[LAU] opinions from (potential) user perspectives wanted
folderol at ukfsn.org
Thu Jul 1 21:15:54 UTC 2010
On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:54:19 +0100
James Morris <james at jwm-art.net> wrote:
> I'm working on a new MIDI app which shares some features with a
> sequencer, but in other ways is more like an arpeggiator, but also
> somewhat different to both.
> It's like a sequencer in that the user will be able to create rhythmic
> patterns which lack pitch and velocity data, and almost like an
> arpeggiator in that it will automatically generate the pitch and
> velocity data from an algorithm - and unlike either a sequencer or
> arpegiattor, it uses a 2d window-placement like algorithm to generate
> pitch/velocity (mapping these to x/y).
> Basically, I am after opinions from a potential users on the following:
> 1) a basic 'timebase master' implementation which lacks tempo maps,
> signature changes, etc, just enough to fire the app up and play around
> with ideas (currently it does this).
> 2) no timebase master at all, (just like arpage), you must have some
> other sequencer running.
> 3) a full feature time base master with tempo/meter changes etc.
> The case for 1 is just as it says, ease of use for playing around
> with, and only for playing around with.
> The user would be expected to run a fully featured sequencer/daw for
> features such as tempo and meter changes.
> Would having 1) just confuse users? (but if they're confused by that...)
> The case against 3 is other apps like ardour, rosegarden, already do
> this, and probably better than I can get my app to.
Sounds interesting. I would describe it as an 'Intelligent
Options 1 + 2 look most interesting. As you suggest, 1 for fiddling
about with ideas, 2 for actually producing a finished, linked work.
Will J Godfrey
Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
More information about the Linux-audio-user