I have to chuckle a bit at the tangent of this topic…
I recall being on Ardour IRC several years ago bitching about ‘all those damned kids’ using Reason and thinking that was making music…hmmphhhh! @paul chided me for being old, grumpy and irrelevant and he was absolutely right and I actually learned something that day that I have kept with me since… All of this ‘content’ we create are thoughts and ideas that originate in the mind and then we get all uptight and precious about the methodology of how we manifest it into our ears. I now feel that any tool or technology whether it’s a telecaster, groove generator… or the latest fad: a chord generator… is really of far less importance than getting that pure thought and idea from the mind to the ears with as little interference and ‘colored glass’ as possible…
That said… a vertical velocity ‘lollipop’ in-window track lane please!! It’s really impeding my creative process not to have one…
Good Lord man I’m as serious as a heart attack about it! I have the Mantis entries and the energyXT (which has terrific in-window velocity editing) miles to prove it!
The emojis were about the irony of going from “the method isn’t so important” to “please include that one feature I’ve been begging for!”
Just wanted to mention, I just went to Youtube and looked up Pro Tools MIDI editor, as I was curious about your statement. And what did I find? A video from 2011, talking about PT version 8 that introduces a separate MIDI editor window and its benefits. Funny enough, the video shows EXACTLY what I suggest for Ardour.
And honestly, at this point I am angry towards your attitude when it comes to this topic. Especially since I just saw that your “defense” of the way you roll with Ardour’s UI is a reference that must have been from decades ago and that this reference later went the exact same way I am suggesting here.
To me, personally, it felt like you stomped into this topic and just denied the suggestion with passion, because… reasons. And I still feel like there is something really odd about this denial of a feature that pretty much every other DAW handles almost the same and in a better way than Ardour.
It’s like it is a painful topic to you and you are just hating it for some reason. At least, that is the vibe I get from your responses.
Anyway, you’re free to decide whatever you want with Ardour. It’s just so weird and stubborn when it comes to the MIDI editing part. I’m out and hoping to see a dedicated MIDI editor in Ardour one day.
every other DAW? – Note that ProTools (still the most widespread DAW) followed Ardour’s lead. MIDI is always shown in context on the timeline there as well.
I doubt that a commercial big player like Pro Tools uses an open source project as a guidance to make critical design decisions.
As posted in the video above, Pro Tools has a dedicated MIDI editor window since at least 10 years. So, even if they “followed Ardour’s lead”, they changed their ways. Either because they recognized the need for this feature or because customers wanted it.
Even if PT would be exactly like Ardour to this day, using them as the proud example is no excuse. Pro Tools may be great for audio recording and editing, but it is known that it is a bad choice for MIDI based composition. Products like Cubase, Studio One, Samplitude, Bitwig Studio, heck - pretty much every other DAW is better suited for that task and workflow. Also, the position of Pro Tools as a dominant choice is a story from the past. Other DAWs have taken a lot of market share, because AVID is expensive as hell, while delivering only miniscule updates and still lacking tons of modern and useful features.
and 4)
You name exactly one DAW to excuse your (inferior) design decisions. This is opposed by at least 15 other reputable products. And I would argue that together, they are more worthy to be seen as “common standards” than a single DAW like PT (which HAS a separate midi editor as well)
Leading Pro Tools as the prime example why Ardour should be the way it is, is wrong on so many levels. Here’s another one for you: Yes, Pro Tools had at some point in history a big market share, and was for a while the de-facto standard in many studios.
But Ardour will not be used in these same environments. Serious, big, commercial studios will choose commercial products, because of the product support, project compatibility, tested and reliable commercial plugin compatibility and many more reasons. Even just to be taken serious by their customers. Imagine a high profile artist coming into a big, expensive studio and discovers they run Ardour. They’ll be like “couldn’t you afford XYZ?”. If a professional studio has the choice between Pro Tools, Cubase, Studio One, etc. and Ardour, they will not choose the community project with all kinds of quirks in the MIDI realm and no support hotline. Correct me if I am wrong, but Ardour is most likely to be used in home studio environments, by Linux- and open source enthusiasts, hobby grade projects like podcasts and people who are taking their first steps into audio recording and editing.
So it doesn’t matter at all what Pro Tools is doing (aside from the fact that it HAS a separate MIDI editor window), because Ardour won’t be used in the environments that Pro Tools already covers.
Pro Tools is, in fact, all over the place. They have an Ardour-like solution (to this day), they have a Bitwig-like solution (context-sensitive editor docked at the bottom), and a separate window.
They did not “change their ways”, they tried to please everybody. The result is… questionable. Why you want this fate for Ardour is clearly beyond my limited comprehension abilities.
It is called “options”. Operating systems do that too. You have often about three different ways to achieve the same functionality, because people are different and have different preferences and needs. For example, you can copy and paste with keyboard shortcuts, through an edit menu on top of the active window, through the context menu with a right-click and some applications even put those functions into an extra tool bar with icons. Why? Options, usability, different needs. I don’t want a “fate” for Ardour. I am asking for the option to edit MIDI data in the same, convenient, proven way that every product of the same software category and functionality uses. Cubase and Nuendo. Studio One. Yes, Pro Tools. Logic and Garage Band. Bitwig Studio. Sequoia and Samplitude. Reaper. Reason. Ableton Live. FL Studio. MUlab. Cakewalk. Digital Performer. They and more, less common choices ALL work the same way when it comes to edit and display MIDI data. And that is helping to have a pretty consistent experience when working with different tools. I may be naive, but I think the standard way of showing note data and things like velocity in a lane below, inside a separate window or screen segment may be working quite well.
Thinking about “…every product of the same software category and functionality uses.”: It seems to me that you have luck and can use any of the mentioned products above for MIDI (I use Rosegarden for initial MIDI work), then you don’t have to be angry, but of course, it’s much better to do everything in the same program.
Yes, velocity in a lane is very useful and is tried and tested, and the developers might have a better view of audio workflow than MIDI workflows, but using arguments as “everyone else are doing it” is not a good explanation of why it’s good to have a wanted functionality, and the phrase “It is called “options”” sounds arrogant in my ears. This is not the way to persuade someone to change their mind and follow someone’s demands.
To give you better insight about where I come from: Yes, I can use every commercial DAW I am interested in, I bought them all during a search for the ideal toolset. Ardour is a different topic for me though. I am a big fan of the open source principle and frustrated with both Microsoft Windows and Mac for different reasons. If I had all tools and software I am happy with available natively on Linux or BSD, I’d switch instantly to it as my operating system. I like Ardour and Mixbus, the UI is comfy and most features are there. And from all open source DAWs, it is the most advanced and professional. Except in the area I would need the most. And the attitude of “no, we’re not going to do that” is frustratingly final in an environment that should be about community. And in the context of an open source project. And rationally, I simply can not understand why there is such a strong rejection of a workflow and UI solution that has - with good reason - evolved to be THE standard for this kind of software. And I am not suggesting to take anything away from existing users and their habits. I am suggesting to add a purely optional part of UI / UI behaviour. All the fans of only editing inside the inline editor can keep doing their thing, nobody needs to fear about their personal preferences. I’d just really like to use a professional open source DAW on Linux in the way DAWs typically work for my kind of music, which makes only use of virtual MIDI instruments.
I am suggesting a separate MIDI editor screen, window or split UI area.
This is suggested to be an addition and purely optional to the existing inline editor, so nobody has to fear unwanted changes to his personal preference of editing.
The existing full zoom to a MIDI region would be an ideal starting point to create this option with just a bit of modification.
Ardour is, aside from music creation apps with vastly different UI concepts, pretty much the only DAW I could find, that is missing a lane for easy access to values like velocity, pitch bend, etc. inside the MIDI editor. The defense of “Pro Tools did it too” is outdated and wrong for at least a decade.
Following the standard for UI design is beneficial to everyone: Users can adapt quickly to and from Ardour, Ardour might get more users, attention and potentially more financial support from these users. Open source operating systems would also get a professional open source DAW as a valid option for users that do more than just audio recording.
MIDI data editing is for MIDI based composers a separate task that should not be slapped into the context of editing mixed tracks. This task deserves a separate, optimized toolset and screen / part of the UI. Scrolling and still navigating the track list instead of the piano roll is not an optimized behaviour for the given task, and for a user of any other proven DAW unexpected, confusing and disorienting. Not having an option to change this behaviour is an oversight.
Having a lane for additional values like note velocity is a proven concept, displays these values in context of the note data at one glance, which makes sense in terms of ergonomics, quick access and editing.
Look, to be clear I agree with much of what you’re saying but from within Ardour you can be chatting with the ACTUAL developers in a few seconds and if you don’t get Paul you will almost certainly get Robin… In the past I have had issues fixed and committed to GIT in a matter of minutes and been able to enjoy them in a nightly build later the same day… I want better MIDI features too but lets not even pretend that ANY commercial DAW is ever going to provide that kind of developer access and input…
@whitewolfmusic You’ve made your case like you’d make a case for a position on Reddit (complete with the meme, ugh), not like you’re trying to persuade someone to do something. Maybe try again after reading Primed - The Art of Everyday Rhetoric?
Saying there’s no customer support line is a strawman argument. We get the actual developers here who instruct users on basic functionality, and are eager to help new users get on board because they are passionate about the project they develop. Those same devs have focused on the workflows they have, and optimized the program for those uses - primarily large scale audio editing, with some MIDI composition tools thrown in.
Saying that they should do something because it’s an industry standard is a bandwagon argument. Saying Ardour has never influenced other DAWs, when there is one successful DAW (Mixbus) and one failed project (Waves DAW) built on the engine is an ad hominem attack. Wait, you’re trying to persuade the very people you’re using ad hominem attacks against? Same argument with “Ardour will never be used in pro studios”. Studios want support, sure, but this ties into the strawman argument used above.
I’ll stop there and give you a possibly more persuasive argument for this.
@Paul, @x42, and Ardour Dev team, I made an album I’m proud of using Ardour - primarily using the buggy MIDI workflow that is being critiqued - and am currently building a semi professional home studio to make more, primarily electronic music with. For my workflow and display setup, I think that for both audio and MIDI editing, being able to click and drag a track into a separate window would create a much wider variety of workflow options.
It allows primarily audio composers, using lots of tracks, to have a ‘composition’ view (the editor window) on one monitor and an individual track view on a second monitor where they can do stretch, cut, and context menu functions with a much bigger view of the waveform in question while doing these operations, allowing them to see in more detail the changes they’re making.
It allows the above, beaten-with-a-dead-horse MIDI workflow.
It also creates a place to add buttons for audio/midi specific actions, i.e, quantitize for MIDI or “stretch to region” for audio.
Finally, these separate windows represent a way for users who are used to other DAWS to be able to quickly jump in and integrate into Ardour, and gives Ardour a more modular layout that can be customized to individual workflows/display setups.
Finally, for the devs, you can ignore the above post as I am not a developer, do not understand the technical difficulty of this request, and am mostly using it as an example to show why effective communication matters, especially around heated topics.
Thank you for the crash course in persuasion. However, I am frustrated and lost the patience to be super extra careful and handle people with kid gloves. Especially since Paul already made his point clear, and I have not much hope to change somebody who seems to be that stubborn and rejecting about something useful, established and tried and trusted for reasons that are beyond me. I simply can’t understand this position and honestly, I don’t care anymore. I’ve invested time, trying to make reasonable, objective arguments for my suggestion, described where my points come from, and there’s just a bunch of people in here who are perfectly fine with Ardour as it is and seem to hate any change they don’t need. My needs as a MIDI composer are being ignored and rejected, so why should I care about Ardour anymore, it is obvious it is not made for my kind of workflow and made by people who don’t care about it. And I own more than a dozen commercial DAWs, so I’m not in desperate need to be the passive, shoe licking beggar. In fact, I am quite pissed about the plain rejection without any arguments that make sense to me, as you might notice. So, have fun with YOUR Ardour, but don’t expect me to contribute any more money, time, thought or fucks given into it. A great “community” project this is. Bye.
What’s wrong with Paul being a dictator? I like the situation when a ship has one captain.
But at the same I like the brave people who can tell everything to dictator - super! - my respect))
When I can’t get from ardour something - I just can tell to myself - become a programmer and do everything like you like! Nothing wrong with it. Another thing is we can ask or propose…)
As a “all-in-one-window” follower - my voice only for making “separate midi-window option” after all other tasks.
It’s really impeding my creative process not to have one… 
)
I like the situation when a ship has one captain.