In what way modular approach is limiting

Discuss how to promote using FLOSS to make music.

Moderators: MattKingUSA, khz

User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

And I am trying to compare. Because on GNU the only IME is LMMS. And it was made as an FL Studio clone. And because most electronic musicians in the world use this or that proprietary app.

But at this moment I am not sure what you and me are discussing. My points were clear and so far nobody has answered my query - show me how what you do cannot be done by an IME.
User avatar
autostatic
Established Member
Posts: 1994
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:26 pm
Location: Beverwijk, The Netherlands
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 104 times
Contact:

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by autostatic »

Louigi Verona wrote:But at this moment I am not sure what you and me are discussing. My points were clear and so far nobody has answered my query - show me how what you do cannot be done by an IME.
Nothing I guess. To each his own. I don't want to use an IME, I'm happy with my workflow with GNU/Linux. To me it's not limiting and I make all kinds of music, rock, electropop, singer/songwriter. It's a choice. I've chosen for GNU/Linux and its modular approach with all its drawbacks and flaws.
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

@louigi, It seems you still didn't get the point that lmms is an IME, but also Ardour, Qtractor, Muse and Rosegarden!!!

Your point is:

FL Studio is better then LMMS: you're right!
Ableton live is better then any app on Linux when it comes to live looping and time stretching: you're right!

So?

You want to tell the Ardour devs 'hey why didn't you finish MIDI sooner!??"
You want to tell the LMMS devs, hey why isn't your app as good as FL Studio?!!"
You want to tell the community, hey why didn't you build an app like Ableton did in the last 10 year, with the same quality?"

Get real. Thanks to the modular approach we CAN use Ardour with midi atm! Just one example. In other ways the modular approach is really a blessing for (computer) artists. Not for you? Fine.

You may ask yourself, hey why do I use this certain OS with this certain software...and make up your mind... But please stop telling us that FL Studio is better then LMMS, Ableton better then Qtractor etc. cause we knew that already ;)

Linux audio wasn't as far as it is now, if there was no modular approach! Then we all where fucking around with LMMS I guess ;) Good god, our life is better then that! :)
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

I am not really trying to say any of those things. In fact - I am not sure I know what to say. I am just sharing some of the thoughts that I have. I do not have any conclusion.

So while somewhere once in this discussion I did mention that Ableton is better than what Linux has for a certain type of music, I do not think I am stressing this. In fact, I said it as a response to Pablo and in a completely different context, so don't mind that.

Basically, to sum things up as everyone I think got confused as to what we are discussing anyway, the post was a reaction to several people saying that audio devs should focus on modular approach. It was said by someone on LM forums, I don't remember where. And since I had thought about this for some time, I wrote this small article.

I do not have all the answers and in fact even my questions are not all that great and sometimes not really well formulated.
User avatar
spm_gl
Established Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Spreewald, Germany
Contact:

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by spm_gl »

Louigi Verona wrote:I do not have all the answers and in fact even my questions are not all that great and sometimes not really well formulated.
Your points are definitely worth debating. The tone has become a little terse in this thread, but I really think everyone always needs to question "the way it's done".
--- Spreemusik ---
Jan Fuchsmann, Audio Engineer
Check our blog at http://www.spreemusik.com/blog
SR
Established Member
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 6:01 pm
Location: Houston, Tx

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by SR »

Louigi Verona wrote:I do not have any conclusion.
AFAICT, it seems like these conclusions were reached:

1. LMMS is the only app on Linux that accommodates certain workflows.
2. Despite <enter reason for not being able, willing or wanting to use LMMS for every single piece of your workflow>, LMMS should never be able to interact with other applications.

I also learned about the term "IME" from this thread.
User avatar
raboof
Established Member
Posts: 1855
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 11:58 am
Location: Deventer, NL
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 74 times
Contact:

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by raboof »

SR wrote:LMMS should never be able to interact with other applications.
That's certainly not my conclusion.
I also learned about the term "IME" from this thread.
Afaik that term was introduced in this thread.
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

spm_gl wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:I do not have all the answers and in fact even my questions are not all that great and sometimes not really well formulated.
Your points are definitely worth debating. The tone has become a little terse in this thread, but I really think everyone always needs to question "the way it's done".
You know, compared to discussions I've seen on other forums, we are having a very friendly discussion. Let us keep it this way - no matter how much some of us may disagree - after all, those are just opinions. I am very open to new information and I really want to invite everyone to look at this as an extremely friendly discussion. We can all benefit from it.
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

SR wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:I do not have any conclusion.
2. Despite <enter reason for not being able, willing or wanting to use LMMS for every single piece of your workflow>, LMMS should never be able to interact with other applications.

I also learned about the term "IME" from this thread.
This is not a precise conclusion. I would correct this like this: interacting with other applications should not be LMMS first priority.

I believe if it does interact - it is good.
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

raboof wrote:
I also learned about the term "IME" from this thread.
Afaik that term was introduced in this thread.
Haha! Yeah. Basically, I made up this term. But I think it is quite useful.
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

spm_gl wrote:
Louigi Verona wrote:I do not have all the answers and in fact even my questions are not all that great and sometimes not really well formulated.
Your points are definitely worth debating. The tone has become a little terse in this thread, but I really think everyone always needs to question "the way it's done".
It's a good debate. Maybe in the first place for new Linux users. This are typically questions to bumb against when you start using Linux. Linux pro audio is not perfect a all (others might call it a mess ;) ) and there are things to improve for sure, especially making the modular approach more user friendly. I'm happy with LADI and the debates about session handlers on Jack-dev in this regard.

New users needs time to find there way in Linux, Linux audio, Jack, community, finding useful documentation resources, find apps which fit there needs etc. From my experience I can say you learn to see why things are as they are when you get more experienced, you learn to see the benefits of things (like JACK). In the Linux audio community there are also a lot of smart guys, you can learn a lot from them, when it comes to using your computer, recording, music theory, sound design etc. This is cool. But it is an love-hate relationship with Linux audio sometimes ;) But you have that with more Operating Systems, maybe computers in general ;)

Anyway, it seems that this thread is lost its specific subject somewhere. But it's good to discuss the architecture of Linux audio and the usability of it, also for making music styles like the ones Louigi is making.
Pablo
Established Member
Posts: 1274
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:57 pm
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Pablo »

I also think this debate is very interesting and worth reading, so I am sorry I was a bit rude. Please take into account I am not a native English speaker so I tend to leave out the subtleties of the language and even make some mistakes.

Studio32 mentioned Rosegarden as an IME. Some users with programming knowledge are going through the code of Rosegarden to make a MIDI sequencer only out of it. Separating instead of integrating...

EDIT: I refer to openoctave MIDI

Cheers! Pablo
Last edited by Pablo on Sun Mar 14, 2010 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
spm_gl
Established Member
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:58 am
Location: Spreewald, Germany
Contact:

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by spm_gl »

For me, Beast/BSE is the prototypical IME. It integrates a sequencer with a syntheziser definition, so it is truly integrated. Not that I use it, but as stated before, I'm not really a musician.
--- Spreemusik ---
Jan Fuchsmann, Audio Engineer
Check our blog at http://www.spreemusik.com/blog
studio32

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by studio32 »

Louigi Verona wrote:Most house tunes can be relatively complex with various automations, break downs and build ups.
[snip]
I also use various controllers to automate synth parameters, effects and the amount of wet gain on a track. How it is possible to do in modular approach I do not even know. Effect automation is, of course, possible through mixer in Ardour. How to automate other things I am not sure. Maybe it is my lack of knowledge in this area, maybe it is not possible.
Non-daw seems to have automation http://non-daw.tuxfamily.org/MANUAL.html#n:1.1.11.
In combination with non-mixer you can do gain automation and probably a lot more (others confirm it does).
Mmh so all though NON apps are heavily in development there are opportunities for you Louigi I think...
I suggest you to jump onto the mailing list or better ask 'male' what he can do for your workflow AT #non channel on irc.freenode.net.
I would also make some contact with RUI the qtractor developer, like you did with LMMS...
Good luck! :)

edit: so you can use non-sequencer (midi), non-daw (audio) and non-mixer (automation, mixing). You need softsynths to of course (this is a truly modular approach, sorry ;) ). The author of non things, makes an idea in non-seq and then records it in non-daw. There might be one drawback if you want to use these apps together, I'm not sure Jack transport works perfect in the 'non apps'... (that would make the modular approach limiting in this case... ).

Another setup which might be useful for you, qtractor with non-daw (non-daw just to manage the automation in non-mixer) and non-mixer. You sync qtractor and non-daw with Jack transport, connect qtractor to non-mixer, and connect non-daw to non-mixer. Qtractor (you use it for audio and midi) routes the audio in non-mixer, non-daw manage the automation for the audio, which comes from qtractor into non-mixer.
You can load the LMMS samples in Qtractor
http://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php ... lmms#p3800
And use dssi plugins like whysynth in qtractor (also dssi-vst and LV2 I think).
For session management you can use Ladish for example.

It might not be a perfect workflow yet (Jack transport in Non may lacking and Non-daw/mixer is early in development) , but you can work with the devs of the apps towards a better one (like openoctave did for orchestra music for example). Non things are not stable enough to use right away, but the author has great ideas and there are some interesting people working on it...

Anyway, some how you should find a good workflow, this is just one suggestion to help you find a satisfying one ;) I bet others have good ideas as well...

edit2: I'm no automation expert at all but I understand that you can do automation with sofsynths like zynaddsubfx via MIDI CC messages.

edit3: see for automation on linux topic here: http://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2535

btw my IME of choice would be SuperCollider I think ;)
http://linuxmusicians.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2232
User avatar
Louigi Verona
Established Member
Posts: 402
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 8:56 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: In what way modular approach is limiting

Post by Louigi Verona »

Yeah, I am very active with giving feedback on QTractor too and also did some feedback for NonMixer.
Post Reply