4 Mar
2012
4 Mar
'12
8:14 a.m.
Am 3. März 2012 23:29 schrieb Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>om>:
I totally agree.
Actually OSC missed the point of MIDI.
(Or there was no intention to acctually become a replacement !? )
There should at least be an accepted, standardized
way for transmission of MIDI data over OSC !
I've started a draft:
http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/user/emrum/midi-osc-map
--
E.R.
OSC
this general language is the whole problem.
you can't send OSC to "an OSC capable plugin" or "an external OSC
application" in any generalized sense, because there is no shared
format for the messages.
the sequence of messages that you record may make sense to Pure Data,
but make absolutely no sense to, say, CSound.
the motivation to develop the infrastructure for recording, playback,
disk storage and editing of such messages is not very strong when any
given sequence can only target one particular OSC receiver. the
motivation isn't zero, to be clear. but it just isn't that strong.
I don't know if it's of practical use for
anyone else, but time and again I
would have had good use for this apparently simple feature. If anyone knows
a sequencer or DAW which can do what I sketched out above, please do tell
me. OSC has been around since 1997, for crying out loud. It's about time
that sequencers do more with it than just automatizing the transport
controls. ;-)
then its about time that people using OSC start defining some
standardized messages. MIDI did this from the start, and for all of
its limitations, its been a wild success. the OSC community has
self-consciously avoided doing this - lets queue up another pointless
argument about how to represent notes/frequencies/intervals - and as a
result is still only a niche protocol with every transmitter and
receiver defining their own messages. double fail ...