[LAU] Subject: Albums under a label recorded and/or mixed with Linux
hollunder at lavabit.com
Thu Sep 23 05:43:32 UTC 2010
Excerpts from shanerich's message of 2010-09-23 02:18:52 +0200:
> >Hi all,
> >just for curiosity
> >how many albums (if any) *under a record label*
> >have been recorded and/or mixed with Linux?
> A little OT, but anyhow:
> As somebody who has been doing the "major label dance" for the last 6
> months, I have found the following:
> Major Label Representative: Run a freaking mile. They realise that if
> you're a linux user, you have a brain and can see through their crap.
> If they don't run, you find they have to "remix" on protools, even if
> the end result is the same or worse, they claim it's better.*
> Major Label Engineer: Show them a copy of Ardour and they are
> immediately comfortable. Show them Jamin and they ask if it runs on
> Windows. Engineers are practical people, even the corporate ones. Does
> it work? Great!
> So I suspect the answer to your question would be both "close to zero"
> (Linux distro) and "quite a lot" (Linux embedded), as Paul pointed out.
> *For the record, last engineer sneakily loaded the final two-track, ran
> it through the console and bussed it direct to the master outs, whilst
> pretending to twiddle by sweeping through the mids before returning it
> to zero, and throwing the faders around on the non-bussed tracks,
> making A&R guy happy. Lots of "oohs" and "aahs" and "Eso!" ("That's
> It!"). Idiota.
> That's South America, and generally very Linux friendly here, I suspect
> the "developed world" would be a nightmare.
> - shane
"The magic of the console" I guess..
It's hard to believe that this kind of crap actually happens. Do they
think it has to be 'recorded' with 'industry standard' gear or is there
another reason? ("We remixed it, so we have rights on it.")
My guess is that in the 'developed' world they might know less about
Linux, but I'm not sure the reaction would be better.
More information about the Linux-audio-user