Cubase is a traditional DAW.
Live isn't, really.
While Live can do DAW
stuff, it's not really as good as a full-featured DAW for recording bands or composing
film scores etc (though there are people that do use Live for those things).
The main advantage of Live is that it lets you work in a very different way to a
traditional DAW, it's a great tool kit for improvising, jamming, and developing ideas
while you can then move over to a DAW to finish off, or to take your DAW-recorded songs
and move them into a live performance environment for playback, jamming etc.
It's either a workflow you will love, or not get on with. I remember I first demo'd Live
back when it was a session-view audio playback tool only (no MIDI at all, I think maybe
version 1 or 2), and while I thought it was cool for mashing up loops, it wasn't really
how I made music and I thought it as a bit of a novelty, or a toy. Fun, but ultimately not
that useful for me.
It wasn't until I re-demo'd it, I think Live 3 just
before Live 4 was coming out, and it finally clicked for me. It's not a replacement for
Logic for me, but it's a great supplement - it's really good at the things Logic is not
great at, and correspondingly it's not great at some of the things Logic excels at.
It's particularly well adopted by makers of beat-based, electronic music, as it
excels in that area, but as I said, any tool is down to the user to use. It might not be
for you, so just because someone else loves it, doesn't mean it suits your workflow. If
you want to try it out, give the demo a whirl, but don't be surprised if you don't get it,
or see it's benefits - it just might not suit you. For me, it's a valuable extra toolkit
and gives me an additional way of working which can be really beneficial - I come up with
quite different forms of music when working in Live than I do in Logic, and it can be more
fun (and sometimes, more painful
Quote Jack Ruston:
It makes a
great second DAW.
mu:zines | music magazine archive | Vintage issues of SOS, MT, E&MM and more...