17 Dec
2002
17 Dec
'02
12:32 a.m.
On Tuesday 17 December 2002 04.53, Pascal Haakmat wrote:
Of course. If it is really that little trouble, and, say, user
interfaces don't suffer because they can no longer make a
particular assumption, I suppose it is pure gain.
I think it's acceptable that applications just display the signature
as two fp values with some decimals. That's ok for *.5 and *.25 and
the like, but not very sexy for N/3 and the like. More sophisticated
applications might look for nicer ways of expressing such values, but
that's entirely optional.
Discriminating towards other cultures? That is a bit of a stretch
don't you think? Besides, discrimination (distinction) is the
essence of culture.
Well, yes - I just meant that there is no need for the distinction,
unless removing it results in real, technical issues.
There's obviously nothing wrong with wanting to explore eccentric
scales. Personally I would also prefer to have that option. The
question is whether the added complexity is justified. You seem
very confident that the extra cost is neglible, which is good
enough for me.
Ok. Let's just hope I'm right. ;-)
//David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate
.- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------.
| Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. |
| RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. |
`---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -'
--- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---
17/12/02 02:59, David Olofson wrote:
So do I. ;-)
For the exact reason I've suggested once or
twice: A musical time
aware effects might want to know the length of one beat, or one
bar. Why not just allow the user to select "beats" or "bars"
instead of "note value" when configuring such a plugin?
If you have integer-only meters, you make it impossible to do
exactly that, in the cases where beat or bar sync is most
interesting; in polyrythmic compositions. Users will have to
resort to telling these plugins about the correct lengths in
other, potentially non-obvious and/or inaccurate ways.
Well, I hope you're right. I do not believe that the goal of instrument design
should be
to accomodate every possible musical expression under the sun.
No, but we should at least try to cover what we know about, are
interested in, and can handle without too much trouble. (And I'm
definitely interested in exploring stuff beyond 4/4 and 6/8.) A
musical instrument is always part of a culture and a history
and this defines its use.
So, you're not supposed to use cutting edge technology, unless
you're interested only in traditional western european music?
That is very discriminating, not only towards other cultures, but
also towards those of us who want to experiment and explore
things beyond 12tET and simple rhythms. Of course you're supposed to use cutting edge
technology. But,
surely you realize that the desire for (technological) progress in
art is itself firmly rooted in the Western canon? Let's not fool
ourselves: Western musical tradition and Western technology are
"where it's at" at the moment.
Therefore any system or instrument we design, if it is to gain
broad acceptance (which is by no means a given), must first and
foremost address the concerns of "popular" music (for some
definition of popular).
Yes. I just don't see a conflict here; that's my point.
That is not discriminating against other cultures;
what is
discriminating is to think that you can reduce hundreds of years of
culture and tradition to a decision about whether to use an int or
a float.
That's not at all what I'm suggesting. There is a very big difference
between "understanding something" and "supporting something".
A synth does not have to understand *any* musical scale to play
1.0/octave. Yet, it can reproduce any pitch in the audible spectrum,
and then some. As a result, it *will* play whatever you feed it, no
matter what theory, culture or tradition the pitch values are related
to.
It makes little sense to say that the piano is a
flawed
instrument because it is so closely tied to Western musical
values. In fact the opposite is true: the piano is one of the
great instruments precisely because it lends itself so well to
the expression of Western musical values.
So what? I sure still want to explore harmonies beyond the 12tET
scale. We're not *excluding* anything here; just trying to find
the smallest common denominators for *music*, rather than just
for most kinds of western european music.