28 Apr
2010
28 Apr
'10
3:32 p.m.
On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>wrote;wrote:
In addition, I think that you already know that you have a fairly
particular definition of "electronic musician" that actually excludes a lot
of the electronic music composers and performers who have traditionally
found Linux to be fairly hospitable place. These are specifically people who
are not in search of new synths or FX units with which to play relatively
conventional compositions with (perhaps) rather unusual timbres, but instead
want the control and possibilities presented by tools like SuperCollider,
PureData, Common Music and so on and so forth. I don't think that one group
is more important than the other, but I do know how labels can be a problem,
both in terms of a reduction in cognitive distinctions and also in social
exclusion.
--p
I absolutely do not imply that one group is more important than another. I
don't like getting into that kind of argument at all.
All in all, the feedback I am getting from LAD is very valuable to me in
terms of understanding how everybody sees Linux Audio.
So please do understand I am not whining and the article I presented to you
is more of a story of how one particular composer
discovered suitable tools for himself.
The labels thing is more controversial - it tends to be. I hate labels
myself. But at the same time I have difficulty finding another term.
"Electronic musician" is a rather general term, no argument there, this is
why I specifically mention what I mean by that in the article.
There is a number of people outside linux and some inside linux community
who are specifically interested in the state of affairs in linux
regarding a certain type of workflow. This article is an update for them. I
do not regret sharing it on the LAD, obviously.
Louigi.