Instrumental Vs. Dub

[Qulture]

Recently , all vocal tracks being released , with an instrumental version have been lebeled as " Dubs. "

I personally think this is wrong , a dub version of any track, should be produced differently , with a darker sound , heavier bass-line , and a hint of the vocals used in the original or vocal version .

Instrumentals should be the same as the original or vocal version , minus the vocals !!!

bring on the dubs!!!

comments ?

[Proof]

^ Well yea ... that is technically the definition of "Instrumental" & "Dub". I think i posted this thread a long time ago, lol.


Vocal Mix: Mainly vocals ... less of lead/melody
Dub: More lead/melody and a bit of vocal samples
Instrumental: Full on lead/melody and scrap the vocals.

If people can't get the difference when labelling their tracks ... they should be corrected by the label itself. Or even killed ... lol.

[3aly]

but they can call it whatever they want... they can call it "Vocal Mix" even if it didn't have vocals

[Proof]

^ But that would be retarded wouldn't it?

[Immy]

[TranceFusion]

I just loooove Dubs... <3

[Genesis]

Immy, He didn't judge Hasneez or the producer as retarded, he was refering to
the action of misnaming the tune. Apu is a not hasty or judgmental and he
does have a point in his opinion.

Immy, you've got to relax a little bit and cut down on unleashing edgy
comments.

Back to the point: it's pretty misleading to name the remixes like that.
Producers have to stick to a name for the remix that describes the final
altered version of the tune. It's still not a big deal to name the remix
differently, but to a certain level, it gets misleading and pretty pointless.

Imagine a type of cheese called Burger Pie... so yea...

[DIONYSOS]

mmm... pie...

[AnT-1]

NO Big Deal