Michael Bohle wrote:
>> Sometime somebody wrote:
>>
>>
>> So, none of the linux audio apps comes even close.
>> A set of separate tools can never be a replacement (except with a
>> not-seen-before sophisticated level of optional integration, perhaps).
>>
>> People can talk about the real or perceived shortcomings of linux audio
>> tools all day. Doesn't change a thing. The vague and sometimes silly
>> comparisons and the very foggy ideas what some commercial apps actually
>> offer are damn frustrating. Would surprise me to read something *new*.
>>
>>
I note that rarely does anyone refer to "aptness to purpose" anymore.
Can AL do for me what I do with Csound here:
http://linux-sound.org/audio/studiodave-avs_p01_090805.ogg
If so, how quickly can it be done ? How does AL compare, in the context
of this style of composition, to something like AVSynthesis or blue ?
> Thank you for this. It makes me crazy when I read "You don't need fancy apps like this, hydrogen is good enough" or "sooperlooper do the job".
>
It doesn't make me crazy, but I read such statements "cum grano salis".
If I don't know the software I don't write about it.
> I use AL because it is a masterpiece of music software and it fits my needs for a creative workflow. It is the state of art today and contemporary technology for musicians. It is no hype, it is an answer for the question: How you can make music without touching the limits of software.
>
That's a categorical statement with a huge bag of assumptions. Software
that can't do what I need it for isn't worth much to me, regardless of
its fan base or GUI or any other consideration (including OS).
> When I read "just put together a few apps on Linux with JACK and you have the same" it make me clear that most of the Linux fanboys here are never seen or used modern software and they don't know what they are talking about. Even David Philips never seen Garageband, but he talk about. It is no good idea to hide behind the small world of Linux audio. The progress goes on, and now it is 2009.
>
>
I'm more than a little pissed off by that comment, Michael. I didn't
"talk about" Garageband. Here's the full quote from my article on LMMS:
"LMMS <http://lmms.info/home.php> is music creation software similar to
programs such as GarageBand <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GarageBand>
for OSX and FL Studio <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fl_studio> for
Windows. Those programs are designed to streamline the process of making
music with a computer in order to get new users into music composition
as quickly and painlessly as possible. Their feature sets include preset
audio loops, MIDI tracks, and other ready-made musical materials
available for immediate use in a piece. Their GUIs invite involvement in
the process of making music and it's clear that the designers want the
user to have fun with the program and the process. In this mini-review
we'll see if LMMS lives up to the precedents set by those programs."
That's called a "mention", it's not a discourse, a review, or even an
opinion. I'll appreciate it if you don't misquote me.
Best,
dp
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Sep 1 16:15:05 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 01 2009 - 16:15:05 EEST