15 Jul
2004
15 Jul
'04
10:58 p.m.
Hi Chris:
Thank you very much for your response. Some further considerations
follow...
Chris Cannam wrote:
Sorry, it should have read "staves". Ergo, you can listen to music
already entered on other staffs while recording a new one.
He doesn't specify, even in the article, but I suspect you have the
right interpretation.
Indeed. I assume it's on the RG Todo list ?
Excellent.
Still pretty neat. In his survey Belkin found that only Mosaic was
"unlimited" in that regard.
Well, I assume he refers to a command-oriented edit procedure, i.e., "If
the passage is in semiquavers and written between middle C and its
higher octave, then convert them to some new rhythmic value and
transpose them downwards by a perfect 5th". Does that sound right to you ?
What about cut/copy/paste elements such as dynamic signs, tempo
indicators, crescendi/decrescendi, etc. ?
Sounds good.
I believe he means simultaneous different keysigs. Is that do-able in RG ?
Ah, that's cool. Do you plan to support additive timesigs ? What about
the simultaneous different timesigs ?
Ouch. It's on the Todo list ?
Any plan to incorporate them ? Chord frames would be nice, along with
chord symbols. Figured bass would be nice, though I doubt many people
actually write it anymore.
Too bad. It's often the only solution to some notation problems.
Again, too bad. I'd like lyrics to be entered as easily as writing in a
text editor, but I do understand the difference of application here.
Sure can... :)
Nice though.
But of course exporting to LilyPond gives the user all that capability.
I thought you might like that... :)
Good.
Excellent. Can I edit notation regardless of view ?
I presume that part of the motivation for this is the observation that
notation software in 1994 was pretty advanced already, and the field
doesn't seem to have advanced much (if at all) since. I think that
would be a fair comment, anyway. 1994 was when I started working on
Rosegarden 2.1, and I remember being hugely impressed at the time by
the capabilities of even relatively modest software like Encore. I
don't think Rosegarden today does as much as Encore did then. The
main advance is that free software now has access to a better
notation font, thanks to the excellent work of the Lilypond project.
Yes, it seems that we have combinations of applications that in fact
provide quite complete notation capabilities. LilyPond supports an
impressive number of notation requirements, including figured bass and
lyrics, so I could see myself preparing a basic "input" score with
Rosegarden that I could export to LilyPond for refinement. This two-step
process is probably anathema to the Win/Mac folks, but as Professor
Belkin points out, the all-in-one aproach simply can't accomodate all
the possible situations that arise during the formatting of notation
destined for printed output.
Of course it's also true that notation software on
Windows and Mac now
(Sibelius, Finale etc) does very little that the same or equivalent
software didn't do ten years ago. Most of the improvements since
then have been in details of user interface polish, fine-tuning the
output, and things like native synthesis for playback.
Anyway, I'll happily respond to the list by filling in the things you
can and can't do in Rosegarden at the moment. In our defence, before
I start I do want to point out that Rosegarden is not primarily a
score typesetter at all.
Another point I've been thinking about. Belkin makes the distinction
between rule-based and graphic music notation applications, noting that
many apps include aspects of both approaches. However, it seems to me
that a rule-based system such as LilyPond provides ultimate flexibility
regarding the detail quality of output, but obviously the graphics-based
approach favors ease of input. Would you say that Rosegarden takes such
a combined approach ?
Note entry:
[x] mouse & keyboard
[x] MIDI step-time
[x] MIDI realtime w. flexible quantization
audition other saves while recording
I'm not sure I understand what that one means.
[x] retain
performance data for playback
I wonder whether he meant velocity and instrument data only, or
pre-quantization timings as well? Rosegarden does all of these.
[ ] number of
independent rhythmic layers per staff
Not supported at all -- a big omission.
maximum
number of staves per system
No built-in limit.
Entry of slurs,
articulations, dynamics, etc.:
[x] intelligent default placement
[ ] apply to multiple staves at once
Selection in regional edits:
[x] vertical, horizontal slices within and across measures, staves,
system, pages, etc.
Well, partly -- you can select individual notes, rectangles,
incremental selections of rectangles etc, but you can only select
from a single staff at once.
[x]
non-contiguous
conditional selection
What do you think that means?
[x] click &
drag positioning of symbols
[x] transposition (note, staff, selection, etc)
[x] enharmonic change by region
[ ] rhythm: change note values (ease of use)
Not currently easy to do en masse.
[x] rhythm:
auto-rebar
[x] cut/copy/paste: music
cut/copy/paste: non-musical items, formats, etc.
Partly -- things like text are generally cut and pasteable, and of
course there is also cut and paste at the segment editor level
(something which doesn't necessarily exist in a pure notation
editor).
mirroring
(intelligent copies)
Again, things of this nature generally happen at the segment level.
For example, there are repeating segments that permit you to turn
individual repeats into real copies after the fact, and segments that
are triggered by individual events (for ornaments, pattern sequencing
etc).
Special/custom
notation:
[ ] unusual staves
[?] simultaneous key signatures
Not quite sure what's intended here either.
[x]
unconventional time signatures
[ ] additive time signatures
[ ] simultaneous different time signatures
[ ] drawing tool
[x] user-created symbols
To a limited extent. Note heads etc are configurable to different
font glyphs or pixmaps through various XML configuration files.
user-selectable fonts for all elements
Rosegarden can use lots of different notation fonts, but it's actually
not possible to choose your text fonts at all (a silly omission).
[ ] chord
notation: graphic, playback, learn via MIDI
[ ] fretboard notation
[ ] figured-bass notation
None of these is supported at all.
[x] unusual
note heads (slashes, harmonics, etc)
As above, may take some configuration.
[ ] easily
adjustable cross-staff beaming
Cross-staff beaming is not supported at all.
Lyrics:
[x] mass create
[ ] create on page
Individual lyric elements can be added and removed by hand, but it's
laborious -- you can't just click and type.
[x] import from
text editor
Well, you can cut and paste!
[x] auto
layout
[ ] multiple fonts
[ ] flexible placement
MIDI playback:
[x] ALSA or OSS support
ALSA and JACK.
[x] channel
support
[x] playback includes modifiers (crescendi, dynamics, etc)
You do have to tell Rosegarden to use them though -- it won't do it by
default because it would be bad form for a sequencer to override
velocities etc you might have already entered via MIDI.
[x] direct
editing of MIDI data
[x] import patch lists (GM, GS, etc)
[x] scrolling playback
[x] edit during playback
Entry layout:
[x] flexible engraver spacing within measure
To a very limited degree.
[x] account for
dynamics, slurs, annotative text, etc.
Page layout:
[x] auto layout with engraver spacing
[ ] reduce or enlarge symbols, staves, text, systems, by any
percent, locally or globally
[ ] full control of measures per system
[ ] full control of systems per page
[ ] remove empty staves within systems
[ ] flexible spacing of staves within systems
All automatic only.
>Part extraction:
>[ ] automatic with new layout
>[ ] dynamic links to master score
>
>
I wondered whether part extraction was supported. It is of course
invaluable when producing larger-scale scores for ensembles. Any plans
for it in RG ?
File
operations:
[x] follow Linux standards (?)
(?) indeed.
[ ]
simultaneous multiple files open
[x] printed output: PS, PDF, DVI, etc.
Interface/overall ease of use:
[x] undo/redo any operation
[x] user-defined key bindings
[x] user control over notational defaults
Some of them, anyway.
[x] views:
scroll, page, template, any percent, multiple
simultaeous views
Linear, continuous page, multi-page, any size and multiple
simultaneous views anyway.
The rest are all rather too relative for me to comment
on.
> priorities clear
> logical organization
> simple language and icons
> overall speed
> on-line help
> documentation
> ease of learning
> general solidity and stability
>
>
Yes, these are all rather qualititative, though the documentation could
be addressed. So far it seems that RG's docs are pretty good, but I
haven't gone into them deeply yet.
Chris, thanks again for taking the time to respond. It really does give
me a better appreciation for the capabilities of RG as measured against
the "state of the art" for the Mac in 1994, and I agree that the
criteria probably hasn't gone out of date.
Best regards,
dp