> But that's sort of the thought behind ttrk: be a useful hardware > sequencer. I can't stand piano roll views, they just don't make sense for > the music I'm writing. I usually write electronic dance music where I > want to see everything that happens on one beat all at once, and it is > _essential_ that I be able to edit the music as it's playing: start > looping one pattern and tweak it until I like it.
I also make house music, and to me the tracker view doesn't make sense. Imaggine that! In this view it's difficult for many people to see exactly where a note starts, when it ends and how the general line feels. In a piano rool view I can see all these things at a glance. Not to mention that the tracker view doesn't support polyphony. What I'm trying to say is that a software should support all the major ways of working. Like Sonar or Cubase, which can work like a real hardware mixing desk, by recording the knob moving when the track plays, but can also automate them through envelopes. This way everybody's happy and the user can choose the most effective way to get the job done. Of course, because your tracker it's written for your own personal use it's normal to not spend time implementing things you don't need. But developers which make software intended to be used by a large number of users should try to implement things people like even if they seem stupid to them. I'm thinking at FruityLoops which is the most popular program for electronic dance music. It's a tracker/sequencer hybrid which is easy to use and very powerful at the same time.
