What, exactly, do you mean by music that could be released by a major label? That really has nothing to do with the tools used to record, mix, and master the music. It has to do with the music and the performers. It also has to do with how the song was mixed and mastered. The tools are available in Linux to do this. I'm waiting for Ron Parker to wade in on this subject since he is running a working studio. Check out http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/gmc2.ogg. This is sort of a blues tune. Bruce Iglauer at Alligator Records (largest blues label in the world) liked it. I don't think he really cared what it was recorded, mixed, or mastered on. Unfortunately, as with all bands, that one folded due to it's own internal problems. If you want to find some music done with Linux you need to check out Dave Phillips' Linux Sound and MIDI page - http://linux-sound.org/. Specifically the Linux Music On-line section. Jan On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 10:15, Tim Orford wrote: > > You need to look around a bit more. Part of the fun is the journey to > > get to the destination. > > true. > but personally i find that there is such an *insanely* large amount of music > around that i dont have time to even listen to the obvious stuff, let > alone spent time searching out obscure stuff that may vary from great to > truely awful :-) > > > > > > >IMHO, until we produce at least a few examples of music which could be > > >released by a major label, we simply will *not* be taken seriously. > > > > > > > How do you quantify this? If we are to take the recent discussions as a > > vague example of the attitude people have towards open source sound or > > linux audio, we are unlikely to ever hear that any major artist uses > > tools created in/by this community. > > dont discount the large percentage of big budget releases that are > made not by the artist but by a producer in combination with an > engineer. There are many good producers and engineers who are fully > aware of what tools are available irrespective of what other people > use. Some of them will use linux when the tools do the job they require. > Most linux tools are not designed to be used in a commercial enviroment > where you are paying $1000/day for a studio. Some of them are not > far off tho. > > personally it irks me that pros are no longer catered for by > commercial software as the user base is too small for it to be > profitable. Instead they are stuck with crap like Protools. > > > > Have you noticed that nearly all the new movies with any computer geek > > has the geek using a form of x windows? It ain't running on a M$ or mac > > setup. > > I always enjoy that! > although the Enterprise 'computer', despite looking like the Ion wm, > is really a Director app i'm told :-) > > cheers > -- > Tim Orford
