Re: [linux-audio-user] Rosegarden vs. Note Edit

On Monday 16 Jun 2003 12:28 pm, Joerg Anders wrote: Assuming you're referring at least partly to Rosegarden here, then it's not true to describe the score editor as an appendix. It was designed in from the start and was the first editing mode we implemented. As I had previously worked on Rosegarden-2.1 (whose score editor is much more like NoteEdit: it only does score, and knows nothing about MIDI) the exciting thing for me with Rosegarden-4 was to set out to do a score editor that was powerful enough to be genuinely useful for score, without compromising the sequencing capabilities of the application at all. Of course that's an ongoing challenge and I won't claim that we've succeeded yet, but I think it's an interesting and worthwhile goal. Nonsense! A performance (in MIDI or anything else) contains any amount of information not representable in score, just as the score can contain any amount of information not representable in MIDI. There is no unique mapping in either direction. The fact is that any program that aims to be a score editor and a performance or composition tool at the same time, rather than concentrating on one particular area, is going to have to work harder and make compromises. Rosegarden is a sequencer and compositional tool, and so (as we agree) will inevitably find some things harder to implement in notation than NoteEdit, which is primarily a score editor and so is not particularly useful as a sequencer. (Rosegarden's internal data structures actually represent neither the MIDI nor the score exactly, although producing MIDI from them is certainly easier than producing score.) Yes, of course. And basing an internal representation directly on that will lead to difficulties in performance or MIDI editing -- but I'm not about to claim that that makes it "wrong" to do so, or a "basic error". The two programs are simply different. Chris