On Wed, 2011-02-23 at 22:58 +0000, Gordon JC Pearce wrote:
LOL. Let me see if I have this straight: "I don't personally want a
'sequencer', therefore this program is a 'DAW', and therefore it
obviously should not be doing MIDI anything because I have conveniently
defined it as something that shouldn't". Solid argument.
Did you happen to notice how virtually every single popular PC DAW in
existence doesn't agree with your take on what they should do? How you
completely disregard overwhelming user demand (with no actual argument
behind it, no less)?
I'm not sure how you would attempt to justify this hilariously
curmudgeony opinion to a user who wants to work with audio and MIDI on a
timeline, but I'd sure like to hear it for entertainment's sake. Or is
working with audio and MIDI on a timeline somehow an inherently invalid
goal? Why, exactly? If I want to arrange some MIDI and audio on a
timeline (i.e. make music) I'm supposed to deal with the massively
clunky PITA of using separate programs to do so? What, exactly, is the
win there? What, exactly, is the user gaining?
If you're into "do one thing and do it well", there is actually a
logical argument in saying Ardour shouldn't have a mixer: particularly
with Jack, a process barrier between timeline and mixer/effects/etc
actually makes some sense. A process barrier between two timelines based
on the irrelevant detail of what kind of data you can stick in them does
not. The obscene amount of code duplication involved in that scenario is
pretty telling evidence that something is crap. What you are saying
simply does not make any sense whatsoever, and, coincidentally,
virtually everybody who has made music on a computer in the past several
decades disagrees with it. Hm. Everyone is wrong and you are right, eh?
Must be rough. Kids these days!
Linux-audio-dev mailing list