> Just because you're ignorant about a function doesn't mean it's > unimportant. Also, "You don't need that feature, it sucks anyway" > followed by a rant about how successful music sucks, is an evasion, > not a real argument, even if you did know what the hell you were > talking about. > Successful music? What's that? You mean commercial music? By my definition of success (sounding good) it is a complete and total failure in most cases. Now hear out my "argument": Music is a human experience, and mechanizing it to the extent that it's mechanized today in commercial studios dehumanizes it; therefore, commercial music sucks. You may disagree, but maybe my ears are just better attuned than yours to the clocklike monotony of what you call "successful" music. Many good songs are completely ruined by overproduction. The best artists out there are still doing it live-to-tape, and Linux is just fine for that sort of thing. Even electronic music (not my thing, but for what it's worth...) made with Linux sounds pretty damn competent to me. You should listen to some of the stuff people post to this list from time to time. It's dang good. As for "quantizing the groove," open-source programs have many, many ways of doing that based on the description from the Cakewalk website, even if they don't have a cool marketing slogan for it. Maybe we should call it "phreaking the matrix" in the OSS audio world. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
