On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Fons Adriaensen <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 12:39:04PM -0500, Paul Davis wrote: > >> the position that i take with N-point editing is not that there is >> some other way to do "the following". There isn't. its that the way of >> approaching the task that leads to needing to do "the following" is >> rooted in an older way of thinking about the overall workflow. > > Tell that to your customer when he (or she in this case) wants you > to replace part of an edited track with the same fragment from > another take.
i'm confused about who the customer is. the older way of thinking about the overall workflow is an attribute of the engineer/editor, not the singer. if the engineer/editor is the customer, i'd tell them to use another program right now because ardour doesn't support their workflow. i try not to spend much time convincing people to work in a different way than they are used to, it seems pretty pointless to me since i don't really believe that one way is superior to the others (though some are definitely more connected to ideas rooted in some kind physical operation like tape splicing). hint: there's no reason to replace the section from [2:03 to 2:27] with another take at all. > Now I could have told her that what she wanted was 'rooted in an > older way of thinking', or that she was stupid and should have had > that bright idea before we had done the five edits following this > fragment, that would just have confirmed that you have the skills to be abrasive and difficult to get along with when you choose to. > but I didn't and actually performed the edit to her > satisfaction. much better idea. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
