Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

dev:a_vision [2018/02/07 17:07] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 +[[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>​
  
 
 
dev/a_vision.txt ยท Last modified: 2018/02/07 17:07 (external edit)
Recent changes RSS feed Creative Commons License Valid XHTML 1.0 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki