linuxaudio.org

On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Fons Adriaensen  wrote:

quoted text
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:02:21AM -0500, Paul Davis wrote:

>

>> i don't agree with you that its about a type of music. it is about the

>> difference between some different ways of producing music, and not

>> just two of them. there are certainly approaches to making music that

>> are not well served by a DAW. but they are approaches to the

>> production of music, not kinds of music.

>

> Well, 'type' or even 'a particular type' can refer to a leaf node

> in the taxonomy or to a quite solid branch of it.

> The are classes of music that depend on sequencing etc. in order to

> be produced at all - that's why people involved in them want those

> features in the first place. I don't think it's wrong to call this

> 'a particular type of music', the type is defined by its dependence

> on those tools.

music is sound arranged in time (and optionally in space). i don't

know precisely what you mean by sequencing, but that means that any

production of music is going to involve arranging one or more of the

following things in time:
   * carrying out physical movements

   * playback of existing recordings of audio

   * instructions (for a human and/or a machine) to do one or both of the above
to the extent that computers don't carry out physical movement (much),

any use of computers in the production of music means that it is going

to involve the 2nd and 3rd options. both of them have been called

"sequencing". ardour2 only does the second action right now; ardour3

adds the third (instructions for a machine).
>> the notion that there is ever "one tool" for a task as

quoted text
>> incredibly varied as producing music is absurd. nobody with half a

>> brain suggests that any DAW can be that tool.

>

> Then maybe the term 'DAW' is misnomer. I wouldn't call a tool

> that can't do simple four point editing an 'audio workstation'.

what you don't know (because you're not on IRC) is the question of

N-point editing comes up a lot. i (and others) have argued (in my

opinion quite successfully) that four point editing is a relic of an

older workflow. others who have used 2, 3 and 4 point editing a lot on

other systems have argued back. nobody has been persuaded to change

their minds, and clearly nobody with the strong feelings in favor of

it has been motivated thus far to implement it.
> choose to interpret my words), but just that they are focussed

quoted text
> on a 'type', 'class', 'category' or whatever you may call it

> of music that doesn't require it.

actually, i think i can speak clearly for carl and myself (the two

most active current developers; possibly most of the others too) when

i say that we are focussed on the feedback that we get from people who

repeatedly engage with us using the communication channels that we

find most convenient for this work. is that perfect? no. but its the

way things work out, at least for the last several years. the price of

entry into the exclusive club that is #ardour is simply time, nothing

more (or less).
> Well, I could pay or I could offer my time as a developer. During

quoted text
> the last five years I have several times offered to integrate decent

> multichannel or AMB panning into Ardour, provided I could team up

> with someone taking care of the GUI aspects (I'm a nitwit regarding

> writing for GTK). Nothing has happened. I've arrived at the point

> where it quite clear that if I want certain functionality I'll be

> on my own to implement it.

if you can live with VBAP, this may interest you:
http://ardour.org/files/vbappanners.png

_______________________________________________

Linux-audio-dev mailing list

Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org

http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev