On Tue, 27 Jun 2006, Anthony Green wrote: > On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:22 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > Had a good chat with Adrian Likins, Steven Salevan and Luke Macken today > > about what a "music collaboration server" might look like. Here's a whole > > firehose full of notes. To Adrian/Steven/Luke, this'll probably mean more > > -- but any questions, feel free to ask. :) > > I'm not exactly sure what you're up to, but... > > The fundamental problem with real collaboration in the area is that > you're limited to working with the lowest common denomination of tools. > I, for instance, have Sonar and Reason, plus a number of plugins. The > kind of collaboration I'm able to do is extremely limited unless the > people I'm collaborating with have exactly the same set of tools and > plugins. Or are willing to come down to the aforementioned lowest common denominator -- like wav files. "This is my song. I did it in Garage Band, but you may not use Garage Band. Therefore, I offer up my project as a set of 14 wav files, one per track." The goal, from my perspective, is to build a mechanism to share the basic building blocks of music collaboration -- which, from my (perhaps simplistic) perspective is the track. > People who are willing to spend money on commercial tools are also more > likely to spend money on commercial collaboration services. I don't think the money is in charging for tools. I think the money is in building a non-commercial commons and charging commercial users for access to that commons. > In the FOSS world, however, access to tools is a non-issue. We should > just be able to yum/apt-get them. I think a "music collaboration > server" for FOSS-based music production makes perfect sense, but I > didn't see you mention Rosegarden/Ardour/Hydrogen. Not yet, but nothing here precludes their use, obviously. The first goal is to figure out the basic "song/track/license" model -- the "basic unit" of sharability. Once we figure that out, we then figure out how to get tools to produce those "basic units"... and it's obvious that the first tools we'll be able to influence in this way will be Rosegarden/Ardour/Hydrogen. > Perhaps LASH could be extended to work using a client server model. > Now that would be pretty spiffy... Yep. :) --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Fedora-music-list mailing list Fedora-music-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
