On Sun, 31 May 2009 07:03:09 -0400 Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> wrote: It is also probably the most woefully engineered one :) Hmmm, not even sure if 'engineered' is the right word. Amazing how such crap can sound so good! -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 02:35:59PM -0700, Norval Watson wrote: Reminds me of a story told by my prof of acoustics long time ago. One day he was making an organ recording in some small village, and saw a Hammond sitting in a dusty corner of the church. He asked the local organist about it. - It's broken, we haven't used it for years. - What do you want for it ? - The pastor will be probably be happy if you take it away. So next day he returned with a bigger car, and asked the pastor who was indeed happy to see it removed. To keep his conscience clean, my prof donated some symbolical sum to a local charity. Returned home, replaced a few electrolytics, and the thing worked again. This was the same person who hooked me into Ambisonics, and into computing. These were the TRS-80 days. Ciao, -- FA Io lo dico sempre: l'Italia è troppo stretta e lunga.

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 11:56:47PM +0200, Fons Adriaensen wrote: And here is a link to yours truly, fondling a real B3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60Hn57auWxE Clearly visible in the video is.... an emacs buffer with the setlist and changes. This is the first time I've ever played this song; they showed me the changes during soundcheck. So I didn't get it exactly right, but man, was that fun! -ken

Quoting Nick Copeland <nickycopeland(a)hotmail.com>om>: No disrespect for his work (and it looks really nice), but with the slight controversy and overhead of Mono I would've liked a pure GTK or QT solution. I even hacked up a crude Xdialog app (http://www2.park.se/~peder/files/Bristol) for AVlinux that probably could be improved by someone better than me.

On Tuesday 02 June 2009 13.59.59 Peder Hedlund wrote: This is no attack on you, just some general OT toughs that made me think about toolkits and other geeky words: :-) IMHO, toolkit issues are one of the really big problems when talking about "Linux on the desktop" and making people try it. I wonder how many times I see text like this when developers and fans describes applications to the public (IE. home pages): "Myapp is a GTK/Gnome/FLTK application that...", or "...application written in C++ with the Qt4 framework..." in the first meaning. What do a musician coming from Windows or Mac think when they see stuff like this? Perhaps "GTK, is that a new communication standard?, or maybe "is framework a plugin standard?" When I try to convince people to use Linux stuff, they often say that "I don't want to learn new systems" after looking at the apps, not realizing that one for example use File/Open and so on in almost every app no matter OS. No wonder that they think things are scary when Gtk, Gnome, KDE, QT, C/C++ and other non usage related stuff shows up early in the description of the programs - it's like begging that the app should continue to be used only in the Linux Geek Club. Look at "http://www.ardour.org/", that's the way to do it. The whole front page is dedicated to the people that are supposed to use the program, not geeks and other hard core computer nerds. When Windows and Mac people see that page, then they can relate to the information. Jostein

On Sun, May 31, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Fons Adriaensen <fons(a)kokkinizita.net> wrote: for most Hammond clone players, there really isn't any need to try to emulate the Leslie at all. because the sound of the Leslie is so "physical", most players bring a "clonewheel" and a real Leslie, or at least one of the Leslie knock-offs (Motion Sound, Speakeasy, etc.). I'm convinced that if some programmer would take the time to develop a completely gui-less Leslie-less Hammond organ, it would be a hit. one more side note: not everyone uses a Leslie (i.e. Brian Auger). -- Josh Lawrence http://www.hardbop200.com