Re: [LAD] LADI

Louigi Verona wrote: @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