[LAD] LADI

[rosea grammostola]

Louigi Verona wrote:
> Thanks, Alex, for this lengthy explanation. I must think about it. I 
> can certainly see
> the massive advantages of modular approach for complex setups and 
> specific tasks.
> How good is it for simple things like making an ordinary song?
@Alex, thanks for your view.

I don't think it has to be 'one or the other' here. As I see it now I 
think it will be good to have the ability on Linux to use roughly two 
different approaches.

1) The 'all-in-one-app' + plugins inside approach (Ardour with LV2 
plugins for example).

And

2) The modular approach, (e.g. Jack apps, pluginhosts like lv2rack 
(naspro), synths etc.). 


Approach 1 is an improvement for many people and many people like to 
work that way.

But if you only focusing on approach 1, you throw away a lot of the 
potential of Linux audio and what it has accomplished so far. As Alex 
pointed out nicely, the modular approach can be a big advantage of Linux.

And yes, there is also one (big) disadvantage, that is, manually 
launching all the applications and settings every session again and 
again. This can be really bad.

Just recently the openoctave project is trying to achieve a nice 
workflow with the modular approach. This is quite a new and unique 
project. And it could take away the disadvantages of the modular 
approach. At least if you want to work the way openoctave project is 
working, focusing on orchestral and film music.

For 'light music' (Pop, Rock, Electro etc) the situation is a bit 
different. They work with many apps and many different synths in many 
different situations and combinations. The question is whether the 
openoctave way is an solution for this group. Because you don't work 
with a static set of tools as the openoctave project does (Ardour, 
oomidi, linuxsampler, jconvolver).
(I'm thinking about the way artist as Atte Jensen are working and the 
discussion he recently started about the lack of tools for quick 
composition on Linux and also about the discussion about some kind of 
Ableton Live for Linux tool.)

Especially for the 'light music' group, a session handler could be very 
useful. Making scripts for every combination of apps those people use, 
is not very realistic and at least not very 'workflow friendly'. 
Especially not if you realize that those artists work a lot by 
improvisation and small creative ideas which should be put into an 
computer easy and fast.

So unless there is a movement towards approach 1 (which is not bad at 
all),  the modular approach will always have it's advantages for a group 
of artists. And for many of these artists, a session handler will not 
only be useful but also necessary.

Now I feel we have quality wood, precise hammers, good sounding strings, 
decent pedals and nice feeling keys. But every-time before we can play 
this great piano we have to put those components together first. And a 
majority of us are not even piano builders!
A session handler could provide a piano for us, which is ready to play.  
And that is where many artists are looking for...


\r