Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] My 2 cents
From: Eli Brandt (eli_AT_v.gp.cs.cmu.edu)
Date: ke elo 11 1999 - 14:42:51 EDT
David Slomin wrote:
> > 3. Sequencers that only allow you to change a few controllers by GM name,
> > instead of all by number. Not everything, especially external stuff, works
> > according to GM (having all the XG controllers named is nice, though).
>
> Agreed. To me, a MIDI sequencer should handle raw MIDI.
The way I think, I'd prefer a music sequencer that handles abstract
time-structured data and maps it to MIDI. For example, if I have some
wiggly control gesture, I don't want to record it as a stream of some
controller. Because I _might_ want to map it to that controller, but I
might also want to apply it to attack velocity, note duration, whatever.
MIDI sequencers tend to think these are mutually incomprehensible sorts
of data, whereas I think they're all piecewise-constant one-dimensional
signals.
> That brings up a question... is it the job of the sequencer to decide how
> to order events with the same timestamp? Should you honor the order they
> appeared in the file or came over the wire? Should you leave it up to the
> user by adding "nudge" commands to the interface?
I would definitely respect ordering information that came from the file
or wire. In the absence of that, it would be interesting to get clever
with ordering patch changes before controller events before note-ons,
etc. But what's indispensable, IMO, is that whatever ordering is used
be predictable, visible, and modifiable.
--
Eli Brandt | eli+@cs.cmu.edu | http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~eli/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:52 EST