@Alex, thanks for your view.
Louigi Verona wrote:
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
1) The 'all-in-one-app' + plugins inside approach (Ardour with LV2
plugins for example).
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...
Linux-audio-dev mailing list