On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Paul Davis <[email protected]>wrote:
> > > > In addition, I think that you already know that you have a fairly > particular definition of "electronic musician" that actually excludes a lot > of the electronic music composers and performers who have traditionally > found Linux to be fairly hospitable place. These are specifically people who > are not in search of new synths or FX units with which to play relatively > conventional compositions with (perhaps) rather unusual timbres, but instead > want the control and possibilities presented by tools like SuperCollider, > PureData, Common Music and so on and so forth. I don't think that one group > is more important than the other, but I do know how labels can be a problem, > both in terms of a reduction in cognitive distinctions and also in social > exclusion. > > --p > > I absolutely do not imply that one group is more important than another. I don't like getting into that kind of argument at all. All in all, the feedback I am getting from LAD is very valuable to me in terms of understanding how everybody sees Linux Audio. So please do understand I am not whining and the article I presented to you is more of a story of how one particular composer discovered suitable tools for himself. The labels thing is more controversial - it tends to be. I hate labels myself. But at the same time I have difficulty finding another term. "Electronic musician" is a rather general term, no argument there, this is why I specifically mention what I mean by that in the article. There is a number of people outside linux and some inside linux community who are specifically interested in the state of affairs in linux regarding a certain type of workflow. This article is an update for them. I do not regret sharing it on the LAD, obviously. Louigi.
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
