> > Do we need more fantastic songs which will blow the listeners mind?
No, I don't think so. > Do we need songs that make use of LMMS functions in a brilliant way? Do > we need > songs that have a combination of those? > Not necessarily. > We need to discuss the process of adding projects to LMMS. I don't think there is an overwhelming demand for this. I think you may be adding additional process where it is not necessary. > 1. Criteria for putting songs into LMMS. Everyone who knows github clearly > has an advantage the way we do it now. The fork and pull request process has foreign words, but is tremendously simple and has an extremely simple front-end to use on Win/Mac, so I would argue anyone can easily ask for a song to be added. > My point of view on this lies with > unfa (github link). Through "competitions" / challenges we can set the > rules, and then choose the song8s) which best show the part(s) of LMMS we > wanted to show! We tried that with LMMSc and the decision was made to not make it a competition. 2. Second we need to talk about credits in LMMS. Now many projects has the > name of their artist in the name, and we don't even know what kind of > licence it got. Accreditation the way we do it now is just a historical decision that can be changed. Some of us (namely you, StakeoutPunch, uros and myself) have discussed changing the way artists names are displayed in the track titles (namely, removing the artists names completely) and perhaps this email is the best place for that conversation but I think we're nitpicking a bit too much when we discuss track names and honestly, I don't think people play the default tracks much. > With CC0 the problem will be solved, no reason to credit then. And > honestly, there have been, are right now and are going to be a lot of > great LMMS artists in the world, and having some of these artists name in > the program just because they have made a song in LMMS seems stupid, we > just agreed on not to have credits for samples for example. Tres, > Umcaruje, StakeoutPunch and I had a conversation where I were convinced > that special crediting for projects is just as unfair. Well, from what I remember, we all agreed that we don't want to encourage self-promotion through the software. The fairness of crediting someone in the track name is yet to be determined, hence this discussion. But if you really want to talk built-in tracks... where we could really excel is some tracks that follow a well written tutorial. This is how that commercial book was written, with LMMS demo tracks for learning. Certainly, some learn from examples and our tracks offer that, but having a completed track ship with the software doesn't add a whole lot of value anymore. Most people can watch a 15 minute youtube video and learn more by watching someone compose in real-time. I don't want to be the nay-sayer, but I just don't think the built-in tracks are as big of a conversation point as these points are illustrating. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ LMMS-devel mailing list LMMS-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lmms-devel
