A marketing plan towards the EDM demographic?

[Darryl Ramm]

It's not just what is *said* about Pro Tools. Pro Tools would need to be significantly better than products like... FL Studio, Alberton Live, Alberton Push, NI Kontakt, NI Maschine, GarageBand, Logic Pro, or other DAWs/creation software (and sometimes) hardware in enough key music composition/creation related features to be overall differentiated enough to be worth worrying about. Avid would need to want to seriously chase that market segment. And it is likely going to be a lower-profit market segment than what Avid seems interested in chasing, and its already a crowded space where Avid does not have a good reputation. May just be too steep a hill with no pot of gold at the top to bother running up. But while I think the would be wasting time trying to had push/focus there, I do think pro Tools needs to keep improving features on that side of the product, but there is a difference in doing that and the harder market focus/positioning that seemed to be being asked for here.

But then the reason for Avid doing Pro Tools | First (or as I prefer to call it Pro Tools | Crippleware) is really unclear to me, and it does not seem at least from what I can currently seem to offer anything very compelling to users on the composition/creation side to want to use it over products like FL Studio, Albeton Live, GarageBand or Logic Pro.

Vendors like Alberton and NI, have well regarded integrated hardware controller business that Avid does not have. And Avid's foray into that space did not go well. The Axiom products were sold off to InMusic.

So how is Logic Pro easier to use for composition/creation than Pro Tools... Well, some of these are likely fairly subjective, but I'm surprised that you really can't find *any* way that Logic Pro is better than Pro Tools in this space. I mean come on you can't be looking very hard...

Logic Pro X just has less general problems setting up and using it with MIDI.

Logic Pro X has can open GarageBand sessions which makes it easy for musicians to move up to Logic or for musicians individually using GarageBand to pull together projects in Logic. And for a free/entry level tools GarageBand can let creative folks do quite a lot.

Logic Pro X has a wider range of useful VIs (and other goodies) out of the box than Pro Tools, keyboards/pianos/organ/mellotron, drums as well as non-VI guitar/bass amp sims and effects pedals.. (OK not for dance music but that lets somebody doing MIDI/VI based composition easily add in guitar/bass parts).

Logic Pro X has a built in drummer. The built in rhythm related VIs in Pro Tools might be OK for some music but sheesh, it's pretty basic crap. And if a drum synth is what you want Logic Pro X has Ultrabeat.

Logic Pro X has Apple Loops, basic stuff but they can get a lot of folks started.

The Logic X Score Editor is just nicer/easier to (at least to me) to use that the Pro Tools editor.

Logic Pro X has more powerful/useful MIDI event list than Pro Tools

You can label MIDI notes in Logic Pro with a "mapped instrument", something as stupidly useful as knowing what key is the high-hat for your favorite drum VI. Nope can't do that in Pro Tools. That is a major bugbear for me.

Logic X's MIDI Draw feature lets you get at a lot of MIDI parameters and quickly edit them with finesse with a mouse. That being said I don't get why Apple changed the MIDI Hyper Editor to MIDI Draw in Logic X, I thought Hyper Editor was wonderful as it was.

Apple has the integrated MainStage product that is useful for musicians who want to take their work on stage. Show me a musician who wants Pro Tools on stage with them..

iLok. How many musicians want to relay on the stupid iLok thingy thing especially if live/on-stage?

And moving forward to Pro Tools | Crippleware, how many musicians want to have to be connected to the Internet to have to work on anything but the last session opened?

....

But OTOH there are many things in Pro Tools I really like. And amusingly one thing I dislike with Logic is the damn documentation. Too many cases where you can end up going around and around with stuff just stuck because the Logic documentation skipped something _really_ key (like you need to enable an advanced option in the preferences for the thing the doc is talking about to be usable).

As others have said everybody should use what they prefer, are experienced with and have at hand, but the question initially here was about convincing Avid to market Pro Tools at a music creator segment and I think that is really a bad place for Avid to want to focus on with the current product capabilities.

[DBK]

Originally Posted by Darryl Ramm

It's not just what is *said* about Pro Tools. Pro Tools would need to be significantly better than products like... FL Studio, Alberton Live, Alberton Push, NI Kontakt, NI Maschine, GarageBand, Logic Pro, or other DAWs/creation software (and sometimes) hardware in enough key music composition/creation related features to be overall differentiated enough to be worth worrying about. Avid would need to want to seriously chase that market segment. And it is likely going to be a lower-profit market segment than what Avid seems interested in chasing, and its already a crowded space where Avid does not have a good reputation. May just be too steep a hill with no pot of gold at the top to bother running up. But while I think the would be wasting time trying to had push/focus there, I do think pro Tools needs to keep improving features on that side of the product, but there is a difference in doing that and the harder market focus/positioning that seemed to be being asked for here.

But then the reason for Avid doing Pro Tools | First (or as I prefer to call it Pro Tools | Crippleware) is really unclear to me, and it does not seem at least from what I can currently seem to offer anything very compelling to users on the composition/creation side to want to use it over products like FL Studio, Albeton Live, GarageBand or Logic Pro.

Vendors like Alberton and NI, have well regarded integrated hardware controller business that Avid does not have. And Avid's foray into that space did not go well. The Axiom products were sold off to InMusic.

So how is Logic Pro easier to use for composition/creation than Pro Tools... Well, some of these are likely fairly subjective, but I'm surprised that you really can't find *any* way that Logic Pro is better than Pro Tools in this space. I mean come on you can't be looking very hard...

Logic Pro X just has less general problems setting up and using it with MIDI.

Logic Pro X has can open GarageBand sessions which makes it easy for musicians to move up to Logic or for musicians individually using GarageBand to pull together projects in Logic. And for a free/entry level tools GarageBand can let creative folks do quite a lot.

Logic Pro X has a wider range of useful VIs (and other goodies) out of the box than Pro Tools, keyboards/pianos/organ/mellotron, drums as well as non-VI guitar/bass amp sims and effects pedals.. (OK not for dance music but that lets somebody doing MIDI/VI based composition easily add in guitar/bass parts).

Logic Pro X has a built in drummer. The built in rhythm related VIs in Pro Tools might be OK for some music but sheesh, it's pretty basic crap. And if a drum synth is what you want Logic Pro X has Ultrabeat.

Logic Pro X has Apple Loops, basic stuff but they can get a lot of folks started.

The Logic X Score Editor is just nicer/easier to (at least to me) to use that the Pro Tools editor.

Logic Pro X has more powerful/useful MIDI event list than Pro Tools

You can label MIDI notes in Logic Pro with a "mapped instrument", something as stupidly useful as knowing what key is the high-hat for your favorite drum VI. Nope can't do that in Pro Tools. That is a major bugbear for me.

Logic X's MIDI Draw feature lets you get at a lot of MIDI parameters and quickly edit them with finesse with a mouse. That being said I don't get why Apple changed the MIDI Hyper Editor to MIDI Draw in Logic X, I thought Hyper Editor was wonderful as it was.

Apple has the integrated MainStage product that is useful for musicians who want to take their work on stage. Show me a musician who wants Pro Tools on stage with them..

iLok. How many musicians want to relay on the stupid iLok thingy thing especially if live/on-stage?

And moving forward to Pro Tools | Crippleware, how many musicians want to have to be connected to the Internet to have to work on anything but the last session opened?

....

But OTOH there are many things in Pro Tools I really like. And amusingly one thing I dislike with Logic is the damn documentation. Too many cases where you can end up going around and around with stuff just stuck because the Logic documentation skipped something _really_ key (like you need to enable an advanced option in the preferences for the thing the doc is talking about to be usable).

As others have said everybody should use what they prefer, are experienced with and have at hand, but the question initially here was about convincing Avid to market Pro Tools at a music creator segment and I think that is really a bad place for Avid to want to focus on with the current product capabilities.

When I said I couldn't find anything i guess i wasnt being totally clear, I more meant I cant find anything that is actually worth it enough for me to switch over for. They are all either things you can do in pro tools maybe a tad slower, or things that dont really effect me at all.

I love Pro Tools but at the same time its all I've really used so I couldn't help but wonder if maybe I am using something thats slowing me down based on the type of music I make. Not because everyone talks about logic and ableton, but because no one uses pro tools. Naturally it just made me suspicious so I've been trying to figure it out ever since.

I was expecting logic to have things you literally cant do in pro tools that make production easier based on how much better people say it is. It just seems to be things that take a little bit longer in pro tools but really, not that much. Or things that are irrelevant to my workflow.

There are a few minor midi things in pro tools that would be nice to have but its nothing I cant do from in my sampler anyway. Thats another big thing, when I say i dont see anything done in Logic that I cant do in pro tools, I also mean using the plug ins that I have. Ive never seen anything done in logic that I cant do in pro tools including all my plugins. So that might make that a bit more clear.
Anyway I'm convinced I can get this logic idea out of my head. I was just more curious than anything because every time I asked no one could ever give me an answer, it was starting to drive me nuts why everyone thought pro tools was so incapable.

[musicman691]

Originally Posted by deanrichard

IMO one of the most important differences is that PT doesn't support VST or VSTi. If you're happy with the instruments and FX that AAX, that's fine, but there are so many more options in the VST world. For people on a budget (the bedroom producers) it's important that there are many, many free instruments and plugins, and that many others are affordable. And while there are some that are mediocre or elementary, there are a surprising number that are excellent. There are also a lot of creative and unique instruments and FX available, while the AAX options often tend to be more "traditional". Nearly everything that is AAX is also available as VST, but the reverse is not even close to true.

The feature set can also be appealing to those on a budget. The ability to Freeze a VSTi track is important to someone working on a laptop or lesser computer, and it can be important for audio tracks as well.

I believe we've hit a point where you can create music in just about any major DAW, and achieve excellent results. If PT is working for you, no need to change. But others feel differently, and I understand their reasoning.

Dean

But PT CAN run vst format plugins via Blue Cat MB7-2 or Patchwork so the argument that PT can't run vst format is a red herring at best. It can't do it natively (never has and never will) but it can be done. Granted it's a pay-for option but then again sometimes you have to spend money to do what you want.

[upscaps]

It's nothing you can explain by comparing features on a list. You have to actually do midi/vi work in other daws to see the differences. I would suggest doing a VI/Midi session in Logic or Studio One and compare that experience to a midi/VI session in PT.

You don't even have to read the manual to do midi/VI work in Studio One. Great GUI. I just could never figure out how to get mono sounds in Impact to bounce to mono audio even when I looked for it in the manual. Always split afterwards. But everything is drag and drop and so fast and efficient. I would never attempt to track or mix in Studio One though. I compose as much in Studio One as I do Logic.

[ladewd]

As a keyboardist, I find the latency using VI's atrocious in PT. Logic and Studio One are better. Logic has midi processing which is missing in just about any other DAW.

I am such a stickler for tight playing and timing, that I've purchased about 8 hardware synths in the last 2 years. I have no problem working in PT with external midi and audio, but if you throw a virtual instrument into the mix, it's useless for me. Granted, I don't do EDM, I play R&B, Rock and Jazz. Nothing frustrates me more than doing a 4 octave arpeggio on the piano and have my fingers off the keyboard by them time the VI's catch up.

I can run lower latencies in other DAWs and feel more comfortable using VI's.

EDM may not matter though, since many folks use pasted clips and paint in midi notes.

[mesaone]

Originally Posted by ladewd

Logic has midi processing which is missing in just about any other DAW.

MIDI plug-ins, you mean? Along with the Environment stuff you can do with arps and filters and whatnot?

Cubase has always done this better, they have MIDI VST inserts that function similar to regular inserts (except obviously with MIDI instead of audio). Although the last versions I own are Logic Suite 9 and Cubase 5.5, so maybe Logic X has MIDI plug-ins now.

[RegenerationMix]

honestly, a number of EDM artists arent really musicians that play instruments. ( this is not meant as an insult). They are musicians that play the computer and the software. They tend to come from a DJ background, blending songs together, glitching those, effecting etc entire mixes. Then it progressed to making their own loops etc.

Pro tools comes from a instrument recording background. So its not a top list DAW for EDM artists yet. I happen to use it for EDM, but i am one of the few that uses pro tools. I dont play my tracks with a mouse click. My first OB8 wasnt even midi. Hell, it was years before synths would even save the sound as a preset.

here is a perfect example which i find to be typical. I dont think he even touches his keyboard to play any part, melody or chord. its mostly a controller more than an instrument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dIcuU58Oy8

another here, Skrillex, who is super talented and a huge success. says in this video, he does all his records on his laptop in hotel rooms or in cars. no keyboard, no instrument, etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT40_00AGQU


Not that they arent talented or dont make money. But for most of them, they dont play instruments to record into pro tools.
Pro tools was first and foremost recording software to record performances. The midi and composing aspects were added late. Pro tools expected you to be able to play the music into it.

no disrespect intended to EDM artists or their method of composing. Pro tools is not so conducive to the method used today by most EDM artists.

Chris

[ladewd]

MIDI plug-ins, you mean? Along with the Environment stuff you can do with arps and filters and whatnot?

Exactly. The environment is very deep. As far as midi plug ins, other DAWs have them. The only thing that bothers me about Logic is the fact it does not recognize multi-port interfaces on the midi inputs. Just using separate channels is an easy workaround. It plays back fine through an 8 port interface though.