On Tuesday 15 January 2008 16:39:17 Rob wrote: no, and i object to the tone of your reply.. they are not sufficiently robust for the task of demanding midi arrangments. that's what i'm saying. if some dev wishes to take up the challenge, then all well and good. Linux Audio will benefit more than I will. g.

thanks for this Julien. I have heard of it but havn't looked at it. not much of a console man myself... probably to my own detriment ! best, g.

Geoff Beasley wrote: Post a bounty for your required features. Money motivates wonderfully. It's been made before, trust me. I've posted lists of the features I'd like to see, but I think there are still too few devs with too little available time. Add to that the fact that most users have wanted audio features first, and we end up with a not-so-satisfactory state of (purely) MIDI software for Linux. High hopes for a MIDIfied Ardour here, though I think seq24 could be expanded to make the sequencer I'd like to see. Best, dp

Mysth-R wrote: Yes, and that's too bad. For me, the addition of a few more editing features (well, maybe a lot more) would make it more attractive. As it stands now, I use it for quick MIDI loop construction, but I rarely use it for complete pieces. For that work I remain welded to Sequencer Plus running in DOSemu. It supports MTC nicely, so I can sync it if necessary to Ardour or whatnot. Works very well. Best, dp

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:57:13 +1100 Geoff Beasley <songshop(a)bizmedia.com.au> wrote: So far you haven't listed a *single* feature you want that is missing from any of these, nor have you detailed any bugs. How do you expect any of these points to be addressed if people have no idea what you are talking about? -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk

On Jan 15, 2008 10:37 PM, Geoff Beasley <songshop(a)bizmedia.com.au> wrote: I think Muse is a promising little program. Quite possibly its problems have to do with its not being widely used; if it could attract more developers- and a spiffier GUI along the way- it might be taken more seriously by neophytes and become more of a priority. Alas, like everyone else, I don't have time to even consider helping out. It could also be said, though, that the more well-developed things are the exception, not the rule. That the level of this hole is sea-level, and the areas which have risen are to be commended heartily rather than used as a measuring stick. I agree, and I would love to see it get wider acceptance- I was specifically told by a devoted Mac musician that lack of software is his only reason for not embracing Linux- but really, whose responsibility is it? No one owns Linux. It improves IF someone decides to fill a need. Perhaps Windows software would say "If you build it, they will come," but I think Linux is more like, "If they come, someone will build it." -Chuckk -- http://www.badmuthahubbard.com

On Wednesday 16 January 2008 20:39:02 Geoff Beasley wrote: Perhaps, but since you haven't actually said *why* every other sequencer isn't suitable, it's hard to know what to do about it. Maybe if you could articulate your requirements in some way rather than just saying "All the sequencers in Linux are crap, write me another one!" then things might happen... Gordon

At last, someone who can read ! I agree with the live performace/recording observation Arnold and do it most of the time, within client budget constraints. But recording the Vienna Symphony just isn't a possibility for me ( how strange!) Enter midi sequence and /wine/fst/Kontakt2... problem solved and with sufficient features and the famous Linux subsystem a stable midi sequencer can produce extremely good results.In fact, better than any other system currently on earth. It's the workflow that suffers when you have to go and edit endless streams of faulty sustain pedal events, or suffer serial crashing. I have only been on this list since they updated the linuxaudio.org mail system last year and automatically added me. i hang out on the dev lists and irc mostly because that's where the power users get/give most benefit. I've upset some people here, but I'm not concerned about that. Linux does need a stable, fully featured midi sequencer whether I say so or not. There currently isn't one that can stand the heat. By far the best contender is MusE .9x, but it's got one major bug, and other minor ones, that are not being fixed and so it's broken. I was hoping that there would be another power user here on the Linux Audio USER forum that would have been in the same predicament and may have the answer that has eluded me. Apart from Arnold and perhaps Dave there obviously arn't any. So i'll leave. goodbye lau. g. BTW Gordon, ALL of my concerns and issues have already been fully discussed with the dev's of the existing apps. I speak with both knowledge and direct information on this topic. see you on #ardour.

Geoff Beasley wrote: Hmmm, works for me. And I'm not even up to the current 1.6 release! But I'm not pushing the envelope of any of it's sequencing capabilities. -- David gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com authenticity, honesty, community