[Music] Symphony of love illusive

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
34 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Music] Symphony of love illusive

Jeanette C.
Hey hey,
the symphony of love illusive was written using the free Sonatina Symphonic
Orchestra (SSO) SFZ library in LinuxSampler. Only when the first two movements
were completed did I discover the Virtual Playing Orchestra and so I will have
to write something else symphonic some time soon. :)
(There are currently only Youtube links, no direct downloads, they will follow
within the next few days.)
Here are the four movements:
1. Allegro (Fantasia - possibly)
https://youtu.be/BC2RuiFDlOw
2. Molto Vivace (Scherzo - nearly and my pride and joy :) )
https://youtu.be/7vNi--527Sk
3. Larghetto (Lament - maybe)
https://youtu.be/-FiuTQRRVF4
4. Andante Moderato (Rondo - could be)
https://youtu.be/sdYGqnYhyxA

Feedback, as ever is appreciated. I know that I was only consistent in one
particular: I always broke the form. :)

Some more details: the whole symphony was recorded with the Sonatina Symphonic
Orchestra. The strings and brass were layered with some - self designed -
sounds from my Roland module, to flesh the sound out and have more of a
dynamic range available. The symphony was written in Midish, recorded straight
to Nama and only little processing was added, mostly to the sounds from the
hardware to match them with the software samples.

Best wishes,

Jeanette


--
  * Website: http://juliencoder.de - for summer is a state of sound
  * Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS4rfGrTwz8W7jhC1Jnv7g
  * Audiobombs: https://www.audiobombs.com/users/jeanette_c
  * GitHub: https://github.com/jeanette-c

Don't, don't let me be the last to know
Don't hold back, just let it go <3
(Britney Spears)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Stephen Stubbs-2
I am listening on my Event 20/20 monitors which are connected to the
computer.  I really wish I could send the sound to my 5.1 THX room
system using the Klipsch speakers.

Years ago I bought the Roland Sound Expansion, Orchestra M-OC1, outboard
rack module.  I bought it mainly for the solo Oboe patch.  If you can
find M-OC1, you may want to get it.

Sunday morning listening to your symphony.  Very relaxing.  Well done.

"The Other" Stephen Stubbs.

------ Original Message ------
From: "Jeanette C." <[hidden email]>
To: "Linux-audio-users' mailinglist"
<[hidden email]>
Sent: 2/6/2021 2:13:19 PM
Subject: [LAU] [Music] Symphony of love illusive

>Hey hey,
>the symphony of love illusive was written using the free Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra (SSO) SFZ library in LinuxSampler. Only when the first two movements were completed did I discover the Virtual Playing Orchestra and so I will have to write something else symphonic some time soon. :)
>(There are currently only Youtube links, no direct downloads, they will follow within the next few days.)
>Here are the four movements:
>1. Allegro (Fantasia - possibly)
>https://youtu.be/BC2RuiFDlOw
>2. Molto Vivace (Scherzo - nearly and my pride and joy :) )
>https://youtu.be/7vNi--527Sk
>3. Larghetto (Lament - maybe)
>https://youtu.be/-FiuTQRRVF4
>4. Andante Moderato (Rondo - could be)
>https://youtu.be/sdYGqnYhyxA
>
>Feedback, as ever is appreciated. I know that I was only consistent in one particular: I always broke the form. :)
>
>Some more details: the whole symphony was recorded with the Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra. The strings and brass were layered with some - self designed - sounds from my Roland module, to flesh the sound out and have more of a dynamic range available. The symphony was written in Midish, recorded straight to Nama and only little processing was added, mostly to the sounds from the hardware to match them with the software samples.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Jeanette
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Jeanette C.
Hi Stephen,
Feb 7 2021, Stephen Stubbs has written:
...
> Orchestra M-OC1, outboard rack module.
I have the two SRJV orchestral expansion boards for the JV/XP series. I
can see what you mean about the oboe. Though I do like the Sonatina oboe
very much.
...
> Sunday morning listening to your symphony.  Very relaxing.  Well done.
Thank you!

Best wishes,

Jeanette

> "The Other" Stephen Stubbs.
>
> ------ Original Message ------
> From: "Jeanette C." <[hidden email]>
> To: "Linux-audio-users' mailinglist" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: 2/6/2021 2:13:19 PM
> Subject: [LAU] [Music] Symphony of love illusive
>
>> Hey hey,
>> the symphony of love illusive was written using the free Sonatina Symphonic
>> Orchestra (SSO) SFZ library in LinuxSampler. Only when the first two
>> movements were completed did I discover the Virtual Playing Orchestra and
>> so I will have to write something else symphonic some time soon. :)
>> (There are currently only Youtube links, no direct downloads, they will
>> follow within the next few days.)
>> Here are the four movements:
>> 1. Allegro (Fantasia - possibly)
>> https://youtu.be/BC2RuiFDlOw
>> 2. Molto Vivace (Scherzo - nearly and my pride and joy :) )
>> https://youtu.be/7vNi--527Sk
>> 3. Larghetto (Lament - maybe)
>> https://youtu.be/-FiuTQRRVF4
>> 4. Andante Moderato (Rondo - could be)
>> https://youtu.be/sdYGqnYhyxA
>>
>> Feedback, as ever is appreciated. I know that I was only consistent in one
>> particular: I always broke the form. :)
>>
>> Some more details: the whole symphony was recorded with the Sonatina
>> Symphonic Orchestra. The strings and brass were layered with some - self
>> designed - sounds from my Roland module, to flesh the sound out and have
>> more of a dynamic range available. The symphony was written in Midish,
>> recorded straight to Nama and only little processing was added, mostly to
>> the sounds from the hardware to match them with the software samples.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
>
>

--
  * Website: http://juliencoder.de - for summer is a state of sound
  * Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS4rfGrTwz8W7jhC1Jnv7g
  * Audiobombs: https://www.audiobombs.com/users/jeanette_c
  * GitHub: https://github.com/jeanette-c

You should take me as I am
'Cause I can promise you
Baby, what you see is what ytou get <3
(Britney Spears)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Will Godfrey
In reply to this post by Jeanette C.
On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 21:13:19 +0100 (CET)
"Jeanette C." <[hidden email]> wrote:

>Hey hey,
>the symphony of love illusive was written using the free Sonatina Symphonic
>Orchestra (SSO) SFZ library in LinuxSampler. Only when the first two movements
>were completed did I discover the Virtual Playing Orchestra and so I will have
>to write something else symphonic some time soon. :)
>(There are currently only Youtube links, no direct downloads, they will follow
>within the next few days.)
>Here are the four movements:
>1. Allegro (Fantasia - possibly)
>https://youtu.be/BC2RuiFDlOw
>2. Molto Vivace (Scherzo - nearly and my pride and joy :) )
>https://youtu.be/7vNi--527Sk
>3. Larghetto (Lament - maybe)
>https://youtu.be/-FiuTQRRVF4
>4. Andante Moderato (Rondo - could be)
>https://youtu.be/sdYGqnYhyxA
>
>Feedback, as ever is appreciated. I know that I was only consistent in one
>particular: I always broke the form. :)
>
>Some more details: the whole symphony was recorded with the Sonatina Symphonic
>Orchestra. The strings and brass were layered with some - self designed -
>sounds from my Roland module, to flesh the sound out and have more of a
>dynamic range available. The symphony was written in Midish, recorded straight
>to Nama and only little processing was added, mostly to the sounds from the
>hardware to match them with the software samples.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Jeanette
>
As I said 'elsewhere', it took a while to find time for this. A really
impressive piece of work.

--
Will J Godfrey
http://www.musically.me.uk
http://yoshimi.github.io
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

David W. Jones
On 2/9/21 1:03 PM, Will Godfrey wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Feb 2021 21:13:19 +0100 (CET)
> "Jeanette C." <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hey hey,
>> the symphony of love illusive was written using the free Sonatina Symphonic
>> Orchestra (SSO) SFZ library in LinuxSampler. Only when the first two movements
>> were completed did I discover the Virtual Playing Orchestra and so I will have
>> to write something else symphonic some time soon. :)
>> (There are currently only Youtube links, no direct downloads, they will follow
>> within the next few days.)
>> Here are the four movements:
>> 1. Allegro (Fantasia - possibly)
>> https://youtu.be/BC2RuiFDlOw
>> 2. Molto Vivace (Scherzo - nearly and my pride and joy :) )
>> https://youtu.be/7vNi--527Sk
>> 3. Larghetto (Lament - maybe)
>> https://youtu.be/-FiuTQRRVF4
>> 4. Andante Moderato (Rondo - could be)
>> https://youtu.be/sdYGqnYhyxA
>>
>> Feedback, as ever is appreciated. I know that I was only consistent in one
>> particular: I always broke the form. :)
>>
>> Some more details: the whole symphony was recorded with the Sonatina Symphonic
>> Orchestra. The strings and brass were layered with some - self designed -
>> sounds from my Roland module, to flesh the sound out and have more of a
>> dynamic range available. The symphony was written in Midish, recorded straight
>> to Nama and only little processing was added, mostly to the sounds from the
>> hardware to match them with the software samples.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Jeanette
>>
> As I said 'elsewhere', it took a while to find time for this. A really
> impressive piece of work.
>
My, what lovely, thoroughly well-written compositions, Jeannette! A bit
of a Bach feel at times that I liked. The Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra
sounds are perfect. Thank you for making and sharing these!

--
David W. Jones
[hidden email]
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
"My password is the last 8 digits of π."
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Jeanette C.
Hello Will and David!
Feb 10 2021, david has written:

> On 2/9/21 1:03 PM, Will Godfrey wrote:
...
>> As I said 'elsewhere', it took a while to find time for this. A really
>> impressive piece of work.
>>
> My, what lovely, thoroughly well-written compositions, Jeannette! A bit
> of a Bach feel at times that I liked. The Sonatina Symphonic Orchestra
> sounds are perfect. Thank you for making and sharing these!
Thank you both! Thanks for listening and commenting (here and elsewhere
:) ).
...

Best wishes,

Jeany

--
  * Website: http://juliencoder.de - for summer is a state of sound
  * Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS4rfGrTwz8W7jhC1Jnv7g
  * Audiobombs: https://www.audiobombs.com/users/jeanette_c
  * GitHub: https://github.com/jeanette-c

If only I could trade the fancy cars
For a chance today,
it's incomparable <3
(Britney Spears)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Jeanette C.
In reply to this post by Jeanette C.
Hey hey,
now all four movements can be downloaded and listened to from my website in
both OGG and mp3 formats:
http://juliencoder.de/nama/symphony_of_love_illusive/index.html

Sorry for the delay.

Best wishes,

Jeanette

--
  * Website: http://juliencoder.de - for summer is a state of sound
  * Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS4rfGrTwz8W7jhC1Jnv7g
  * Audiobombs: https://www.audiobombs.com/users/jeanette_c
  * GitHub: https://github.com/jeanette-c

What's practical is logical. What the hell, who cares?
All I know is I'm so happy when you're dancing there. <3
(Britney Spears)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Sam Kuper
In reply to this post by Jeanette C.
On Sat, Feb 06, 2021 at 09:13:19PM +0100, Jeanette C. wrote:
> Here are the four movements:
> 1. Allegro (Fantasia - possibly)
> https://youtu.be/BC2RuiFDlOw
> 2. Molto Vivace (Scherzo - nearly and my pride and joy :) )
> https://youtu.be/7vNi--527Sk
> 3. Larghetto (Lament - maybe)
> https://youtu.be/-FiuTQRRVF4
> 4. Andante Moderato (Rondo - could be)
> https://youtu.be/sdYGqnYhyxA

Since I subscribed to LAU, I have started to look forward to the
compositions that people share here.

I waited until I had a spare moment to really focus on this one.  It's
great.  Thank you so much for it.


> the symphony of love illusive was written using the free Sonatina
> Symphonic Orchestra (SSO) SFZ library in LinuxSampler. Only when the
> first two movements were completed did I discover the Virtual Playing
> Orchestra and so I will have to write something else symphonic some
> time soon. :) [...]
>
> Some more details: the whole symphony was recorded with the Sonatina
> Symphonic Orchestra. The strings and brass were layered with some -
> self designed - sounds from my Roland module, to flesh the sound out
> and have more of a dynamic range available. The symphony was written
> in Midish, recorded straight to Nama and only little processing was
> added, mostly to the sounds from the hardware to match them with the
> software samples.

Thank you so much for all the "behind-the-scenes" info, too.  I'm still
new enough to Linux audio that details like this add considerably to my
understanding of the soundsets, software and workflows available.

In gratitude,

Sam

--
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Jeanette C.
Hi Sam!
Feb 13 2021, Sam Kuper has written:
...
> Thank you so much for all the "behind-the-scenes" info, too. I'm still
> new enough to Linux audio that details like this add considerably to my
> understanding of the soundsets, software and workflows available.
Then some good advise: in terms of software and workflow don't look too
closely at what I'm doing. It's rather unorthodox in terms of tools and
thus - to some extent - in terms of workflow. You will find a lot of
good work, setups, tools and workflow here though. If it isn't spelled
out directly, you can always ask and people will be happy to talk.

Best wishes,

Jeanette
...

--
  * Website: http://juliencoder.de - for summer is a state of sound
  * Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS4rfGrTwz8W7jhC1Jnv7g
  * Audiobombs: https://www.audiobombs.com/users/jeanette_c
  * GitHub: https://github.com/jeanette-c

Say hello to the girl that I am! <3
(Britney Spears)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Sam Kuper
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 11:41:26PM +0100, Jeanette C. wrote:
> Feb 13 2021, Sam Kuper has written:
>> Thank you so much for all the "behind-the-scenes" info, too. I'm
>> still new enough to Linux audio that details like this add
>> considerably to my understanding of the soundsets, software and
>> workflows available.
>
> Then some good advise: in terms of software and workflow don't look
> too closely at what I'm doing. It's rather unorthodox in terms of
> tools and thus - to some extent - in terms of workflow.

Thanks, I'm still interested though.  I'm non-neurotypical, so some
unorthodox tools or workflows might work better for me than popular
software.

Back when I used proprietary software, I frequently found the major DAWs
unergonomic.  Partly that was due to the license/upgrade cycle, but
often the problem was the UI or the developers' assumptions about users'
workflows.

Your output is prolific and high quality, so whatever tools you are
using, they are clearly capable of supporting both those properties.
That makes them of interest to me.

I'm still just learning the Linux audio landscape, so I have little to
lose (and potentially much to gain) by reading the documentation for
software I had not heard of before, like Nama.

> You will find a lot of good work, setups, tools and workflow here
> though. If it isn't spelled out directly, you can always ask and
> people will be happy to talk.

Thank you :)

--
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Paul Davis
>Back when I used proprietary software, I frequently found the major DAWs
unergonomic.  Partly that was due to the license/upgrade cycle, but
often the problem was the UI or the developers' assumptions about users'
workflows.

As the author of a non-proprietary DAW, I'd just like to note that the issues caused by "developer's assumptions about users' workflows" isn't a function of software being proprietary (or not).

It's been nearly a decade or more since I fully gave up on the idea that Ardour could (one day) be a DAW for everyone. There is no DAW for everyone. Individual's actual needs and workflow, as well as their imagined needs and workflows, vary dramatically, and it's not possible to create music production software, proprietary or otherwise, that can answer all those use cases.


_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Sam Kuper
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 06:36:27PM -0700, Paul Davis wrote:

>> Back when I used proprietary software, I frequently found the major
>> DAWs unergonomic.  Partly that was due to the license/upgrade cycle,
>> but often the problem was the UI or the developers' assumptions about
>> users' workflows.
>
> As the author of a non-proprietary DAW, I'd just like to note that the
> issues caused by "developer's assumptions about users' workflows"
> isn't a function of software being proprietary (or not).
>
> It's been nearly a decade or more since I fully gave up on the idea
> that Ardour could (one day) be a DAW for everyone. There is no DAW for
> everyone.  Individual's actual needs and workflow, as well as their
> imagined needs and workflows, vary dramatically, and it's not possible
> to create music production software, proprietary or otherwise, that
> can answer all those use cases.

In case it helps: my (limited) experience with Ardour has been positive!

I'm in the process of shortlisting DAWs and workflows, and Ardour is on
the shortlist.

You are totally right that different users have different needs, and no
single piece of software is likely to be right for everyone.

But in the proprietary world, the level of lock-in can be so high that
there is an extra-strong incentive to persevere with even a very
frustrating piece of software.

In the libre world, there is much more freedom, as a user, both to try
different pieces of software, and to modify that software if needed,
until the user finds a set-up that suits them.

Thank you for making Ardour, and for making it Libre!

--
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Paul Davis
Thanks for the compliments.

However, in this particular case, I'd beg to differ. Reaper is available at low cost, and is at least as malleable for regular users as any FLOSS project, if not more so. Other proprietary DAWs are also available at low cost these days, and even if they do not offer "learn C++, figure out the build system, understand multithreaded realtime programming, and you can make it do ANYTHING!", they typically offer a huge amount of configurability. Adding control surface support to many (most?) proprietary DAWs is *much* easier for an average user than it is in the case of Ardour.

Basically, what I'm saying is: love FLOSS software because it works for you, and (if applicable) because you love software freedom. If it is truly superior to proprietary software, then by all means say so  (loudly!), but let's never forget that most music production software is written by people just as enthusiastic as anyone in this community about creating truly useful and excellent tools. They just chose a different licensing model ....

On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 7:19 PM Sam Kuper <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 06:36:27PM -0700, Paul Davis wrote:
>> Back when I used proprietary software, I frequently found the major
>> DAWs unergonomic.  Partly that was due to the license/upgrade cycle,
>> but often the problem was the UI or the developers' assumptions about
>> users' workflows.
>
> As the author of a non-proprietary DAW, I'd just like to note that the
> issues caused by "developer's assumptions about users' workflows"
> isn't a function of software being proprietary (or not).
>
> It's been nearly a decade or more since I fully gave up on the idea
> that Ardour could (one day) be a DAW for everyone. There is no DAW for
> everyone.  Individual's actual needs and workflow, as well as their
> imagined needs and workflows, vary dramatically, and it's not possible
> to create music production software, proprietary or otherwise, that
> can answer all those use cases.

In case it helps: my (limited) experience with Ardour has been positive!

I'm in the process of shortlisting DAWs and workflows, and Ardour is on
the shortlist.

You are totally right that different users have different needs, and no
single piece of software is likely to be right for everyone.

But in the proprietary world, the level of lock-in can be so high that
there is an extra-strong incentive to persevere with even a very
frustrating piece of software.

In the libre world, there is much more freedom, as a user, both to try
different pieces of software, and to modify that software if needed,
until the user finds a set-up that suits them.

Thank you for making Ardour, and for making it Libre!

--
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Sam Kuper
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 08:33:46PM -0700, Paul Davis wrote:
> However, in this particular case, I'd beg to differ. Reaper is
> available at low cost, and is at least as malleable for regular users
> as any FLOSS project, if not more so.

Maybe I'm not a regular user.  Reaper was the last proprietary DAW that
I tried before deciding to abandon proprietary software.  Lots of people
raved about it.  I did not find it a fun experience.

(Unfixable problems with the proprietary drivers for the Focusrite
Saffire soundcard I had at the time, and hours spent fruitlessly with
their tech support, only compounded the annoyance.)


> Basically, what I'm saying is: love FLOSS software because it works
> for you, and (if applicable) because you love software freedom. If it
> is truly superior to proprietary software, then by all means say so
> (loudly!), but let's never forget that most music production software
> is written by people just as enthusiastic as anyone in this community
> about creating truly useful and excellent tools. They just chose a
> different licensing model ....

I no longer think the licensing model can be separated from the
usefulness of the tool.  I came to love software freedom not because of
my idealism, but because of my pragmatism.

I previously spent hundreds of bucks buying, and hundreds of hours
using, mainstream proprietary audio software.  Eventually, I tired of
its systemic shortcomings.

Several pieces of proprietary audio software for which I bought licenses
had EULAs (and DRM, in some cases) that severely restricted how I could
use them as tools.  For instance, keeping an old version installed (to
retain access to *old* effects) was often disallowed, if one also wished
to have the latest version (e.g. for access to *new* effects!).

So, the user has to choose: would you like to:

- be able to work with your old projects, as you originally mixed them?
  Or do you instead want to:

- be able to use new DAW features and new plugins, even if that means
  losing access to your old projects (and old effects) essentially
  forever?

That's license-imposed dependency hell!  It's a huge loss of usability.

It's much less likely to be a problem with Free (libre) Software, where
one can often just modify the makefiles or similar in order to achieve
multiple concurrent installs of different versions of the same package.

Also, proprietary software seems more commonly tied to proprietary
operating systems.  I spent years using Wavelab very happily as my main
audio/wave editor, but Windows became creepier and creepier.  And I
couldn't give up Windows without also giving up Wavelab.

Additionally, proprietary software's denial of access to the source code
makes it impossible to tell by oneself whether, for example, a
particular behaviour of the software is intentional.  Which means having
to resort to tech support.  Some popular proprietary music software has
high bug counts and poor tech support - considering how much their
licenses cost - which means more time away from making music, and more
time at the mercy of the companies who sell the software.

Summing up: even if the developers of proprietary audio software are, as
you say, just as enthusiastic about creating truly useful and excellent
tools, that does not mean that their chosen outlet for that enthusiasm
channels it as effectively - in my opinion - as libre software would.

So, thank you again - sincerely - for making Ardour libre.

Sam

--
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DAWs and licensing Was: Symphony of love illusive

Christopher Arndt
Am 14.02.21 um 09:01 schrieb Sam Kuper:
> I no longer think the licensing model can be separated from the
> usefulness of the tool.
I fully agree with this sentiment and the things you said afterwards.

Licensing choice isn't just a different flavour or colour of software.
Conversely, choosing a closed license doesn't mean that you don't care
about your product, but it does mean that you restrict the way it can be
used, which, as you point out, makes it less useful (all other factors
being the same).

Chris
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Lorenzo Sutton
In reply to this post by Jeanette C.
Hi Jeanette,

On 13/02/2021 13:42, Jeanette C. wrote:
> Hey hey,
> now all four movements can be downloaded and listened to from my website
> in both OGG and mp3 formats:
> http://juliencoder.de/nama/symphony_of_love_illusive/index.html

Finally had time to listen to this as a whole piece (all movements
together) as IMHO should be done with a 'symphony' :-)

Well done with the composition, orchestration, technique and digital
realization!

I hear a very exquisite 'German' character in it - from a purely
musical-artistic-historical perspective (couldn't avoid thinking at
moments of two German dudes who made music and who both had surnames
starting with 'B'... maybe even a couple of 'homages' in the Scherzo?)
:-) - still the piece has its unique character, so this is not at all
meant in a diminishing way.

I also enjoyed the overall play/interaction/balance between more 'solo'
vs. tutti parts.
Technically, I particularly appreciated the agogic and dynamics you
managed to create, which is often challenging with 'MIDI'.

This endeavor is truly inspiring: personally, these days creating a few
minutes of music take me months to conceive and finalise, so kudos for
your dedication and hard work on such a large work.

Lorenzo.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DAWs and licensing Was: Symphony of love illusive

David Kastrup
In reply to this post by Christopher Arndt
Christopher Arndt <[hidden email]> writes:

> Am 14.02.21 um 09:01 schrieb Sam Kuper:
>> I no longer think the licensing model can be separated from the
>> usefulness of the tool.
> I fully agree with this sentiment and the things you said afterwards.
>
> Licensing choice isn't just a different flavour or colour of software.
> Conversely, choosing a closed license doesn't mean that you don't care
> about your product, but it does mean that you restrict the way it can be
> used, which, as you point out, makes it less useful (all other factors
> being the same).

It tends to make a difference whether your primary point of contact is
marketing or users.  Feature progress in a commercial setting does not
make it feasible to have the developers overexposed to people without a
view on marketability and possibly communicating in a manner that will
drop productivity for days.

--
David Kastrup
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DAWs and licensing Was: Symphony of love illusive

Paul Davis
In reply to this post by Christopher Arndt


On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 9:20 AM Christopher Arndt <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am 14.02.21 um 09:01 schrieb Sam Kuper:
> I no longer think the licensing model can be separated from the
> usefulness of the tool.
I fully agree with this sentiment and the things you said afterwards.

Licensing choice isn't just a different flavour or colour of software.
Conversely, choosing a closed license doesn't mean that you don't care
about your product, but it does mean that you restrict the way it can be
used, which, as you point out, makes it less useful (all other factors
being the same).

The problem is: all other factors are NEVER the same.

There's no FLOSS application that will give you the possibilities of FL Studio, or Live, or Bitwig. So, if you want those options, but prioritize the FLOSS nature of your tools, you're going to have to do without something you would otherwise prefer. This may be an entirely acceptable tradeoff for many people, but for others the tradeoff goes the other way.

Similarly, for someone who is deeply committed to the long term nature of their tools (and thus the work they create with them), proprietary software probably represents a major compromise which could be unacceptable. For others, they will make do with the "final" versions of a work in some form, and deal with the likely forced obsolescence of the tools.

Now, if we had more or less identical tools in both the FLOSS and proprietary realms, then sure, all factors would be the same, and I'd agree with you and Sam. But we don't, and we're not likely to get that at any time in the foreseeable future. Which means that users are actually faced with complex tradeoff calculations, rather than just "FLOSS gives me more freedom". As Louigi has noted in his long and excellent essay on software freedom, sometimes freedom can mean the freedom to do what you actually want to do, quickly and easily. And sometimes, of course, it means something else.

_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Music] Symphony of love illusive

Jeanette C.
In reply to this post by Lorenzo Sutton
Hello Lorenzo!
Feb 14 2021, Lorenzo Sutton has written:
...
> Well done with the composition, orchestration, technique and digital
> realization!
Thank you very much! This is very kind!

> I hear a very exquisite 'German' character in it - from a purely
> musical-artistic-historical perspective (couldn't avoid thinking at
> moments of two German dudes who made music and who both had surnames
> starting with 'B'... maybe even a couple of 'homages' in the Scherzo?)
> :-)
Yes! Well certainly references to the later B in the scherzo, if not
half of the scherzo being very influenced by the 9th. The lament is very
much inspired by the ealier B. Sort of accidentally I think the
beginning of the rondo capriccioso is a hommage to the fourth movement
of the nineth, even though I didn't particularly plan it like that. It
just seemed a good way to pick up the "choral" motif from the scherzo.
:)
...
Many thanks again for this praising and detailed reply. It made my
Sunday!

Best wishes,

Jeanette

--
  * Website: http://juliencoder.de - for summer is a state of sound
  * Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMS4rfGrTwz8W7jhC1Jnv7g
  * Audiobombs: https://www.audiobombs.com/users/jeanette_c
  * GitHub: https://github.com/jeanette-c

I used to think
I had the answers to everything
But now I know
... :) <3
(Britney Spears)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DAWs and licensing Was: Symphony of love illusive

Sam Kuper
In reply to this post by Paul Davis
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 10:02:38AM -0700, Paul Davis wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 9:20 AM Christopher Arndt wrote:
>> Am 14.02.21 um 09:01 schrieb Sam Kuper:
>>> I no longer think the licensing model can be separated from the
>>> usefulness of the tool.
>>
>> I fully agree with this sentiment and the things you said afterwards.
>>
>> Licensing choice isn't just a different flavour or colour of
>> software.  Conversely, choosing a closed license doesn't mean that
>> you don't care about your product, but it does mean that you restrict
>> the way it can be used, which, as you point out, makes it less useful
>> (all other factors being the same).
>
> The problem is: all other factors are NEVER the same.

Maybe not *exactly*, but they can be *very* close.

I regret buying Guitar Rig years ago.  (Twice!  I had to pay for an
upgrade in order to retain compatibility, after an OS and/or DAW
upgrade.)

I wish I could get a refund, and give the money to Guitarix or Rakarrack
or other free software developers (including you, Paul!) instead.

But at least now I know about Guitarix and Rakarrack, and can choose
them.  I don't miss much from Guitar Rig.

Sure, they aren't *identical* (neither is AmpliTube), but these are very
*similar* pieces of software in core functionality.  They all provide
guitar FX.  When suitably dialled-in, they all sound good enough for
studio use.  With adequate hardware, they are all fast enough to satisfy
a good percentage of live performers.

Only the Free Software options, though, have ergonomic licensing that
makes them a relatively trouble-free long-term choice.


I'm still (piecemeal, when time allows) learning the libre DAW
landscape.  But thanks to the great options now available thanks to folk
like you, I don't think I'll miss Cakewalk, Cubase, or even SADiE very
much.


> There's no FLOSS application that will give you the possibilities of
> FL Studio, or Live, or Bitwig.

Indeed.  And I regret giving so much money to proprietary software
developers.  Had I known then what I know now, I would have saved it to
give to Free Software developers.  Had enough other people done the
same, maybe we would now have a libre Live.

Free software developers: I'm sorry.  I was ignorant for years of how
much value you were creating.  I was ignorant about how much better off
you and I would have been if I had given that money and time (which I
can't get back) to learning to use your tools on a libre OS.  Instead, I
wasted months of my life building and learning proprietary software
assemblages (and giving product feedback and bug reports to proprietary
tech support people), only to have to start half from scratch at the
next upgrade cycle.

I was more productive using an old 1/2" 16-track, a Seck 1882 or a Ramsa
DA-7, and a few multi-FX rack units, than I was after switching to
proprietary software!

This time, I'm trying to do a better job of understanding how to make
good use of my limited resources.


> [..] users are actually faced with complex tradeoff calculations,
> rather than just "FLOSS gives me more freedom". As Louigi has noted in
> his long and excellent essay on software freedom, sometimes freedom
> can mean the freedom to do what you actually want to do, quickly and
> easily. And sometimes, of course, it means something else.

I think we can all agree that nothing is perfect :)

But Free Software:

- benefits from the "long tail"; and
- mostly avoids enforced obsolescence; and therefore, if
  well-maintained,
- successively approximates perfection,

whereas proprietary software, in my experience:

- tends to do none of the above.

These days, I see buying proprietary music software as being a bit like
hiring a piece of boutique audio hardware.  If you truly need it for
that project, it might be indispensable; but you'd better hope you don't
need it again in a few years' time because it might be unavailable.  So,
it's always wise to look for a more sustainable solution first;
proprietary software, like boutique unobtainium, should be a last
resort.

Personally, the only pieces of proprietary music software that I still
find tempting are Ableton Live and RME TotalMix.  But I'm hoping I can
assemble just enough libre or DIY workarounds to be able to do without
them, until comparable (or better!) libre alternatives emerge.

Thanks, and sorry for the rant.

Sam

--
A: When it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: When is top-posting a bad thing?

()  ASCII ribbon campaign. Please avoid HTML emails & proprietary
/\  file formats. (Why? See e.g. https://v.gd/jrmGbS ). Thank you.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
12