said. I almost purchased Ableton Live instead. I'm glad I didn't though, Audition is so much easier to use and has a much more familiar feel to it.

Oh... to add to my previous post. Most pros have about six or seven computers in their studios. Each computer takes care of a separate task. Some are dedicated for soft-synths, while others take care of the production aspects of the process. I'll tell you who is really hurting right now... it's the guy who dedicated his whole life to mastering the violin and now can't get a job because some kid with a $500 computer can do everything he can do and more.

No professionals use any computer programs that we use on NG lol. They use real instruments. The only program that pros use is Logic Studio. Oh and you already were proven wrong about your atatements of Garageband earlier in the thread lol.

You are a tad off base here. Pros are people that get paid for their work. Some pros are more successful than others. Even the big boys are moving further away from using "real instruments." Synthesizers have gotten so good more and more blockbuster movies are done completely on synthesizers. The reason for this is time and money. It takes time to set a composition in front of a full orchestra. The musicians all have to be paid. So why do it when your Korg Triton or Yamaha Motif sounds just as good in the end... sometimes better.

Pros use whatever tool get's the job done. And you might be surprised what get's used sometimes. Sometimes its the cheeziest piece of crap equipment that creates just the right sound for the job. Quit arguing about what is better than what. In doing so you only demonstrate your own ignorance for all to see.

Each piece of software does pretty much the same thing... it turns your ideas into music that other people will hear. I really don't care if you recorded your masterpiece on a $10 cassette recorder, if it's good I will enjoy it. If it sucks... well... it sucks! What is important about the software you choose to use is that YOU... the artist are comfortable with it. You don't want software getting in the way of your ideas. When you find that whatever you use is starting to limit your ideas... then and only then is it time to start looking for something better.