[PaulDavisThe1st]

You seem to have a problem understanding what I mean, so I will try clarify:

> there's some widespread belief that a DAW should be a tool for musicians

This means "usable by musicians who find themselves intimidated or confused by the interface on a modern full-service DAW such as ProTools or Logic". This means tools like those appearing for mobile devices that are just basically easy to use recording devices. You can see this plea daily on KVR, Gearspace and other similar places.

This does NOT mean: "musicians should not use DAWs".

> The musicians you know can't be very professional if they haven't ever encountered a situation where they learned anything about audio.

Classical performers: no need to learn about audio. Folk performers: no need to learn about audio. Live acoustic music performers generally: no need to learn about audio.

The set of musicians I was referring to includes two Grammy winners, who, just like many amateur and other professional musicians, have chosen to focus their attention on their music rather than the process of recording (or PA'ing) it.

> Except all of the buttons and faders and everything else still look the same.

Where was the last mixing console you saw that did stretch-to-fit-tempo? That ran arbitrary plugins? That allowed arbitrary anywhere-to-anywhere routing? That needed, somehow, to fit in information about editing state alongside the mixer interface? That could do clip launching? That had any editing component at all?

I work with one of the older mixing console companies, and we're constantly bumping against the boundaries of stuff that DAWs do that consoles do not, things that consoles do better than DAWs ever have, things that consoles do that DAWs do not, and so forth. I would say this sort of thing comes up in almost every weekly meeting. The same was true back in 2008/2009 when I worked with (for?) another old mixing console company and they were trying to understand how to reconcile their established products with the reality of DAW-based priduction.

> Every company developing DAWs is primarily engineered by musicians.

I could name several major DAWs whose lead and sub-lead developers are not musicians (or at least, do not consider themselves to be musicians). I could name a few others where the lead and sub-lead developers were not musicians or audio engineers when they began working on their software, but have become so over time.

I don't presume to know your background, and I certainly did not say that "couldn't possibly know anything". I just said that several things in your post I know to be factually incorrect.

[bryans]

> there's some widespread belief that a DAW should be a tool for musicians [...] This means "usable by musicians who find themselves intimidated or confused by the interface [...]

We all understood what you said and meant, and no amount of deflection changes it.

> Classical performers: no need to learn about audio. Folk performers: no need to learn about audio. Live acoustic music performers generally: no need to learn about audio.

Really? You're going to cherry pick classical performers who largely never directly record anything? The only exception in all of music?

Your other two examples, essentially both being folk musicians, are completely wrong and you have zero basis for your assertion, which is apparently that folk musicians don't have any interest in sounding good. As a manager of folk musicians, I can tell you with 100% confidence that you are speaking from a place of complete ignorance.

> Where was the last mixing console you saw that did stretch-to-fit-tempo?

Just because features specific to a digital domain exist, doesn't mean that the DAW interfaces aren't based on real world interfaces. I can't even imagine what you're trying to prove, but it has nothing to do with my statement.

All-in-all, you're doubling down on things that are far from reality, and trying to move the goal posts with every comment. Just admit that you said something completely incorrect and let's all move on with our lives.

[coldtea]

>We all understood what you said and meant, and no amount of deflection changes it.

I beg to defer. I understood what the parent said, but agree with him and disagree with your take.

You also come of as rude. And, to my experience with musicians, also wrong in making those general statements. Many pro musicians don't know about DAWs, and are too intimidated to even use

If your experience is mostly with modern pop/electronic/hip-hop etc mucisians, of course they'll know about DAWs. Or someone playing keyboards in bands, will too. And of course if you are a dev and have dev friends who play guitars and keys and such, they'll also know DAWs.

But there are many many genres outside that, and many pro musicians, or musicians that are not techy, where conventional instruments rule, and musicians who even take pride in not dealing with computers and DAWs, whereas other would like to, but find them intimidating.

And I'm not talking about 50-year olds here. I've recently had a music seminar with 20 or so other musicians, mostly 30 and below, with many at their early 20s, and people playing instruments like cellos, trumpet, etc could barely use basic external effects units, didn't know what things send/return is, and were totally lost of using a DAW.

>Your other two examples, essentially both being folk musicians, are completely wrong and you have zero basis for your assertion, which is apparently that folk musicians don't have any interest in sounding good.

This is not only wrong, but a bad faith strawman...

[bryans]

If you find what I've said more rude than the person making several false claims about the history of DAWs and music, and declaring that folk and acoustic musicians don't care about how they sound -- among other complete nonsense -- that says more about your ethical priorities than it says anything about me.

> If your experience is mostly with modern pop/electronic/hip-hop etc mucisians, of course they'll know about DAWs. [...]

These three paragraphs you wrote are baseless, and you're making massively generalized statements (that are overwhelmingly untrue) while claiming that I'm wrong to be making generalized statements (even though they're overwhelmingly true). Your hypocrisy is staggering.

> This is not only wrong, but a bad faith strawman...

You apparently misread this completely, because your response doesn't make sense. The parent literally said that folk and acoustic performers don't have any need to learn about audio, which is nonsensical and untrue of greater than 90% of folk musicians I've met and worked with (which is many hundreds). If you are trying to back up their claim that a entire swath of a million musicians don't care about how they sound, then your arguments are being made in even worse faith than the parent.

Given that the point of my original comment was that DAW development has always had music production in mind -- and not claiming that absolutely 100% of everyone knows 100% of everything about music and engineering -- you're strictly making bad faith arguments by trying to nitpick semantics.

[least]

> We all understood what you said and meant, and no amount of deflection changes it.

On the contrary, I think you've fully misinterpreted what's been said.

[testermelon]

> Really? You're going to cherry pick classical performers who largely never directly record anything? The only exception in all of music?

I’m sorry but this sounds like you just dismissed classical performers as insignificant musicians just because they don’t fit your categorization that “all musicians also do audio engineering”.

The world is wide, blanket claims like this is bound to have exception, by principle.

[bryans]

I said nothing of the sort. In fact, the parent commenter is the one claiming that musicians are insignificant. You've misread everything and are putting words in my mouth. Please do better in the future.