On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Fons Adriaensen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:41:56PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >> and to answer that question: what happened was huge great >> boatloads of data that need to be shovelled around between all the >> relevant components, complicated synchronization in both the backend >> models and the user interfaces of all the relevant components, and a >> general disdain for complex *systems* when one can settle for merely >> complex programs. > > There's no doubt that many users or potential users want the > 'all integrated' DAW combining audio, sequencing, invasive > effects, etc. required to produce a particular type of music
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. > OTOH, this does not mean that some other people (who may be > a minority) can't have other needs, nor does it provide good > reasons to imply that they are in some way retarded, out of > sync with their time, old-fashioned or whatever. of course not. but the question still remains whether that particular group of people would rather deal with a complex app that is tuned to their needs or a complex system that can, optionally, be tuned to their needs. the question doesn't change. there are people who are far happier to deal with PD or Max than with a collection of plugins inside a modular host - its the same kind of distinction. > It's also foolish to suggest that the 'all inclusive universal > DAW' will cater for those needs - just ignore what you don't > use etc. It most definitely does *not* because it's by no means > as universal as you may think, but rather the reflection of > one particular musical culture. i think you're wrong. its not that a DAW represents one particular musical culture, it just reflects some cultures of music production and not others. the notion that there is ever "one tool" for a task as incredibly varied as producing music is absurd. nobody with half a brain suggests that any DAW can be that tool. > Also, 'ignoring the bits you don't need' is not always as simple > as it may seem. The simple fact that these things _are_ provided > has consequences on the overall design, they _do_ distract, they > _have_ to be checked and disabled (often each time again), they > _do_ take resources and they _do_ impact reliability. And they > are not compile time options. i think you over-estimate the impact of this, although i agree that its not zero. > And the most perverse consequence of preferring complex apps > to complex systems is that it becomes near impossible to modify > them to individual or 'minority' needs. i return to my earlier points above. why would you imagine that tinkering with "the all inclusive universal DAW" is ever going to produce the right tool for each individual or minority need. the whole concept is just misformed. > learning all of it. I'm at the mercy of its developers, and > they have good reasons to ignore my needs as they have done > for years. So the only remaining advantage is that it is free not to be mercenary about it, but the difference is that if your needs were that important and not being met by anything available to an intolerable degree, you could (or some organization could) choose to pay to have your needs met and not face any licensing/access issues in doing so.. the open source nature of ardour, like the open source nature of emacs and firefox and linux, doesn't mean that its going to cater to everyone's needs as-is. the difference with protools is that you can't even consider this as an option. is that a big difference? it depends on whether a tool like ardour stands any hope of being the solution. for people who like to make music with renoise or with ensembles of cassette players and violins played with pencil erasers, it very well may not be. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
