It is actually possible to record and mix a complete album using GB?

Question

in a commercial sense? (moving this from another thread as not to hijack)
Here is a scenario. Take an artist like Jose Gonzalez http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4_4abCWw-w&feature=fvw Is GB a capable enough environment to record and process music like this and perhaps even host the necessary mastering plugs to finish?
I have seen many comments about when it would be right to step up to Logic and they mainly revolve around needing something perhaps like the comping feature for example. These are aids in time saving and for rescuing imperfect takes. However, is there anything inherently wrong or uncommercial or amateurish in believing that GB is all I need to record and produce my self funded independent commercial release?
or .... whats the stigma?

Answer 1

gjmnz wrote:
in a commercial sense? (moving this from another thread as not to hijack)
For the most part, I think the answer is no. There are always exceptions, and GB can do a lot, but the exceptions in which people have used GB to fully produce a released album are statistically rare for legitimate reasons.
Someone brought up the Springsteen album made on a cassette as an example that you don't need professional gear to make a professional album. That's true if you're, you know, BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN! Ravel wrote the melody for Bolero on a napkin, I believe. Does that mean napkins are sufficient for notating music and musicians should abandon staff paper?
Then there's the argument that GB is more sophisticated than what many albums of the past were made on. That's true in many respects. But the sheer quality of analog components used in classic albums far surpasses the limitations of the type of consumer interfaces typically paired with GB, compounded by the inability of digital simulations to replicate their analog precursors (yet). Yeah, the Beatles may only have had a limited number of tracks, but the caliber of audio feeding those tracks was spectacular. (Aside from the music).
I'm not dissing GB.
Quite the opposite.
I love GB, use it, advocate its use, praise it to the high heavens.
GB is revolutionary and democratizing.
But the features in GB don't reach into the kind of pro features necessary to produce a typical commercial release.
Not that GB isn't a great starting point, and I think a number of artists do just that. Start in GB, but the tracks are then imported into a more full featured digital audio workstation where they can be more adequately mixed.
Somewhat motivated by this thread, I tried to produce a song this past weekend entirely in GB. I plugged expensive hardware into it - high end mics, preamps, compressors, etc. So it sounded pretty good.
The wall I hit was when I needed to edit. I need to edit some parts together and couldn't really do it without Logic's more precise editing tools, cross fading, etc. The machine I was using didn't have Logic on it, so I was all intent on staying in GB, but the song was hobbled by lack of a more complete feature set. Of course, maybe if the song didn't need those edits I wouldn't have hit a wall, but it did.
I also didn't have the plugins that I normally have in Logic available, and they would have helped. I suppose someone could invest in a lot of plugins and use them in GB, although most people who make the plugin investment would already upgrade to Logic because it makes economic sense - Logic is a bargain considering everything it comes with before you'd start adding 3rd party plugs. So it'd be weird to have, say, a thousand dollars worth of plugins and still be on GB. But I suppose you could do it... but still... you'd be missing all the editing and mixing features of Logic which are a level of magnitude more robust than GB.
I have seen many comments about when it would be right to step up to Logic and they mainly revolve around needing something perhaps like the comping feature for example. These are aids in time saving and for rescuing imperfect takes. However, is there anything inherently wrong or uncommercial or amateurish in believing that GB is all I need to record and produce my self funded independent commercial release?
or .... whats the stigma?
People can produce fantastic work in GB and, as an empty vessel, if you fill it up with top grade music, that's what matters most. But if you're serious about releasing your music above a certain threshold of production standards, the type of tools that come with Logic, ProTools, Digital Performer, Cubase, etc. start to get fairly essential fairly quick.
It's not a stigma. If you can do it in GB, if anything, that's kind of cool. But try asking this question in the Logic forum and see what kind of answers you get from musicians who regularly use Logic. Seriously. See what kind of points Logic users would make to advocate bumping up to Logic if your goal is to release a commercial production.