|
|
dev:a_vision [2018/02/07 16:07] |
dev:a_vision [2022/05/06 16:07] (current) |
| |
| [[http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=200602191223.08676.cannam%40all-day-breakfast.com|Mail archive link]] - [[http://lalists.stanford.edu/lad/2006/02/0119.html|See also]] - "Having visions is easy" |
| |
| <code> |
| |
| On Sunday 19 Feb 2006 00:38, Luis Garrido wrote: |
| > So what is your vision, then? |
| |
| I'm not sure I have a "vision", or at least not one that I understand |
| how to realise, which is probably why it isn't very well expressed in |
| Rosegarden. |
| |
| Traditional notation is a very useful thing in music learning, in |
| exchanging and publishing certain sorts of music in certain ways, and |
| in musicological contexts. MIDI and the like are very useful not just |
| for producing a finished piece of work (in some ways MIDI is rather |
| limiting for that) but for experimentation and "rough drafting". What |
| I want is to be able to start in either one of those areas and |
| incorporate the other, either to start with an existing score and |
| explore performance possibilities for it, or to start with a |
| performance and try to work out what makes it what it is. |
| |
| In other words, I'm not directly all that interested in either making |
| studio software or published scores. I'm interested in looking at and |
| editing music in symbolic terms for educational and exploratory |
| purposes. I would like to be able to see, study, and manipulate the |
| performance of a score, not just have it played to me, I would like to |
| be able to hear other people's interpretations while studying the same |
| score, I would like to be able to use linear track-style and other |
| block or structural editing operations to edit a score structure, and I |
| would like to be able to derive likely scores from performances and |
| experiments. |
| |
| I hope all this manages to sound at the same time sufficiently vague, |
| high-concept, and bleeding obvious. |
| |
| > Is there any commercial software you think succeeds in this? |
| |
| Sibelius is in fact the closest thing I know of, not so much because of |
| its good score layout as because of its parts management and the |
| integration of reasonable (if not brilliant) tempo tracking, synth |
| plugins, and the like. |
| |
| > It is all about choices. When mscore is usable and linuxsampler can |
| > play Kontakt libraries I will be able to kick Windows out of my |
| > computer for good. |
| |
| Well, there is that practical viewpoint. |
| |
| As a user, there is always a time (or many) when what you really want is |
| a direct alternative to an existing program, whether for a different |
| platform, for a lower cost, in an open-source environment or whatever. |
| |
| As a developer, it offends me to imitate proprietary software directly. |
| Rosegarden is a deliberately conservative program that does an awful |
| lot of borrowing from the general classes of track-based sequencers and |
| notation software, but it isn't a knock-off of any single program. |
| Where we've looked at the alternatives, we've done it with a view to |
| trying to come up with something better, or something that fits more |
| with some conceived model for the rest of the program. Even when we've |
| only succeeded in producing something worse, less reliable, more |
| confusing and harder to use, at least we've usually made the honest |
| effort to investigate and understand what we're trying to make. Indeed |
| even if the end result then turned out to be almost indistinguishable |
| from another program, we would still have made it with some integrity. |
| |
| But to set out deliberately to produce and distribute an exact |
| replacement for an existing proprietary program, unless there is a |
| really strong necessity, is not a righteous thing to do. To replace |
| Sibelius with a better program for Linux would be good work. To |
| attempt to clone Sibelius for Linux is a wrong to the creators of |
| Sibelius and offensive to the creative spirit in the programmers doing |
| the work. To do so while claiming that the clone is superior software |
| because it has "open source ethics" is doubly wrong. It would be |
| better to have no program that worked as well, than to have our best |
| program in the field be a cheap duplicate. |
| |
| |
| Chris |
| |
| </code> |
| |