18 Dec
2002
18 Dec
'02
11:13 a.m.
David Olofson wrote:
for the timeline, not from.
it is constant throughout in a sane system.
all of them.
Well, you've already disqualified at least one on this list, I think.
(And I don't count myself, of course.)
which? i'll remind you that 9.5 = 19 / 2 -- that doesn't prove
me wrong.
it is not theoretical. it is the practical foundation of
musical time.
Yeah - but then your beat sync'ed effect suddently switches from 4ths
to 16ths...
why should it? it knows what time unit it is synced to, doesn't
it? at least that usually is one of its prime parameters.
this method works better:
not at all. but you don't have to complete the current
measure to put in a new meter, do you? it's just a way
to count the passage of time, it's not time itself.
there is no *real* beat value. if your arpeggiator starts
emitting 8th notes when switching to 4/4 from 7/8, i'd say
there's something wrong with it. anytime you introduce a
new meter, you introduce a new "one" beat. your plugin
absolutely needs to sync to that, right?
and there's no *real* beat value because in the case you
mention, you explicitly destroy musical time periodicity.
please put them here; i honestly don't know which questions
you are referring to.
i would love to have more musicians actively participate in
this list but there seem to be few.
> [TIMEBASE, aka ppq]
the only thing
i object to is that you want to assign a fixed
value. it is a severe limitation, but it gains us absolutely
nothing. at least you don't give a reason why it needs to be
fixed.
If it's not fixed, it's another parameter you have to get from the
timeline, before you can do anything useful with a musical time
value. That's all, basically. please,
please, please, ask your favourite musician friends.
read good books about it. listen to indian, jazz, techno,
blues, classical western, classical indian, japanese, rap,
whatever music: rhythmn is integral.
Well, which ones qualify? rhythmn is
always based on one integral periodic 'pulse'. if
time is not divisible by this atom, there is no musical time.
From a theoretical POV, I would agree, but that
doesn't seem to be
the best way to think of it at all times. If you really *want* a bar that's shortened by a
fractional beat
(which is not all that unusual, even in pop music), what do you
do...? How do you ensure that plugins that beat sync don't freak
out when you multiply the meter to get integers?
if you shorten, for example, 4/4 by 1/16, it's 15/16. if you want to
shorten 4/4 by, say, 1/16 + 0.00212266328763,
you're violating the very principle of the organization of
musical time.
Well, I can't say for sure. All I know is that I do that kind of
things by "abusing" the tempo map instead, since that's the only way
you can do it in most sequencers. you're better off simply inserting a new
meter
where the shortened measure ends.
How would you do that? The meter just defines the subdivision of
musical time. You can't just make a "skip" in musical time - unless
you're seriously suggesting that this should be implemented as a
transport "jump" to skip the last part of the shortened measure. and what seems
to be the problem with beat sync? the relation
of the meter to TIMEBASE is part of the tempo information, so
all info you need, you have.
No. Where did the *real* beat value go? please excuse
the harsh word: your assumptions about these
fields lack in realism.
*heh* Well, you seem to have all the right answers - so why do you
tend to ignore the questions that cannot simply be disregarded as "in
conflict with traditional theory"...? I think fp arithmetics have more effect or accuracy
than traditional
ways of thinking about meters - but I must be wrong, then.
they are simply not adequate in this context.
tim