TranceHits.com

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 ?

^ 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.

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

^ But that would be retarded wouldn't it?

I just loooove Dubs... <3

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...

mmm... pie...

NO Big Deal