[linux-audio-user] Rosegarden vs. Note Edit

Bearcat M. Sandor HomeTheater at TheDragonsEdge.com
Sat Jun 14 03:21:01 EDT 2003


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Chris,

Wow.  Thank you for the detailed reply. You answered all my questions!  I 
think the untilamate answer for me would be, use both.  I think I'll use 
RoseGarden to get the initial score in to the system and then use NoteEdit 
for the fine tuning (so to speak).  I some respects I suppose Note Edit is 
kinda a graphical interface for musixtex.

One point you forgot was that Rosegarden is easier to install. Since Note Edit 
is tied to the musixtex stuff there are a million dependances to be met.  I 
even had to fix one of the directories in a source code file to get it to 
install at al and I still can't install the main code base.

Happy listening,

Thank you so much,

Bearcat M. Sandor

On Friday 13 June 2003 16:29, Chris Cannam wrote:
> On Friday 13 Jun 2003 9:40 pm, Chris Cannam wrote:
> > I wouldn't mind seeing a reply from
> > one of the NoteEdit developers, as I've probably inadvertantly
> > slandered them somewhere.
>
> Actually, reading it through again, I realise the opposite may be
> true: I probably haven't done much of a job of explaining why anyone
> would prefer to use Rosegarden.  What a great salesman I am.  Not
> that it makes any difference, since they're both free.
>
> The principle about Rosegarden is that all of the non-notation stuff
> is actually useful when working on notation as well, particularly if
> you're doing composition rather than just transcribing scores.  For
> example, it does a good job of helping prepare reasonable MIDI
> performances: it can estimate things like velocities from the score,
> and can remember the performed times and durations of notes even
> while tidying them up for score purposes.  It includes a quantizer
> dedicated to producing readable score, that admittedly still needs
> work but still does pretty much as good a job from performance
> timings as (say) Sibelius does (although Rosegarden really needs
> tempo-tracking as well -- it's on my to-do list).  You can use it
> (with a soft synth or external synth and mixer) to render your
> compositions down to audio tracks.  It has configurable program/bank
> patch maps for MIDI devices, including a number of popular devices as
> standard.  Flashy stuff like antialiasing for notes isn't just for
> show, it makes it much easier to see and follow scores in smaller
> sizes; and having a nice friendly GUI is also a genuinely useful
> thing.
>
> There are also several areas where it has interesting potential rather
> than immediate utility, but they maybe aren't of much interest here.
>
> And there are some real downsides (here I go again with my
> non-salesman stuff).  It sometimes behaves inconsistently or
> unexpectedly for reasons connected to the fact that it's manipulating
> sequenceable data behind the scenes -- i.e. things like tuplets and
> grace notes are stored in playable form rather than displayable form,
> and it takes some testing to get all the potential conversion cases
> working correctly.  Many of the natty features described above are
> incomplete: for example the notation quantizer can guess slurs,
> tenuto etc but it tends to do so in rather inappropriate places at
> the moment.  The lyric editor is weaker than NoteEdit's (forgot to
> mention that last time).  And of course perhaps what you want is an
> editor you can enter whatever you like into, and that will do
> whatever you tell it with it, instead of an editor that thinks it
> knows what you're doing.
>
> And the Rosegarden developers talk too damn much.
>
>
> Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+6snsya+RPo9ly58RAoNwAJ9xya2RFD3VBBqOjc3zwNvNJ7ZcBQCgjBhU
R12T3d2WjIQXnAKcycjnLTc=
=EMZx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list