On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 6:43 AM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)linuxaudio.org> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 07:41:56PM -0500, Paul Davis
wrote:
and to answer that question: what happened was
huge great
boatloads of data that need to be shovelled around between all the
relevant components, complicated synchronization in both the backend
models and the user interfaces of all the relevant components, and a
general disdain for complex *systems* when one can settle for merely
complex programs.
There's no doubt that many users or potential users want the
'all integrated' DAW combining audio, sequencing, invasive
effects, etc. required to produce a particular type of music
i don't agree with you that its about a type of music. it is about the
difference between some different ways of producing music, and not
just two of them. there are certainly approaches to making music that
are not well served by a DAW. but they are approaches to the
production of music, not kinds of music.
OTOH, this does not mean that some other people (who
may be
a minority) can't have other needs, nor does it provide good
reasons to imply that they are in some way retarded, out of
sync with their time, old-fashioned or whatever.
of course not. but the question still remains whether that particular
group of people would rather deal with a complex app that is tuned to
their needs or a complex system that can, optionally, be tuned to
their needs. the question doesn't change. there are people who are far
happier to deal with PD or Max than with a collection of plugins
inside a modular host - its the same kind of distinction.
It's also foolish to suggest that the 'all
inclusive universal
DAW' will cater for those needs - just ignore what you don't
use etc. It most definitely does *not* because it's by no means
as universal as you may think, but rather the reflection of
one particular musical culture.
i think you're wrong. its not that a DAW represents one particular
musical culture, it just reflects some cultures of music production
and not others. the notion that there is ever "one tool" for a task as
incredibly varied as producing music is absurd. nobody with half a
brain suggests that any DAW can be that tool.
Also, 'ignoring the bits you don't need'
is not always as simple
as it may seem. The simple fact that these things _are_ provided
has consequences on the overall design, they _do_ distract, they
_have_ to be checked and disabled (often each time again), they
_do_ take resources and they _do_ impact reliability. And they
are not compile time options.
i think you over-estimate the impact of this, although i agree that
its not zero.
And the most perverse consequence of preferring
complex apps
to complex systems is that it becomes near impossible to modify
them to individual or 'minority' needs.
i return to my earlier points above. why would you imagine that
tinkering with "the all inclusive universal DAW" is ever going to
produce the right tool for each individual or minority need. the whole
concept is just misformed.
learning all of it. I'm at the mercy of its
developers, and
they have good reasons to ignore my needs as they have done
for years. So the only remaining advantage is that it is free
not to be mercenary about it, but the difference is that if your needs
were that important and not being met by anything available to an
intolerable degree, you could (or some organization could) choose to
pay to have your needs met and not face any licensing/access issues in
doing so.. the open source nature of ardour, like the open source
nature of emacs and firefox and linux, doesn't mean that its going to
cater to everyone's needs as-is. the difference with protools is that
you can't even consider this as an option. is that a big difference?
it depends on whether a tool like ardour stands any hope of being the
solution. for people who like to make music with renoise or with
ensembles of cassette players and violins played with pencil erasers,
it very well may not be.