[LAU] A year of Linux Audio revisited - would like to know your oppinion

Charles Linart clinart at gmail.com
Tue Dec 11 12:14:06 EST 2007

> Just because you're ignorant about a function doesn't mean it's
> unimportant.  Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway"
> followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion,
> not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were
> talking about.

Successful music?  What's that?  You mean commercial music?  By my
definition of success (sounding good) it is a complete and total
failure in most cases.  Now hear out my "argument":

Music is a human experience, and mechanizing it to the extent that
it's mechanized today in commercial studios dehumanizes it; therefore,
commercial music sucks.  You may disagree, but maybe my ears are just
better attuned than yours to the clocklike monotony of what you call
"successful" music.

Many good songs are completely ruined by overproduction.  The best
artists out there are still doing it live-to-tape, and Linux is just
fine for that sort of thing.  Even electronic music (not my thing, but
for what it's worth...) made with Linux sounds pretty damn competent
to me.  You should listen to some of the stuff people post to this
list from time to time.  It's dang good.

As for "quantizing the groove," open-source programs have many, many
ways of doing that based on the description from the Cakewalk website,
even if they don't have a cool marketing slogan for it.  Maybe we
should call it "phreaking the matrix" in the OSS audio world.

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list