denemo-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Denemo-devel] Request for future midi support from a linuxsampler-


From: alex stone
Subject: Re: [Denemo-devel] Request for future midi support from a linuxsampler-dev
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:46:40 +0300

Richard, it's good news.

And Nils is right.
A fully featured Dictionary/list, and user defined port/channel/patch would be unique, capturing the power of LSampler, as it was designed to run, resulting in great playback,and a much closer reality for those of us who enjoy the thrill of writing digital parchment.

I'll also add another futuristic idea here. (gulp)

Most daws are ill served to write to picture (film.) whether it's poor notation, sloppy audio timing, or coarse midi, each of them has....something that detracts from the process, and results in a lot of donkey work.
And notation has suffered most of all in this regard. Even Sibelius's attempt to match notation to film was dodgy, and often resulted in mistimed events, which meant the user would have to save a midi file, import into a daw, and repeat the process of matching sound to pic.

In the Jack 'world' we have the bonus of good timing between jack audio, and now jack midi. Add to that the good timing for vid, and there's a good opportunity to marry all three together, notation, timing, and vid.

I wonder what the great Bernard Hermann, who wrote score whilst watching a film, would have thought of this.

So if Denemo responded to timing cues, within the jackmidi framework, and, in the future, Denemo had a 'strip' of some sort at the top of the score, which reflected timing, i.e. minutes, seconds, etc... then the three elements could come together pretty well. I realise we'd still need to record, and polish a notated midi score, but as i wrote in the previous post, if doing this reduces the volume of donkey work, then it's, imho, something worth considering. (Write notation to pic, record to audio, with timing intact, and polish)

Importantly, were Denemo to take on a more direct role, as Notator/Engraver/Timed Source to pic, then we'd probably be able to reduce the need for interim steps in the compositional process. And add to that, a finished score  in lilypond format, and the classical/film composer would be better served than with any other setup i know of. (And i've owned, and have gathering dust, most daws, and notation editors.)

This is idea basically requires only a timing device/meter, shown only in the score when composing. (not to be printed)
I don't know how to code so i don't know how difficult this would be to achieve, or even consider.

2 more penneth worth,

Alex.



On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Richard Shann <address@hidden> wrote:
Just a very quick note to say that I suspect my current work will fit
very nicely with the multiple port/channel per staff. This evening I
have developed the AttachLilyPond into a list of AttachDirective, where
a directive will be able to carry MIDI information. So each note in a
chord could have several attachments, with their own graphic, own
LilyPond output, own MIDI instruction.
It is currently working, though I have nothing yet to select particular
Directives from the lists, and though they have tags, I have not tried
tagging one yet.
But they are saving and restoring from disk, and doing the LilyPond
output bit and the (currently crude) text display on screen and status
bar.

Richard


On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 16:27 +0100, Nils Gey wrote:
> In my communication about jackbridges in windows/mac the linuxsampler dev Alex Stone gave the following ideas. As I promised I now forward it to the Denemo list.
>
> I guess basically its about designing Denemo with port and multichannel out per staff. Port means a specific midi-out interface, so it would show up in QJackctl as sub-interfache of Denemo midi-out ("Staff 01: Violin" or whatever). Multichannel out per staff means the midi-channels 1 to 16.
>
> >>forwarded message:
> Nils,
> As i've already posted in the linuxmusicians forum, i'm a fan of Denemo, and would like to see it go forward. (I'm also a classical music and film composer, desperately trying to finish an album's worth)
>
> I'll add to this my enthusiasm for a symbiotic relationship between Denemo and Lsampler. The advantages both ways are obvious, but the big jump for me (and i speak only for myself) is the potential for true articulation playback, not hindered at all by restrictions of port or channel.
>
> Example. We're writing a 1st violin part, that requires multiple articulations. Instead of just 'voices' per staff, the ability to assign a port to staff would open a huge opportunity to refine a playback to a much higher quality.
>
> Even more, if a Dictionary were built in Denemo, that is, a user defined list specifying playback per symbol or articulation, then we could, given robust enough hardware, playback even more nuance in our work.
>
> So a brief example of the Dictionary could be as follows:
>
> Cello staccato up bow (user defined port,channel, and selected symbol, or combination of symbols)
> Cello staccato down bow (user defined port, channel, and selected symbol, or combination of symbols)
> etc...
>
> I have 45 ports, each with associated patches for each instrument in the orchestra, plus a couple.(2 each for strings)
>
> If i could build a big dictionary template in which each port/channel/patch is assigned to a symbol, or combination of symbols, then it would effectively make scoring simple, and importantly, when recording the playback from LS, remove a large chunk of donkey work, manually building phrases, runs, etc from scratch.
> It wouldn't remove entirely the need for manual work, but if it removed a major percentage of it, well, we're in front. (imho)
>
> I appreciate the feedback you gave me about the keystrokable opportunities in Denemo, and i've been going through them, assigning, and refining the workflow. Denemo's most certainly a powerful and already mature tool in that aspect, and with practise, i've gradually been improving the workflow, to the point of near instinct. (more practise needed, though.)
>
> It's my opinion we don't need to think about soundfont format, as the only primary sound playback device, anymore. Given the almost infinite capacity in LS to expand by port and channel, only limited by hardware, not software, I think LS would serve extremely well as a powerful playback device for a greatly improved playback, more akin to reality. Add to that the powerful Jack/Jackmidi, and many of the limits us long time notation and engraving writers have experience, would go away, and leave more time for writing.
>
> 2 pennies worth, and i wish the Denemo team continued success.
>
> In appreciation,
>
> Alex.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Denemo-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/denemo-devel



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]