Subject: [linux-audio-dev] Re: [alsa-devel] Re: well why,... ->>> Music Composition Environment(s)
From: Allan Klinbail (sonofzev_AT_free.net.au)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2000 - 12:38:46 EEST
Eric Bresie wrote:
> > From: On Behalf Of Allan Klinbail
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2000 8:00 AM
>
I'll have a quick go at this. This topic was spawned on ALSA-DEV ML. It
has been pointed that it is more appropriate here.
> What exactly makes a good UI for music creation?
>
> You can have a way of entering it like sheet music.
For classically trained "sight readers" this is a fantastic way to
compose. However, many of us do not think naturally in score format
(including myself). Apart from having to be score literate traditional
notation does not allow for viewing of many features MIDI offers, such
as controller information.
>
> You can enter it like a tracker (which often times seems cryptic to
> me).
I agree, and before you all send a thousand mails at me, many don't.
However, I believe that pure tracker type software is very much
established and those using it do not use it to control externel
devices, mainly samples. OTOH, step style sequencing is a feature that
is highly useful, while not all the time different types of melodical
lines are achieved with step style sequencing of MIDI. Logical editors
within sequencers (which function almost exactly like trackers)
areparticularly useful for refining the MIDI data to achieve the exact
timing wanted and for cleaning out excess data which can make
synthesisers pop and click or simply give a MIDI BUFFER FULL type
message (this is particulalry true for older keyboards e.t.c.)
> You can use a keyboard (real or virtual)
For myself, this feature within a sequencer is a must, but again not the
be all and end all.
>
> You can use sequencer (real or virtual) like tools.
Interfaces such as Cubase, Cakewalk and Logic have the most useable
interface so - far. Muse has taken this style of approach,
incoroporation of the features as mentioned above would make it very
powerful indeed. The interface for JAZZ++ is satisfactory but not quite
as good, as cutting and pasting is defined by the bar not a loops or
riffs graphcially represented as blocks which can be picked up and moved
around.
> Is it better to include one or more of the following?
THe more, the better, flexibility is the key to a good commposition
environment.
>
> What do professions tend to use? Would like to use? Would like to be
> made
> to use?
Personally, I use one of the above mentioned WIndows softwares. I would
like to use something that bases itself around that style of
environment, which gives you an arrangement screen (to drag and drop
blocks), where individual tracks can be edited in a number of ways, most
importantly with logical editors and step editing/recording functions.
Piano-roll editors I have not found being used by many other
professionals, however this system led to the development of the drum
editor (like in Cubase) which is a fantastic tool if you don't have a
drum machine (and even if you do). Score editing is required by few,
however score publishing is essential to many composing for groups of
real musicians (or handing in assignments).
Further to this, a trend began with he big commercial MIDI sequencer
developers just prior to getting hooked on audio, this was to develop
more and more interesting MIDI interpolation tools/algorithms. Such as
style quantising, MIDI delay units and highly configurable arpeggiators
(to name a short list) more of these tools within a linux based
sequencer could be very interesting. One idea that just popped to mind
would be an assignable and clock syncable (but not fixed to MIDI clock
necessarily) LFO (low frequency oscillator) that can be applied to any
MIDI controller or note sequence.
THe incorporation of LADSPA is already happening, however it would be
really nice to see C-sound, Jmax (or other similar platforms) to be
hosted and hence controlled by the sequencer most importantly to easily
integrate them into a composition. I may be dreaming here of course.
MIDI controllable LADSPA (i.e. VST2) would be fantastic. Controlling
something like reverb depth with a controller can make for more detailed
recordings and more precise experimentation with these tools.
I don't want to be made to use anything, as mentioned before the more
flexibility within a composition environment the better.
> Which features in exsisting systems (like Jazz++, Quasimodo,etc) are
> appealing?
See all of the above.
>
>
> Just identifying requirements for such an "ideal music creation"
> tool. Who
> knows, if there is enough interest, maybe I can start something on
> sourceforge (which I think was where this whole thread started from
> :-)
Thanks for asking some question I feel I can answer.
Just to remind everybody , my studio is happy to test new programs (well
maybe after the album launch on October 13)
cheers and best wishes to all here
Allan Klinbail
>
>
> Eric Bresie
> ebresie_AT_usa.net
>
> ------
> To unsubscribe from <alsa-devel_AT_alsa-project.org> mailing list send
> message
> 'unsubscribe' in the body of message to
> <alsa-devel-request_AT_alsa-project.org>.
> BUG/SMALL PATCH REPORTING SYSTEM:
> http://www.alsa-project.org/cgi-bin/bugs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 13 2000 - 12:34:53 EEST