On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Chris Cannam wrote:
Meanwhile, the implementation of some notation
features in
Rosegarden-4 has been slowed by the problem of having to make them
editable and playable in formats other than notation and the fact
that the developers have to work on all sorts of stuff besides score.
(I say that with some bitterness, having wasted quite a bit of good
notation-coding time on tedious MIDI-device stuff recently.) For
A short remark from a NoteEdit developer about this, because it is
the most basic statement in this mail. Many times I was prompted
to join other open musical score editor projects. And the
question arises: "Why so many different projects?". And this sentence
gives me the opportunity to declare why I didn't:
In other projects the MIDI related way of thinking dominates.
The score editor is regarded as an appendix.
In my opinion, this is a basic error. The internal
data structures must represent the score and the midi data
must be derived from these data. Why: The mapping from
score to midi is unique mapping. But the reverse mapping isn't unique.
And another aspect: From the very beginning it was quite
clear to me: The main problem is grouping: The are
vertical groups (chords) and horizontal groups
(beams, slurs, ties, tuplets). Every note can be a member of
any of these groups, even simultaniously.
The grouping phenomenon is completely unknown
to the MIDI world. Thus, I think: Any MIDI based
data design won't succeed and leads to the effects described
above.
notes) has been fixed in the 2.1.x/2.2.x releases, but
I can still
never work out how to do simple stuff like play from the somewhere in
the middle of the piece, while Rosegarden has a nice transport window
with all that kind of stuff in it, and can do things like playing a
selected region in a loop while you edit it.
Please read:
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/doc/playing.html
BTW: You have forgotten:
- Multiple voices per staff!
--
J.Anders, Chemnitz, GERMANY (ja(a)informatik.tu-chemnitz.de)