19 Dec
2005
19 Dec
'05
4:27 p.m.
REFERENCE:
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/noteedit.html
(i just found this!) the developers of noteedit say on their site they
want to end noteedit development because nobody cares about noteedit.
this makes me angry.
on their official page, they are blaming us for this situation. (maybe
they are right, maybe they are wrong.)
NOTEEDIT (which is GPL), THE BEST USER-FRIENDLY SCORE EDITOR FOR
GNU/LINUX (cause that's what it is!), doesn't deserve to be ignored.
what is wrong with us? i wonder why most of us ignore it...
is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are gnome supporters?
is it because we all afford to buy finale and don't need a GPL score
editor?
i really don't understand why we keep on ignoring it. it's a... mystery
to me why almost nobody even mentions it... (maybe they didn't choose a
very memorable name? are you confusing it with an application class
name?) honestly, i would be very sad if the noteedit project was
abandoned!
i am not related to the noteedit project in any way, as i am a newbye to
anything gnu/linux. however, noteedit is one of the reasons for me to
feel comfortable in gnu/linux.
maybe we could do something about it? i don't know... advertizing the
project... promoting it... whatever... or just take a look at it (if
you haven't already) and think for yourself. it may not be *perfect*,
but it's THE BEST we have...
you may want to read this, for further information:
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/noteedit.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19 Dec
19 Dec
5:22 p.m.
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 at 15:27 +0200, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
REFERENCE:
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/noteedit.html
(i just found this!) the developers of noteedit say on their site they
want to end noteedit development because nobody cares about noteedit.
this makes me angry.
What makes you angry? That they want to end development or that they
claim nobody cares about noteedit?
on their official page, they are blaming us for this
situation. (maybe
they are right, maybe they are wrong.)
Every one of us, including the noteedit authors, has power only over his
or her own actions. If they feel compelled to stop development, that is
their choice. In the end, that's all it comes down to.
NOTEEDIT (which is GPL), THE BEST USER-FRIENDLY SCORE
EDITOR FOR
GNU/LINUX (cause that's what it is!), doesn't deserve to be ignored.
Nor does it _deserve_ anything else, whether good or evil. It's just a
bunch of bits. Perhaps you'd like to imply that the authors of noteedit
don't deserve to be ignored. This is a much more poignant point, and
it's hard for us developers to accept sometimes, but using our software
is just as voluntary as our creating it.
what is wrong with us? i wonder why most of us ignore
it...
When it comes to software and business, the question is never what is
wrong with the user/customer, but what is wrong with the
software/product/service.
is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are
gnome supporters?
is it because we all afford to buy finale and don't need a GPL score
editor?
i really don't understand why we keep on ignoring it. it's a... mystery
to me why almost nobody even mentions it... (maybe they didn't choose a
very memorable name? are you confusing it with an application class
name?) honestly, i would be very sad if the noteedit project was
abandoned!
Or maybe it's not really ignored at all. I'd like to see proof that it
is being ignored, whatever that means.
i am not related to the noteedit project in any way,
as i am a newbye to
anything gnu/linux. however, noteedit is one of the reasons for me to
feel comfortable in gnu/linux.
maybe we could do something about it? i don't know... advertizing the
project... promoting it... whatever... or just take a look at it (if
you haven't already) and think for yourself. it may not be *perfect*,
but it's THE BEST we have...
The great part about open source software is that if a project is
abandoned, it can be picked up by somebody else or at least downloaded
in its latest state. It looks like there's a berlios project to carry on
the torch, so that may be happening here. If you want to help, there are
many ways to do so even if you're not a coder (e.g. documentation or web
design or promotion). If you think the best hope is to court the
previous developers with lavish praise or whatever it would take to make
them feel that spending time on noteedit is worth their time, then by
all means go ahead.
I come into this saga in the middle - all I'm going off of is your post
and the website you linked to. I can only give a general observation: in
the OSS world, software is written and software is used. Not all
software written gets used, but everything that gets used can be
maintained by virtue of the open source.
So I just wanted to reassure you on two points: there is no conspiracy
to ignore noteedit, and because noteedit is open source it will continue
to be available and perhaps even continue to improve.
Let's each do something proactive for our favorite project(s) and
refrain from blaming others for our (in)actions.
--
Hans Fugal ; http://hans.fugal.net
There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the
right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.
-- Johann Sebastian Bach
20 Dec
20 Dec
6:01 a.m.
On Monday 19 December 2005 23:22, Hans Fugal wrote:
Nor does it _deserve_ anything else, whether good or
evil. It's just
a bunch of bits. Perhaps you'd like to imply that the authors of
noteedit don't deserve to be ignored. This is a much more poignant
point, and it's hard for us developers to accept sometimes, but using
our software is just as voluntary as our creating it.
i don't care about the authors of noteedit, and i don't even (want to
ever) know who they are.
all i care is that NOTEEDIT is ignored. and what makes me angry is that
the reason is... ignorance of what noteedit actually does.
When it comes to software and business, the question
is never what is
wrong with the user/customer, but what is wrong with the
software/product/service.
very much agreed.
Or maybe it's not really ignored at all. I'd
like to see proof that
it is being ignored, whatever that means.
it *is* ignored. but, hey, if i think better, i realise that any music
notation software is ignored (proportionally) just as much. not even
finale is as popular as it "should" be.
If you think the
best hope is to court the previous developers with lavish praise or
whatever it would take to make them feel that spending time on
noteedit is worth their time, then by all means go ahead.
as i said, i have no idea who they were and i don't care about
"creators", but only about their "creation". i hate any type of
personality cult, and this certainly includes britney spears, john paul
ii, linus torvalds, and (please don't kill me!) even g. bush jr... ;)
So I just wanted to reassure you on two points: there
is no
conspiracy to ignore noteedit, and because noteedit is open source it
will continue to be available and perhaps even continue to improve.
well, i surely hope you're right, because i *love* NOTEEDIT :) -- and
thanks.
Let's each do something proactive for our favorite
project(s) and
refrain from blaming others for our (in)actions.
why, i was *surely* not blaming! i was just expressing amazement
combined with frustration. as i am not a coder, i thought talking about
noteedit was the right (proactive) thing i could do.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19 Dec
19 Dec
5:30 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 15:27 +0200, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
(i just found this!) the developers of noteedit say on
their site they
want to end noteedit development because nobody cares about noteedit.
this makes me angry.
on their official page, they are blaming us for this situation. (maybe
they are right, maybe they are wrong.)
NOTEEDIT (which is GPL), THE BEST USER-FRIENDLY SCORE EDITOR FOR
GNU/LINUX (cause that's what it is!), doesn't deserve to be ignored.
what is wrong with us? i wonder why most of us ignore it...
is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are gnome supporters?
is it because we all afford to buy finale and don't need a GPL score
editor?
Do "most of us" actually use score editors? I prefer piano rolls myself,
I can barely read notes.
It sounds a bit silly to stop writing something because it doesn't get
mentioned often enough on LAU. Judging from the forums and the mailing
list archives on the BerliOS page there seem to be some people who are
interested in it.
--
Lars Luthman
PGP key: http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d00-llu/pgp_key.php
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
5:40 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
Lars Luthman wrote:
On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 15:27 +0200, I. I. Ooisen
wrote:
>(i just found this!) the developers of noteedit say on their site they
>want to end noteedit development because nobody cares about noteedit.
>this makes me angry.
>
>on their official page, they are blaming us for this situation. (maybe
>they are right, maybe they are wrong.)
>
>NOTEEDIT (which is GPL), THE BEST USER-FRIENDLY SCORE EDITOR FOR
>GNU/LINUX (cause that's what it is!), doesn't deserve to be ignored.
>what is wrong with us? i wonder why most of us ignore it...
>
>is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are gnome supporters?
>is it because we all afford to buy finale and don't need a GPL score
>editor?
If I recall, this all came about because a (false) rumor was being
spread about Finale being ported to Linux, and this was perceived as a
threat to the future success of NoteEdit.
I doubt it's a KDE issue, either, since Rosegarden (the *other* score
editor) is also a KDE application.
Do "most of us" actually use score editors?
I prefer piano rolls myself,
I can barely read notes.
I use Rosegarden extensively for score editing.
-- Brett
20 Dec
20 Dec
5:58 a.m.
On Monday 19 December 2005 23:39, Brett McCoy wrote:
I doubt it's a KDE issue, either, since Rosegarden
(the *other* score
editor) is also a KDE application.
rosegarden is not a score editor and will *hopefully* never be. remember
each tool has some specific purposes. score editing is not what
rosegarden is supposed to do.
i hate combos. and perhaps all gnu/linuxists should. :)
rosegarden should deal best with the way music sounds, not with the way
music looks.
I use Rosegarden extensively for score editing.
have you tried noteedit?
-- Brett
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
9:53 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
You should tell the Rosegarden developers that because they make the
claim on the website that it is a score editor. :-) Granted, Rosegarden
is missing some stuff that NoteEdit probably has (multiple voices per
staff, easy insertion/deletion of measures), but Rosegarden has always
worked "out of the box" for me, which is why I use it, whereas NoteEdit
was problematic (see below).
I doubt
it's a KDE issue, either, since Rosegarden (the *other* score
editor) is also a KDE application.
rosegarden is not a score editor and will *hopefully* never be. remember
each tool has some specific purposes. score editing is not what
rosegarden is supposed to do. i hate combos. and perhaps all gnu/linuxists should.
:)
rosegarden should deal best with the way music sounds, not with the way
music looks.
Yes, I have tried it. It kept crashing on me, and I had trouble getting
it to find my MIDI devices (the TSE3 library, I think, was the issue, it
was segfaulting on startup), and refused to import any of my MIDI files.
It doesn't support Jack either, which is crucial for the setup I am
using for composing and recording.
-- Brett
I use Rosegarden extensively for score editing.
have you tried noteedit?
3:06 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 15:53, Brett McCoy wrote:
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
You should tell the Rosegarden developers that because they make the
claim on the website that it is a score editor. :-) Granted,
Rosegarden is missing some stuff that NoteEdit probably has (multiple
voices per staff, easy insertion/deletion of measures), but
Rosegarden has always worked "out of the box" for me, which is why I
use it, whereas NoteEdit was problematic (see below).
bad luck, maybe? :) maybe they fixed the bugs in the meantime?
with the latest version, i didn't have any of those problems (i remember
there were some with the way midis were imported, though)
I doubt
it's a KDE issue, either, since Rosegarden (the *other*
score editor) is also a KDE application.
rosegarden is not a score editor and will *hopefully* never be.
remember each tool has some specific purposes. score editing is not
what rosegarden is supposed to do. i hate combos. and perhaps all gnu/linuxists
should. :)
rosegarden should deal best with the way music sounds, not with the
way music looks.
Yes, I have tried it. It kept crashing on me, and I had trouble
getting it to find my MIDI devices (the TSE3 library, I think, was
the issue, it was segfaulting on startup), and refused to import any
of my MIDI files. I use Rosegarden extensively for score editing.
have you tried noteedit? It doesn't support Jack either, which is crucial
for the setup I am using for composing and recording.
didn't know that :(
however, my point was not that noteedit was perfect. my point was that
we might want to... care about it, at least...
promoting it may help it improve.
-- Brett
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
3:55 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
I haven't tried it recently.
Yeah, need to keep things synched between Ardour & Rosegarden.
Yes, I have
tried it. It kept crashing on me, and I had trouble
getting it to find my MIDI devices (the TSE3 library, I think, was
the issue, it was segfaulting on startup), and refused to import any
of my MIDI files.
bad luck, maybe? :) maybe they fixed the bugs in the meantime?
with the latest version, i didn't have any of those problems (i remember
there were some with the way midis were imported, though) It doesn't
support Jack either, which is crucial
for the setup I am using for composing and recording.
didn't know that :( however, my point was not that noteedit was perfect.
my point was that
we might want to... care about it, at least...
promoting it may help it improve.
I agree, there's no need for it to be buried... having alternatives is
always good.
-- Brett
3:34 p.m.
On Mon December 19 2005 22:43, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
i hate combos. and perhaps all gnu/linuxists should.
:)
I have been using Linux since 1994. Sometimes, I like "combos"
very much. Not in the case of, for example, email/todo
list/calendar, nor web browser/email/news reader/IRC client, but
I'm pretty happy, for example, that k3b will burn audio, data
and video CD's and DVD's, and I'm very happy that Rosegarden
will deal with MIDI, digital audio and scoring.
Wish it also had a "mod file" type of interface so that I could
define patterns of music and incorporate them into my
compositions by reference rather than a ton of copying and
pasting every time I make one change to a drum line, and wish I
could change the durations of notes in bulk like I could with
the lousy Voyetra software rather than one note at a time, but
my C++-fu is not strong enough to do it myself and that's
probably for another thread anyway.
if you know noteworthy composer (for windows), then
you almost
know how noteedit looks.
I don't think I've ever seen Noteworthy Composer. The program I
used under Windows was DOP (Digital Orchestrator Pro, if I
remember right.) It was the first low-end MIDI + digital audio
app (by "low end" I mean 16-bit only and $150 in 1996) but was
still more powerful MIDIwise than Rosegarden, except that its
scoring was completely pathetic. Like I said in an earlier
post, composing and arranging is the highest priority for me,
not seeing my stuff in 18th-century format.
I'm glad you like NoteEdit and have decided to promote it. But
not every composer works the way Brahms and Beethoven did
anymore, especially those composing rock or electronic music.
Rob
4:27 p.m.
On Tuesday 20 Dec 2005 19:29, Rob wrote:
I'm very happy that Rosegarden
will deal with MIDI, digital audio and scoring.
Wish it also had a "mod file" type of interface so that I could
define patterns of music and incorporate them into my
compositions by reference rather than a ton of copying and
pasting every time I make one change to a drum line
It sort of does. You can have segments triggered by individual notes
with pitches and durations adjusted to match the triggering notes, and
that allows you to do a fairly limited sort of pattern-based
composition. There are various reasons why it's limited; the main one
is that nobody ever requests improvements to it (perhaps because almost
nobody knows the feature is there in the first place). I'd like to see
some of those requests -- almost any improvement you can imagine is
likely to be easier to implement than the original feature was.
Chris
21 Dec
21 Dec
5:14 a.m.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 21:29, Rob wrote:
On Mon December 19 2005 22:43, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
here you're talking about "integrators", which i also very much
appreciate. an integrator can be very modular (unlike a "combo"), that
is, it can bring together many (optional) tools, without packing them
together, like in microsoft marketing strategies. a good plugins system
may also be cool.
a "combo" is a symbol for the electronics era, i.e. the times you had to
spend thousands of dollars for an "organ" because it included
*mandatory* "cool features" (some of which you would never use), that
you simply can't remove from it, because they are... built in. (yeah,
right, you have the freedom to choose not to buy it!)
think microsoft: you have to pay more money for windows xp not because
it's worth the money as an os, but because they included the media
player (which has free alternatives), a browser (ie6, which also has
free alternatives), and other non-(os-essential) stuff.
you thought mp and ie were free? no, they are not free: they make winxp
more "valuable" (money-wise only).
software tools should allow for modularity, customization. that's why i
love integrators (of specialized tools) and i hate combos.
i hate combos. and perhaps all gnu/linuxists
should. :)
I have been using Linux since 1994. Sometimes, I like "combos"
very much. Not in the case of, for example, email/todo
list/calendar, nor web browser/email/news reader/IRC client, but
I'm pretty happy, for example, that k3b will burn audio, data
and video CD's and DVD's, and I'm very happy that Rosegarden
will deal with MIDI, digital audio and scoring. I'm glad you like NoteEdit and have decided to
promote it. But
not every composer works the way Brahms and Beethoven did
anymore, especially those composing rock or electronic music.
:)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20 Dec
20 Dec
5:42 a.m.
Do "most of us" actually use score editors?
I prefer piano rolls
myself, I can barely read notes.
i am pretty much sure composers read notes. then maybe linux-audio-user
is not the right list for composers.
It sounds a bit silly to stop writing something
because it doesn't
get mentioned often enough on LAU.
yes, it does sound silly. i am sure they actually want to attract
attention on them. let's make fun of them. (i am only half ironic, as i
also half agree with you.)
Judging from the forums and the
mailing list archives on the BerliOS page there seem to be some
people who are interested in it.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
3:11 p.m.
On Mon December 19 2005 23:58, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
i am pretty much sure composers read notes. then
maybe
linux-audio-user is not the right list for composers.
I'm a composer too, but the only time I generate a score is when
someone wants to play my stuff in real life. There's no need
for 18th century notation if you're doing it all yourself in the
digital realm.
Rob
21 Dec
21 Dec
5:20 a.m.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 21:07, Rob wrote:
On Mon December 19 2005 23:58, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
is there any more modern musical notation system which you think
preferable? (i am seriously interested)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
i am pretty much sure composers read notes. then
maybe
linux-audio-user is not the right list for composers.
I'm a composer too, but the only time I generate a score is when
someone wants to play my stuff in real life. There's no need
for 18th century notation if you're doing it all yourself in the
digital realm.
Rob
7:12 a.m.
On Wed December 21 2005 00:15, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
If you mean "notation in which to print out my own music".... I
don't need to. I can burn a CD.
If you mean "notation in which to manipulate notes within the
app".... as I said in another post, I think I'd like a
high-level, non-LISP-like programming language I could use to
code my songs. Lacking that, the commonly used piano roll
notation is certainly the most intuitive. (Yes, I did have
piano lessons as a kid and yes, I did learn how to read music.
Piano roll notation still makes more sense to me, especially
when I start transposing.)
If I were a band or orchestra leader, it'd be different... but
I'm not. I'm one guy with a bunch of instruments and a computer
that will record me playing all of them by ear.
Rob
I'm a
composer too, but the only time I generate a score is
when someone wants to play my stuff in real life. There's
no need for 18th century notation if you're doing it all
yourself in the digital realm.
is there any more modern musical notation system which you
think preferable? (i am seriously interested)
10:08 a.m.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 13:08, Rob wrote:
On Wed December 21 2005 00:15, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
If you mean "notation in which to print out my own music".... I
don't need to. I can burn a CD.
If you mean "notation in which to manipulate notes within the
app".... as I said in another post, I think I'd like a
high-level, non-LISP-like programming language I could use to
code my songs. Lacking that, the commonly used piano roll
notation is certainly the most intuitive. (Yes, I did have
piano lessons as a kid and yes, I did learn how to read music.
Piano roll notation still makes more sense to me, especially
when I start transposing.)
If I were a band or orchestra leader, it'd be different... but
I'm not. I'm one guy with a bunch of instruments and a computer
that will record me playing all of them by ear.
Rob
you seem to think we don't need the traditional notation system anymore.
you also seem to think it is old and unnecessary in the computer era
(by your repeated reference to it being an eighteen century system).
and i think you feel quite subjective about it ("if i were a band...
leader i'd be different), as though you admit it's just your opinion.
well, i don't think so. i don't *think* you are right. i am absolutely
*sure* you are right. and i don't *feel* "subjective". i *am*
objective.
also, it is not a matter of personal opinion (like in "i am hungry,
imho"). it's a *fact*. we actually *have* evolved in the last two
centuries. and this is *obvious*.
so if you are interested in some sort of reformation of the traditional
musical notation system (which is clearly obsolete -- should i add
inhuman? -- and ignores that we live in the twenty-first century), then
you may consider the following link: http://www.mnma.org/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I'm a
composer too, but the only time I generate a score is
when someone wants to play my stuff in real life. There's
no need for 18th century notation if you're doing it all
yourself in the digital realm.
is there any more modern musical notation system which you
think preferable? (i am seriously interested)
10:25 a.m.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 13:08, Rob wrote:
On Wed December 21 2005 00:15, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
If you mean "notation in which to print out my own music".... I
don't need to. I can burn a CD.
If you mean "notation in which to manipulate notes within the
app".... as I said in another post, I think I'd like a
high-level, non-LISP-like programming language I could use to
code my songs. Lacking that, the commonly used piano roll
notation is certainly the most intuitive. (Yes, I did have
piano lessons as a kid and yes, I did learn how to read music.
Piano roll notation still makes more sense to me, especially
when I start transposing.)
If I were a band or orchestra leader, it'd be different... but
I'm not. I'm one guy with a bunch of instruments and a computer
that will record me playing all of them by ear.
Rob
also, please take a look at this comparison:
http://www.islandnet.com/~chroma/
(it's just an example)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
I'm a
composer too, but the only time I generate a score is
when someone wants to play my stuff in real life. There's
no need for 18th century notation if you're doing it all
yourself in the digital realm.
is there any more modern musical notation system which you
think preferable? (i am seriously interested) 
19 Dec
19 Dec
6:16 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
REFERENCE:
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/noteedit.html
(i just found this!) the developers of noteedit say on their site they
want to end noteedit development because nobody cares about noteedit.
this makes me angry.
on their official page, they are blaming us for this situation. (maybe
they are right, maybe they are wrong.)
NOTEEDIT (which is GPL), THE BEST USER-FRIENDLY SCORE EDITOR FOR
GNU/LINUX (cause that's what it is!), doesn't deserve to be ignored.
what is wrong with us? i wonder why most of us ignore it...
is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are gnome supporters?
is it because we all afford to buy finale and don't need a GPL score
editor?
i really don't understand why we keep on ignoring it. it's a... mystery
to me why almost nobody even mentions it... (maybe they didn't choose a
very memorable name? are you confusing it with an application class
name?) honestly, i would be very sad if the noteedit project was
abandoned!
i am not related to the noteedit project in any way, as i am a newbye to
anything gnu/linux. however, noteedit is one of the reasons for me to
feel comfortable in gnu/linux.
maybe we could do something about it? i don't know... advertizing the
project... promoting it... whatever... or just take a look at it (if
you haven't already) and think for yourself. it may not be *perfect*,
but it's THE BEST we have...
you may want to read this, for further information:
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/noteedit.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi.
Sad news,I find noteedit a very good aplication.
I'm not a good music reader nor writer,but when i need it Is faster
for me to write by hand.i have never use Finale nor other music writing app.
Last night I was playing with it and trying to find the way to have a
"normal" view (for me) of the score.Im accustomed to the real book,and I
like to write my scores in that way,simple melody line and chords
over,each line divided in four bars,to have a clear preview of what I'm
writing and reading,but have not succes.This is not the first time I
find this issue,and probably the main cause,between others with no
direct relationship with noteedit,that made me reject the use and more
extensive test of the program.
Wish Noteedit keep live ,growing and improve his features.
Excuse my english.
Saludos
--Carlos.
20 Dec
20 Dec
2:10 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I'm not a good music reader nor writer,but
when i need it Is
faster for me to write by hand.
why, do you write it in adobe? :D))
Last night I was playing with it and trying to
find the way to have a "normal" view (for me) of the score.Im
accustomed to the real book,and I like to write my scores in that
way,simple melody line and chords over,each line divided in four
bars,to have a clear preview of what I'm writing and reading,but
have not succes.This is not the first time I find this issue,and
probably the main cause,between others with no direct relationship
with noteedit,that made me reject the use and more extensive test of
the program.
finale has a reputation for having (at least in its first versions) the
most idiotic, un-intuitive, and frustrating interface in the history of
software. believe me.
don't compare noteedit with finale. they are conceived differently.
noteedit is more like "nwc" ("noteworthy composer") for windows, which
is a much friendlier design.
just try noteworthy composer (for windows, not gpl), and you'll see what
i mean. then try NOTEEDIT.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
5:55 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
Sorry my english is too much poor to understand this,I mean paper and
pencil :\
I believe you,I don't know Finale.
I'm not
a good music reader nor writer,but when i need it Is
faster for me to write by hand.
why, do you write it in adobe? :D))
Last night I
was playing with it and trying to
find the way to have a "normal" view (for me) of the score.Im
accustomed to the real book,and I like to write my scores in that
way,simple melody line and chords over,each line divided in four
bars,to have a clear preview of what I'm writing and reading,but
have not succes.This is not the first time I find this issue,and
probably the main cause,between others with no direct relationship
with noteedit,that made me reject the use and more extensive test of
the program.
finale has a reputation for having (at least in its first versions) the
most idiotic, un-intuitive, and frustrating interface in the history of
software. believe me.
don't compare noteedit with finale.
I didn't,I only name it in my post because here,
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/noteedit.html
that is in the open post of this thread , is named as part of the
reason of the discontinuation of the project.
they are conceived differently.
noteedit is more like "nwc" ("noteworthy composer") for windows, which
is a much friendlier design.
Don't know nwc,neither.Does it have the feature to see the sheet
as a "normal" paper,and not one line only?
just try noteworthy composer (for windows, not gpl),
and you'll see what
i mean. then try NOTEEDIT.
Ok, goin to be difficult presently as I don't use windows
anymore,but if I got the chance,I will.
Saludos
--Carlos.
6:40 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
Carlos Pino wrote:
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
Sorry my english is too much poor to understand this,I mean paper and
pencil :\
Don't worry. As a native English speaker, what you originally wrote was
well expressed, and easily understood.
My understanding is that Carlos Pino probably understood you perfectly
too - I *think* he was making a light-hearted pun - possibly based on
the name of an Adobe program? I could be wrong though.
Regards,
Michael
I'm
not a good music reader nor writer,but when i need it Is
faster for me to write by hand.
why, do you write it in adobe? :D))
9:47 a.m.
Don't know nwc,neither.Does it have the feature to see the
sheet as a "normal" paper,and not one line only?
yes, it nwc does (not easy to find that feature, though)
:)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
19 Dec
19 Dec
6:29 p.m.
On Mon December 19 2005 08:27, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are
gnome
supporters?
I actually never tried it because I thought it was some
command-line-based thing that output TeX files or some similar
1980's-era thing, and I'd have to use some random tla2ps program
to get useful output from it. But maybe I had it confused with
Lilypond.
is it because we all afford to buy finale and
don't need a GPL score editor?
For my very limited scoring needs, Rosegarden is enough. But I
just didn't know Noteedit was as capable as you say it is.
Rob
20 Dec
20 Dec
4:10 a.m.
I actually never tried it because I thought it was
some
command-line-based thing that output TeX files or some similar
1980's-era thing, and I'd have to use some random tla2ps program
to get useful output from it.
i forgot to mention one more thing: this is what i mean by NOTEEDIT
being ignored: many people are not informed what it really is or does.
and very few people don't recommend NOTEEDIT to the newbyes.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22 Dec
22 Dec
2:59 p.m.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 03:57, I. I. Ooisen was like:
It's been included in DeMuDi as long as I can remember, that's not exactly
ignoring it. Perhaps the NOTEEDIT developers don't get much contact because
their users don't have much to complain about apart from the threat of
development being discontinued. ?-)
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
I actually
never tried it because I thought it was some
command-line-based thing that output TeX files or some similar
1980's-era thing, and I'd have to use some random tla2ps program
to get useful output from it.
i forgot to mention one more thing: this is what i mean by NOTEEDIT
being ignored: many people are not informed what it really is or does.
and very few people don't recommend NOTEEDIT to the newbyes.
20 Dec
20 Dec
6:30 a.m.
I actually never tried it because I thought it was
some
command-line-based thing that output TeX files or some similar
1980's-era thing, and I'd have to use some random tla2ps program
to get useful output from it. But maybe I had it confused with
Lilypond.
right, noteedit has nothing to do with command-line apps.
For my very limited scoring needs, Rosegarden is
enough. But I
just didn't know Noteedit was as capable as you say it is.
if you know noteworthy composer (for windows), then you almost know how
noteedit looks.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
7:15 a.m.
marted?, 20 dicembre 2005 alle 05:54:48, I. I. Ooisen ha scritto:
Yes, it's a GUI app, but if you want something to print on an actual
printer you must export the score to something like abc or lilypond,
which are command line apps. BTW, I think having a command line
interface it's a *plus* for a program, not a minus.
And yes, noteedit's dependency on KDE is not-so-good for us gnome (or
other wm) users... The same can be told for rosegarden. It would be
better if they rather rely only on QT (like hydrogen or muse). I'm not
so happy having to install 25 megs of kdelibs & friends only to run
these 2 apps...
Noteedit is a very good program in my opinion. It does an excellent job
in exporting abc files. I'm not so music-literate so I appreciate its
"highlight while playing" feature (absent in rosegarden). Having it sync
with jack_transport would be a "killer" addition, too :)
It was a big shame when its original author discontinued it, and I'm
glad that someone picked it up and continue the work.
I think we all have to be grateful with free software authors, as they
give a great gift to us non programmers.
Just my 2 cents...
Cheers
--
Emiliano Grilli
Linux user #209089
http://www.emillo.net
I actually never tried it because I thought it
was some
command-line-based thing that output TeX files or some similar
1980's-era thing, and I'd have to use some random tla2ps program
to get useful output from it. But maybe I had it confused with
Lilypond.
right, noteedit has nothing to do with command-line apps.
3:26 p.m.
On Tue December 20 2005 06:14, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
Yes, it's a GUI app, but if you want something to
print on an
actual printer you must export the score to something like abc
or lilypond, which are command line apps. BTW, I think having
a command line interface it's a *plus* for a program, not a
minus.
I think not being able to just go "File/Print" and have their
score come out of a printer is a minus for most actual composers
and musicians. But yes, if you limit it to those of us who
think a "compiler" is a program and not a guy in charge of
producing best-of CD's, the command-line thing is okay.
Rob
9:23 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
Il giorno mar, 20/12/2005 alle 14.15 -0500, Rob ha scritto:
On Tue December 20 2005 06:14, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
In fact I was wrong: I just tried going to "File/print" and it worked
out of the box (noteedit 2.8.0 on a demudi 1.3.0). I think it uses
abcm2ps as in the dialog window you have some control on abc options
like page size, and so on...
I just meant that I like this interoperablity between different
programs, and that in my vision the *nix power really comes from having
small, specialized tools that can be combined togheter to do exactly the
thing you need. In my work I use on a daily basis programs such as sox,
ecasound, normalize, oggenc, lame, convert, sed, etc.. for doing things
that with a GUI app would take eons to accomplish, if they can be done
at all (suppose the coder didn't provide you that "right" checkbox).
I disagree with you that command line tools are a "1980's-era thing", I
think instead they are what makes linux better than GUI driven systems,
or at least I like very much having the choice. Why chasing commercial
apps on their terrain, when we already are stronger and more flexible in
some respects?
Suppose you have one hundered scores and you want to change paper size
from letter to A4, or change the title font on every file. I'm not a
programmer, but with a sed line I can do it in a minute. I don't think
that with a GUI app you can do it faster...
IMHO there are tasks that are best expressed by "gestures" (mouse clicks
and acting with icons), and other that are best expressed by
"words" (command line interface, scripting), and I think both approaches
are valuable. Having both well cooperating is a good thing for me. I
don't understand why denigrate one over another.
Yes, it's a GUI app, but if you want
something to print on an
actual printer you must export the score to something like abc
or lilypond, which are command line apps. BTW, I think having
a command line interface it's a *plus* for a program, not a
minus.
I think not being able to just go "File/Print" and have their
score come out of a printer is a minus for most actual composers
and musicians. But yes, if you limit it to those of us who
think a "compiler" is a program and not a guy in charge of
producing best-of CD's, the command-line thing is okay. Rob
Best regards,
PS: sorry if my english is tortuous, I'm still learning ;)
--
Emiliano Grilli
Linux user #209089
http://www.emillo.net
21 Dec
21 Dec
1:25 a.m.
On Tue December 20 2005 20:22, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
IMHO there are tasks that are best expressed by
"gestures"
(mouse clicks and acting with icons), and other that are best
expressed by "words" (command line interface, scripting), and
I think both approaches are valuable. Having both well
cooperating is a good thing for me. I don't understand why
denigrate one over another.
Actually, I *am* a programmer (just one who's not especially good
at writing stable C++ code), and I wish I could "program" songs
in a way that made sense to me both as a programmer and as a
composer. Something higher level than csound and less Lisp-like
than nyquist, for example, but which could still talk to all the
nifty audio stuff like Jack and ALSA synthesizers and MIDI and
LADSPA filters. "emacs mysong" (or "kwrite mysong") is always
gonna be more comfortable to me than a mouse-driven sequencer
interface, because I live most of my life in it. I'd like to be
able to play my song back whenever I want to, or type "make all"
and get nice big honkin' wav, ogg and mp3 files of it.
However, I recognize that I am not like most musicians. Since no
one else here is either, I felt someone needed to stick up for
them. So many people seem to wonder why more musicians aren't
using Linux.... the "use the command line, it's better"
mentality is one of them. Most musicians and many recording
engineers are going to think something's gone horribly wrong if
they see a command line.
Rob
8:58 a.m.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 07:12, Rob wrote:
On Tue December 20 2005 20:22, Emiliano Grilli wrote:
right. "command line", the way we see it now, is a primitive way to put
a computer to work.
what we need, though, is much higher level full-featured and specialized
languages (music, 3d, graphics), integrated in a friendly visual (gui)
environment. not just microsoft/mac-style... "yes/no check-boxes".
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
IMHO there are tasks that are best expressed by
"gestures"
(mouse clicks and acting with icons), and other that are best
expressed by "words" (command line interface, scripting), and
I think both approaches are valuable. Having both well
cooperating is a good thing for me. I don't understand why
denigrate one over another.
Actually, I *am* a programmer (just one who's not especially good
at writing stable C++ code), and I wish I could "program" songs
in a way that made sense to me both as a programmer and as a
composer. Something higher level than csound and less Lisp-like
than nyquist, for example, but which could still talk to all the
nifty audio stuff like Jack and ALSA synthesizers and MIDI and
LADSPA filters. "emacs mysong" (or "kwrite mysong") is always
gonna be more comfortable to me than a mouse-driven sequencer
interface, because I live most of my life in it. I'd like to be
able to play my song back whenever I want to, or type "make all"
and get nice big honkin' wav, ogg and mp3 files of it.
However, I recognize that I am not like most musicians. Since no
one else here is either, I felt someone needed to stick up for
them. So many people seem to wonder why more musicians aren't
using Linux.... the "use the command line, it's better"
mentality is one of them. Most musicians and many recording
engineers are going to think something's gone horribly wrong if
they see a command line.
Rob 
10:50 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
No, it's a very powerful way of working with a computer. As Emiliano
noted, there are certain tasks that are best suited to a GUI and others
that are best served from the command prompt. I will agree that many
(most?) musical tasks are best served by the GUI approach. However, as a
professional writer I wouldn't give up vi, sed, and awk for any POS word
processor.
However, the "command-line is better" argument is not one that gets made
so often anymore when it comes to Linux sound and music applications.
With the exceptions of the ALSA utilities, ecasound, and SoX, I'm not
sure what CLI soundapps are in common use. Every notable Linux soundapp
is a full-bore GUI-laden application these days. GUI front-ends are
available even for ecasound and SoX.
I believe the primary reasons more musicians don't use Linux have to do
with at least these conditions:
1. The perpetuation of outmoded perceptions re: usability and interfaces.
2. The lack of wide hardware manufacturer support.
3. The reticence of the major music journals to cover the growing
Linux audio scene.
4. The lack of serious attention given Linux audio from within the
larger Linux community itself.
5. No-one has released a hit created with Linux audio tools.
Point 4 is particularly irritating. See the email traffic on the LAD
list regarding the WINE team's misperception of JACK and subsequent
no-starter attitude towards integrating better JACK support. I believe
that developers of browsers and other commonly used software have a
tendency to ignore audio issues wrt their programs. Overall, there's too
little cooperation and shared understanding between the audio community
and other development domains (video, browser sound support, emulation
systems, etc.)
The second point is certainly a show-stopper for folks arriving from
Win/Mac systems who discover their hardware is not now supported and
likely never will be supported under Linux. They won't care that the
situation is due to the manufacturers, they'll just turn away from
having to make an apparently needless investment. Alas, I've seen very
little indication that the situation is going to change soon.
However, I
recognize that I am not like most musicians. Since no
one else here is either, I felt someone needed to stick up for
them. So many people seem to wonder why more musicians aren't
using Linux.... the "use the command line, it's better"
mentality is one of them. Most musicians and many recording
engineers are going to think something's gone horribly wrong if
they see a command line.
right. "command line", the way we see it now, is a primitive way to put
a computer to work.
what we need, though, is much higher level
full-featured and specialized
languages (music, 3d, graphics), integrated in a friendly visual (gui)
environment. not just microsoft/mac-style... "yes/no check-boxes".
Perhaps you should look into the latest development in Csound5, Common
Music, and Pd ?
Best,
dp
12:02 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 10:09, Dave Phillips wrote:
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
I whole-heatedly agree with Dave, but for a slightly different reason.
Having command line accessible applications available in GNU/Linux means that
you have a greater number of options with regard to how you can interact with
your production environment. For example, tedious and difficult tasks (i.e.
batch format conversion, advanced synthesis techniques, sound library
searches, etc.) can easily be automated with the results fed directly to your
current project.
It's simply a different way to work and like everything else - it has pros and
cons. But for many, it's a truly empowering way to produce music.
right. "command line", the way we see it
now, is a primitive way to put
a computer to work.
No, it's a very powerful way of working with a computer. As Emiliano
noted, there are certain tasks that are best suited to a GUI and others
that are best served from the command prompt. I believe the primary reasons more musicians don't
use Linux have to do
with at least these conditions:
1. The perpetuation of outmoded perceptions re: usability and interfaces.
2. The lack of wide hardware manufacturer support.
3. The reticence of the major music journals to cover the growing
Linux audio scene.
4. The lack of serious attention given Linux audio from within the
larger Linux community itself.
5. No-one has released a hit created with Linux audio tools.
While I agree with points 1-4, I think there needs to be a bit of
clarification added to point #5.
Hundreds (probably more like thousands) of commercial releases involve
GNU/Linux audio tools. I know this because I have contributed dozens myself
(national television and radio spots, theatrical scores, commercial CD
releases etc.). But how would anyone know which tools I've used?
There also needs to be clarification regarding music produced for commercial
purposes and music created for other reasons.
Generally speaking, the majority of commercially available music software is
designed for the quick and easy production of popular music. By definition
this means that the software is created in such a way that important musical
decisions have been pre-made for the user. Most of the time, the user isn't
even aware that this is happening - if the option is never presented to you
how can you miss it?
Having said that, there is a definite advantage to this approach. Commercially
produced software is usually optimized for a few specific tasks, and it can
manage those tasks with relative ease. As with most commercial enterprises,
time is money and there is great value to having tools like this.
What can we do to promote the use of Linux audio tools? We can take advantage
of the unique and "unusual" ways of producing music that the GNU/Linux
environment provides. Don't come to FOSS looking for a Cubase clone - Cubase
already exists - and works reasonably well.
Build a better musical product - and people will want to know, "How'd you do
that?"
Perhaps you should look into the latest development in
Csound5, Common
Music, and Pd ?
Amen. ;-)
Greg
www.steeprockmedia.com
1:29 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
I believe the
primary reasons more musicians don't
use Linux have to do
with at least these conditions:
1. The perpetuation of outmoded perceptions re:
usability and interfaces.
2. The lack of wide hardware manufacturer
support.
3. The reticence of the major music journals to
cover the growing
Linux audio scene.
4. The lack of serious attention given Linux
audio from within the
larger Linux community itself.
5. No-one has released a hit created with Linux
audio tools. While I agree with points 1-4, I think there needs
to be a bit of
clarification added to point #5.
Mirror Image and Steep Rock demonstrate legitimacy for
Linux audio but give this crowd an inch and they want
a mile--number one hit on the pop charts. :) It's my
fantasy to produce a grammy winner because I need to
release my pre,postmortem grammy acceptance speech.
You know how it is when you have your legs crossed and
are jumping up and down 'cause ya gotta pee.
Hundreds (probably more like thousands) of
commercial releases involve
GNU/Linux audio tools. I know this because I have
contributed dozens myself
(national television and radio spots, theatrical
scores, commercial CD
releases etc.).
I've been resting on my laurels for the last year but
even at that things are picking up. I'll do three
substantial independent films this winter. And there's
some players involved in this years projects.
And in the back of my studio is an old storage room
that's been converted into "The Dungeon". It is
occupied by an electrical engineer, a software
engineer/business man and my dumb ass. We are
preparing to submit our second order PC boards. We are
not alone. And we probably are the smallest active
concern that I'm aware of.
ron
But how would anyone know which
tools I've used?
There also needs to be clarification regarding music
produced for commercial
purposes and music created for other reasons.
Generally speaking, the majority of commercially
available music software is
designed for the quick and easy production of
popular music. By definition
this means that the software is created in such a
way that important musical
decisions have been pre-made for the user. Most of
the time, the user isn't
even aware that this is happening - if the option is
never presented to you
how can you miss it?
Having said that, there is a definite advantage to
this approach. Commercially
produced software is usually optimized for a few
specific tasks, and it can
manage those tasks with relative ease. As with most
commercial enterprises,
time is money and there is great value to having
tools like this.
What can we do to promote the use of Linux audio
tools? We can take advantage
of the unique and "unusual" ways of producing music
that the GNU/Linux
environment provides. Don't come to FOSS looking
for a Cubase clone - Cubase
already exists - and works reasonably well.
Build a better musical product - and people will
want to know, "How'd you do
that?"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Perhaps you should look into the latest
development in Csound5, Common
Music, and Pd ?
Amen. ;-)
Greg
www.steeprockmedia.com
1:32 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 11:01 -0500, Greg Wilder wrote:
Generally speaking, the majority of commercially
available music software is
designed for the quick and easy production of popular music. By definition
this means that the software is created in such a way that important musical
decisions have been pre-made for the user. Most of the time, the user isn't
even aware that this is happening - if the option is never presented to you
how can you miss it?
I'm curious about this. What kind of musical decisions are pre-made by
commercial software for the user?
bye
John
2:12 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
I'm curious about this. What kind of musical
decisions are pre-made by
commercial software for the user?
quite a few. in the case of something like ableton live, the
composition process is distilled down to turning on and off
bar-quantized loops, and slathering on FX. the McDonalds equivalent of
slow food...
or take something like Fruity Loops, which singlehandedly dictates the
stylistic signature of many recent UK beat-producers like Ruff
Sqwad...
i guess the argument could be made for being able to override the
defaults, but its sort of like digging a canal, people will put up
some trees here and there, or paint their boat red...but its still
going down the canal...
2:35 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 18:12 +0000, c wrote:
you can a *lot* further than either of these examples. go watch a demo
or actual use of the Stylus RMX plugin. you can generate roughly 16-20
channel rythmn mix for a track in a few minutes by just pressing buttons
that pick certain style constraints. it made me puke, but i know that
there are people who write music for a living, not as a means of
creative expression, and for them, tools like this are actually
incredibly helpful.
--p
I'm
curious about this. What kind of musical decisions are pre-made by
commercial software for the user?
quite a few. in the case of something like ableton live, the
composition process is distilled down to turning on and off
bar-quantized loops, and slathering on FX. the McDonalds equivalent of
slow food...
or take something like Fruity Loops, which singlehandedly dictates the
stylistic signature of many recent UK beat-producers like Ruff
Sqwad...
i guess the argument could be made for being able to override the
defaults, but its sort of like digging a canal, people will put up
some trees here and there, or paint their boat red...but its still
going down the canal...
2:20 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
John Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 11:01 -0500, Greg Wilder wrote:
MMMM that makes two of us,
how can you design software for pop music production, does it refuse to
record rock/dance?
AS has been mentioned on here when we got our songs onto some of the web
charts we got a lot of interest
in how it was made on Linux.
There is a lot of users just waiting to try Linux, and its grows all the
time.
Just keep the music/films coming.
Cheers
Bob
Generally speaking, the majority of commercially
available music software is
designed for the quick and easy production of popular music. By definition
this means that the software is created in such a way that important musical
decisions have been pre-made for the user. Most of the time, the user isn't
even aware that this is happening - if the option is never presented to you
how can you miss it?
I'm curious about this. What kind of musical decisions are pre-made by
commercial software for the user?
bye
John
2:22 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 12:32, John Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 11:01 -0500, Greg Wilder wrote:
John,
Generally speaking, most commercially available software is designed to do a
few specific tasks quickly and easily.
For example, using a software sampler I can dial up a flute patch and create a
beautiful (and possibly quite believable) flute passage, but what if I wanted
the flute line to morph into an oboe and then into a baby's laughter. I
would most likely need to look outside the typical set of commercially
available tools for that kind of power.
In other words, if the sampler doesn't have a "morph" button, then it has
removed a potentially valuable musical option. If I'm limited to the options
presented by commercially available software packages, then I may never know
the potential value of a tool like granular synthesis.
Applications like csound and PD don't inherently force this sort of
limitation. Not only are they designed for maximum choice availability, but
users can extend these applications to meet their specific needs.
Of course, most music created for commercial purposes does not require these
options - which is why the apps generally don't offer them.
Best,
Greg
www.steeprockmedia.com
Generally speaking, the majority of commercially
available music software
is designed for the quick and easy production of popular music. By
definition this means that the software is created in such a way that
important musical decisions have been pre-made for the user. Most of the
time, the user isn't even aware that this is happening - if the option is
never presented to you how can you miss it?
I'm curious about this. What kind of musical decisions are pre-made by
commercial software for the user? 
2:41 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
Greg Wilder wrote:
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 10:09, Dave Phillips
wrote:
Please, don't get me wrong. But I actually fear the day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear that this will
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at least hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could finally become just
another commercial o.s.
For me gnu/Linux is the best operating system because it is free (as in
free speech). The fact that open source software most of the times is
better, in terms of power and versatility, than its commercial
counterpart is a direct consequence of the whole open source philosophy
and the people, the community behind it.
I think that we don't have to demonstrate anything to anybody. We should
just thank god that there are still some people who value freedom and
the right of knowledge. If we're into OSS just because we think it's
better, we've missed the point about why it is better.
Just my two cents.
c.
www.cesaremarilungo.com
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
I whole-heatedly agree with Dave, but for a slightly different reason.
Having command line accessible applications available in GNU/Linux means that
you have a greater number of options with regard to how you can interact with
your production environment. For example, tedious and difficult tasks (i.e.
batch format conversion, advanced synthesis techniques, sound library
searches, etc.) can easily be automated with the results fed directly to your
current project.
It's simply a different way to work and like everything else - it has pros and
cons. But for many, it's a truly empowering way to produce music.
right. "command line", the way we see it
now, is a primitive way to put
a computer to work.
No, it's a very powerful way of working with a computer. As Emiliano
noted, there are certain tasks that are best suited to a GUI and others
that are best served from the command prompt.
I believe the primary reasons more musicians
don't use Linux have to do
with at least these conditions:
1. The perpetuation of outmoded perceptions re: usability and interfaces.
2. The lack of wide hardware manufacturer support.
3. The reticence of the major music journals to cover the growing
Linux audio scene.
4. The lack of serious attention given Linux audio from within the
larger Linux community itself.
5. No-one has released a hit created with Linux audio tools.
While I agree with points 1-4, I think there needs to be a bit of
clarification added to point #5.
Hundreds (probably more like thousands) of commercial releases involve
GNU/Linux audio tools. I know this because I have contributed dozens myself
(national television and radio spots, theatrical scores, commercial CD
releases etc.). But how would anyone know which tools I've used?
There also needs to be clarification regarding music produced for commercial
purposes and music created for other reasons.
Generally speaking, the majority of commercially available music software is
designed for the quick and easy production of popular music. By definition
this means that the software is created in such a way that important musical
decisions have been pre-made for the user. Most of the time, the user isn't
even aware that this is happening - if the option is never presented to you
how can you miss it?
Having said that, there is a definite advantage to this approach. Commercially
produced software is usually optimized for a few specific tasks, and it can
manage those tasks with relative ease. As with most commercial enterprises,
time is money and there is great value to having tools like this.
What can we do to promote the use of Linux audio tools? We can take advantage
of the unique and "unusual" ways of producing music that the GNU/Linux
environment provides. Don't come to FOSS looking for a Cubase clone - Cubase
already exists - and works reasonably well.
Build a better musical product - and people will want to know, "How'd you do
that?"
Perhaps you should look into the latest
development in Csound5, Common
Music, and Pd ?
Amen. ;-)
Greg
www.steeprockmedia.com
3:15 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:41:55PM +0100, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Please, don't get me wrong. But I actually fear
the day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear that this will
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at least hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could finally become just
another commercial o.s.
For me gnu/Linux is the best operating system because it is free (as in
free speech). The fact that open source software most of the times is
better, in terms of power and versatility, than its commercial
counterpart is a direct consequence of the whole open source philosophy
and the people, the community behind it.
I think that we don't have to demonstrate anything to anybody. We should
just thank god that there are still some people who value freedom and
the right of knowledge. If we're into OSS just because we think it's
better, we've missed the point about why it is better.
Just my two cents.
I just want to put in a word to strongly second that statement.
I'm
tired of hearing this "world domination" talk, or even all the
anti-microsoft stuff, even though I certainly find them unsavoury, to
say the least. yes, it's important that Linux, and FOSS software as a
whole, do well in order to attract people and ensure that those basing
commercial ventures on it do well. But why bother about "world
domination"? is that not playing the Microsoft game in a way? And does
it not lead us to merely _mimic_ the big boys rather than innovate?
I see Open Source as building ourselves a communal house wherein we may
all live happily: NOT a chap hotel...
S.M.
--
smassy(a)sdf.lonestar.org
22 Dec
22 Dec
2:25 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 21:15, S. Massy wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:41:55PM +0100, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
and i am tired of going to school and listen to all the crap my teachers
say over and over again. so i can understand you. "repetition" is
tiresome... but always helpful.
Please, don't get me wrong. But I actually
fear the day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear that this will
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at least hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could finally become
just another commercial o.s.
For me gnu/Linux is the best operating system because it is free
(as in free speech). The fact that open source software most of the
times is better, in terms of power and versatility, than its
commercial counterpart is a direct consequence of the whole open
source philosophy and the people, the community behind it.
I think that we don't have to demonstrate anything to anybody. We
should just thank god that there are still some people who value
freedom and the right of knowledge. If we're into OSS just because
we think it's better, we've missed the point about why it is
better.
Just my two cents.
I just want to put in a word to strongly second that statement. I'm
tired of hearing this "world domination" talk, or even all the
anti-microsoft stuff, even though I certainly find them unsavoury, to
say the least. yes, it's important that Linux, and FOSS software as a
whole, do well in order to attract people and ensure that those
basing commercial ventures on it do well. But why bother about "world
domination"? is that not playing the Microsoft game in a way?
hehe,
some people think mirroring and analogy (as thinking tools) work
everywhere. you seem to be one of them.
well, bro, I WILL NEVER fear world domination of FREEDOM. in fact, when
i think of freedom, i always dream of "world domination".
one will NEVER EVER find any *sane* analogy between gnu/linux and
windows. trust me on that :)
And
does it not lead us to merely _mimic_ the big boys rather than
innovate?
I see Open Source as building ourselves a communal house wherein we
may all live happily: NOT a chap hotel...
S.M.
> c.
> www.cesaremarilungo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24 Dec
24 Dec
2:05 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 05:16:50AM +0200, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
Have you ever read "Animal Farm" by Orwell?
S.M.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 21:15, S. Massy wrote:
[...]
even though I
certainly find them unsavoury, to
say the least. yes, it's important that Linux, and FOSS software as a
whole, do well in order to attract people and ensure that those
basing commercial ventures on it do well. But why bother about "world
domination"? is that not playing the Microsoft game in a way?
hehe,
some people think mirroring and analogy (as thinking tools) work
everywhere. you seem to be one of them.
well, bro, I WILL NEVER fear world domination of FREEDOM. in fact, when
i think of freedom, i always dream of "world domination".
one will NEVER EVER find any *sane* analogy between gnu/linux and
windows. trust me on that :)
21 Dec
21 Dec
3:59 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
Please, don't get me wrong.
:)
But I actually fear the
day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear
that this will
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at least
hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could
finally become just
another commercial o.s.
Ultimately your concern is are the GPL, its variants
and cousins up to the challange. It is the license
that defines and governs our movement. Is that a fair
assessment? If lynksys comes along and doesn't
disclose the use of GPL code someone will figure it
out and we will get something like openwrt as a
result.
For me gnu/Linux is the best operating system
because it is free (as in Is
free speech). The fact that open source software
most of the times is
better, in terms of power and versatility, than its
commercial
counterpart is a direct consequence of the whole
open source philosophy
and the people, the community behind it.
But consider the example of a software engineer that
invests years and spends his savings in an effort to
help build Linux Audio. Literally. At a certain point
he stops working fulltime on Linux Audio and the
development of our "free" audio movement slows down.
I think that we don't have to demonstrate
anything
to anybody. We should
just thank god that there are still some people who
value freedom and
the right of knowledge.
Amen. And God helps those who help themselves so I'm
guessing we should keep swinging our hammers.
If we're into OSS just
because we think it's
better, we've missed the point about why it is
better.
I think it boils down to the licenses and not to
people. If the licenses are up to the task then
success will bring more money, progress and better
tools so everyone of us will have a richer experience.
We have an awesome movement with lots of excellent
people. It's alot of fun. There might be some rough
spots and despite all of them I've noticed that Linux
keeps plodding along and getting bigger and richer. :)
ron
Just my two cents.
c.
www.cesaremarilungo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22 Dec
22 Dec
2:24 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 20:41, Cesare Marilungo wrote:
Please, don't get me wrong. But I actually fear
the day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear that this will
heh, you spelled "linux" with capital "l" and "gnu" with
lowercase...
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at least
hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could finally become
just another commercial o.s.
read my lips: this can never happen.
copyleft (gpl) fights absolutely the same legal game as the copyright.
furthermore, governments will prefer freed software more and more.
(also, there's a tendency for companies to depend more and more on
services rather than on software manufacturing.)
anyway, it's no problem if there will be some commercial distros and
some freed ones. this is already happening and there are only benefits.
nobody cares whether they are all "pure" or not. many of them will
*always* be "pure" anyway! and commercial ones will always be legally
forced (and soon economically motivated) to observe a clear set of
rules.
there's no reason to fear "the day in which gnu/linux will have a wider
success"! it's just the opposite: let's all hope gnu/linux will reach
"world domination" :)
For me gnu/Linux is the best operating system because
it is free (as
in free speech). The fact that open source software most of the times
is better, in terms of power and versatility, than its commercial
counterpart is a direct consequence of the whole open source
philosophy and the people, the community behind it.
I think that we don't have to demonstrate anything to anybody.
very much agreed.
We should just thank god that there are still some
people who value
heh... you began your sentence with capital "w"... (just teasing) :P
freedom and the right of knowledge. If we're into
OSS just because we
think it's better, we've missed the point about why it is better.
then remember, it's "GNU" (which stands for the philosophy) that should
be written in caps, not (only) "linux", which was written "just for
fun" :P
(just teasing, really!) :)
Just my two cents.
c.
www.cesaremarilungo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
6:06 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Thu, 2005-22-12 at 05:41 +0200, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 20:41, Cesare Marilungo
wrote:
read my lips: proprietary kernel drivers.
Go buy a recent video card and see how much this can "never" happen.
How free is a system that can't DISPLAY VIDEO without proprietary
software? Not very free at all. (Yes, yes, it's only 3D _for now_, but
you get the point).
Ditto for wireless adapters, though not quite as bad a situation. Is a
system that can't even get on a network a useful one? Not in this
century.
The GPL protects a certain block of code from being made proprietary,
but it does NOT protect the ability for us to create a truly free
operating system, whatsoever.
I think "just another commercial OS" would be a good description of a
Linux system so bogged down with horrible proprietary crap (ie the same
shining standard of quality that windows enjoys.. ahem) that it's
unusable without it. OSX is composed of a lot of free software, but
it's not even close to a "free software operating system".
Translation: The war isn't over, and we aren't safe. :)
-DR-
Please, don't get me wrong. But I actually
fear the day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear that this will
heh, you spelled "linux" with capital "l" and "gnu" with
lowercase...
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at
least hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could finally become
just another commercial o.s.
read my lips: this can never happen.
23 Dec
23 Dec
7:35 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] use NOTEEDIT, the scorewriter! :P ---- CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues
On Friday 23 December 2005 01:21, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Thu, 2005-22-12 at 05:41 +0200, I. I. Ooisen
wrote:
read my lips: use NOTEEDIT :))
well, actually any piece of hardware in a computer is sorta
"closed-source". and we use gnu/linux on that computer. this doesn't
make anyone feel their gnu/linux is any less free. just as having
open-source drivers doesn't make their gnu/linux any freer.
i would explain why, but i am busy atm. guess i may soon find and send
you a link, as you seem quite concerned about this stuff.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 20:41, Cesare
Marilungo wrote:
read my lips: proprietary kernel drivers. Please, don't get me wrong. But I actually
fear the day in which
gnu/Linux will have a wider success. Because I fear that this
will
heh, you spelled "linux" with capital "l" and "gnu" with
lowercase...
happen only if gnu/Linux will abandon (or at
least hide) its real
strenghts and its real philosophy. Or worse it could finally
become just another commercial o.s.
read my lips: this can never happen. Go buy a recent video card and see how much this can
"never" happen.
How free is a system that can't DISPLAY VIDEO without proprietary
software? Not very free at all. (Yes, yes, it's only 3D _for now_,
but you get the point).
Ditto for wireless adapters, though not quite as bad a situation. Is
a system that can't even get on a network a useful one? Not in this
century.
there's always a way to "do it our way", if we do care. as long as we
exist, there's need. and as long as there's need, there's supply. i
don't care about the others as long as we have our own options. yes,
there are many of "them". but then again, there are hundreds of
millions of communists in china or windows users in the civilized world
-- who cares about them all? nobody will ever force me buy an
unsupported card.
The GPL protects a certain block of code from being
made proprietary,
but it does NOT protect the ability for us to create a truly free
operating system, whatsoever.
I think "just another commercial OS" would be a good description of a
Linux system so bogged down with horrible proprietary crap (ie the
same shining standard of quality that windows enjoys.. ahem) that
it's unusable without it. OSX is composed of a lot of free software,
but it's not even close to a "free software operating system".
Translation: The war isn't over, and we aren't safe. :)
why, absolutely agreed. in fact, my optimistic tone ("this will never
happen") was not meant -- i thought i'd made that evident! -- to
express an indolent and self-deceiving sense of safety. quite the
contrary, it was expressing determination. just that type of
determination our war needs.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21 Dec
21 Dec
2:49 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 17:09, Dave Phillips wrote:
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
No, it's a very powerful way of working with a computer.
i must emphasize it, and i will:
"command line", THE WAY WE SEE IT NOW, is a primitive way to put a
computer to work.
command line will *always* matter. "the logos" can always express things
which the image or sound themselves will never be able to. so i don't
think command line will _ever_ become obsolete. not even if we will
connect our mind directly to the computer.
in fact, as soon as we can "talk" to the computer, the command "line"
will be the most... modern way to talk to computers. no way for it to
ever become obsolete.
i was only arguing against low-level programming languages, because of
which almost all my non-techie friends think programming is only for
engineers. (of course... c(++) and assembler is a valid evolutionary
step for now.)
and i am sure you very much agree.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
However, I
recognize that I am not like most musicians. Since no
one else here is either, I felt someone needed to stick up for
them. So many people seem to wonder why more musicians aren't
using Linux.... the "use the command line, it's better"
mentality is one of them. Most musicians and many recording
engineers are going to think something's gone horribly wrong if
they see a command line.
right. "command line", the way we see it now, is a primitive way to
put a computer to work.
3:45 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
I think your use of the word "primitive" is incorrect. Using commands to
interact with a computer is no more primitive than reading words in a
book to receive information (as opposed to receiving information purely
visually, as with a movie or TV). Both have their place (syntactical
interaction versus graphical interaction), I don't think one is better
or worse than the other.
-- Brett
No, it's a
very powerful way of working with a computer.
i must emphasize it, and i will:
"command line", THE WAY WE SEE IT NOW, is a primitive way to put a
computer to work. 
3:51 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
Brett McCoy wrote:
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
I think your use of the word "primitive" is incorrect. Using commands
to interact with a computer is no more primitive than reading words in
a book to receive information (as opposed to receiving information
purely visually, as with a movie or TV). Both have their place
(syntactical interaction versus graphical interaction), I don't think
one is better or worse than the other.
-- Brett
Yep, from a sys-admin standpoint both are valid.
No,
it's a very powerful way of working with a computer.
i must emphasize it, and i will:
"command line", THE WAY WE SEE IT NOW, is a primitive way to put a
computer to work.
22 Dec
22 Dec
12:04 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 21:44, Brett McCoy wrote:
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
I think your use of the word "primitive" is incorrect. Using commands
to interact with a computer is no more primitive than reading words
in a book to receive information (as opposed to receiving information
purely visually, as with a movie or TV). Both have their place
(syntactical interaction versus graphical interaction), I don't think
one is better or worse than the other.
you are saying just what i was saying, but, for some plausible reasons,
you feel like you disagree to what i am saying. i guess i didn't make
myself clear enough, so i will try again.
i think gui is even more primitive than command line, since it reverts
us to the animal state... (all those yes/no switches actually remind me
of the times when people couldn't sign their name and had to "use their
finger".)
so i obviously was not comparing command line to gui! i was comparing
command line of today to command line of tomorrow. by this, i was
trying to explain why so many people fear command line. i love command
line, it's just that it is still in its infancy.
hopefully i made myself clear this time :)
No,
it's a very powerful way of working with a computer.
i must emphasize it, and i will:
"command line", THE WAY WE SEE IT NOW, is a primitive way to put a
computer to work. -- Brett
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
9:55 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
you are saying just what i was saying, but, for some
plausible reasons,
you feel like you disagree to what i am saying. i guess i didn't make
myself clear enough, so i will try again.
i think gui is even more primitive than command line, since it reverts
us to the animal state... (all those yes/no switches actually remind me
of the times when people couldn't sign their name and had to "use their
finger".)
You hadn't made that clear in your previous posts. I don't agree that
the GUI reverts us to the animal state, it's just another way of getting
your work done or conveying an idea.
-- Brett
23 Dec
23 Dec
3:29 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] NOTEEDIT, the scorewriter (previously: CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues (previously: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT))
You hadn't made that clear in your previous posts.
i think i was absolutely clear that i was "pro-cli". these are some
fragments of the very post to which you answered as though you thought
i was "anti-cli":
1. i must emphasize it, and i will: "command line", THE WAY WE SEE IT
NOW, is a primitive way to put a computer to work. (quite strong an
emphasis, clear too)
2. command line will *always* matter. "the logos" can always express
things which the image or sound themselves will never be able to. so i
don't think command line will _ever_ become obsolete. not even if we
will connect our mind directly to the computer.
3. in fact, as soon as we can "talk" to the computer, the command
"line"
will be the most... modern way to talk to computers. no way for it to
ever become obsolete.
I don't agree that the GUI reverts us to the
animal state, it's just
another way of
ok... but don't you even agree to its non-rhetorical / non-exaggerated
version? :)
if not, then please tell me to which premise you disagree and how
strongly:
{
1. gui reverts us to concrete, less abstract, experience
2. decreasing abstraction level is anti-evolutionary
ergo
gui reverts evolution
}
thanks.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22 Dec
22 Dec
2:49 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Thursday 22 December 2005 04:04, I. I. Ooisen was like:
so i obviously was not comparing command line to gui!
i was comparing
command line of today to command line of tomorrow. by this, i was
trying to explain why so many people fear command line. i love command
line, it's just that it is still in its infancy.
Point taken!-)
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
21 Dec
21 Dec
3:29 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:09:01AM -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
However, the "command-line is better" argument is not one that gets made
so often anymore when it comes to Linux sound and music applications.
With the exceptions of the ALSA utilities, ecasound, and SoX, I'm not
sure what CLI soundapps are in common use. Every notable Linux soundapp
is a full-bore GUI-laden application these days. GUI front-ends are
available even for ecasound and SoX.
As someone who only uses the console, I can
tell you that CLI-based
music applications are pretty scarce: if it weren't for ecasound, the
JACK utilities, and a few other tools, life would be pretty bleak
indeed. For example, I recently wanted to have a poke at synths: there
is a staggering number of synths available for Linux (modular synths,
emulators, you name it), but finding one that doesn't require a GUI is
quite a challenge. I'm not saying whether this is good or bad, just that
I don't think very many people still use the console for music-making,
except a few old-timers and people unable or unwilling to use the GUI.
As far as the CLI vs. GUI argument goes, I see it that way:
- GUI is like geting what you paid for instantaneously.
- The CLI is like investing so you can buy something you might not
otherwise be able to afford.
S.M.
I believe the primary reasons more musicians don't use Linux have to do
with at least these conditions:
1. The perpetuation of outmoded perceptions re: usability and interfaces.
2. The lack of wide hardware manufacturer support.
3. The reticence of the major music journals to cover the growing
Linux audio scene.
4. The lack of serious attention given Linux audio from within the
larger Linux community itself.
5. No-one has released a hit created with Linux audio tools.
Point 4 is particularly irritating. See the email traffic on the LAD
list regarding the WINE team's misperception of JACK and subsequent
no-starter attitude towards integrating better JACK support. I believe
that developers of browsers and other commonly used software have a
tendency to ignore audio issues wrt their programs. Overall, there's too
little cooperation and shared understanding between the audio community
and other development domains (video, browser sound support, emulation
systems, etc.)
The second point is certainly a show-stopper for folks arriving from
Win/Mac systems who discover their hardware is not now supported and
likely never will be supported under Linux. They won't care that the
situation is due to the manufacturers, they'll just turn away from
having to make an apparently needless investment. Alas, I've seen very
little indication that the situation is going to change soon.
--
smassy(a)sdf.lonestar.org
what we need, though, is much higher level
full-featured and specialized
languages (music, 3d, graphics), integrated in a friendly visual (gui)
environment. not just microsoft/mac-style... "yes/no check-boxes".
Perhaps you should look into the latest development in Csound5, Common
Music, and Pd ?
Best,
dp
4:57 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:29:42PM +0000, S. Massy wrote:
indeed. For example, I recently wanted to have a poke
at synths: there
is a staggering number of synths available for Linux (modular synths,
emulators, you name it), but finding one that doesn't require a GUI is
quite a challenge.
Depends on your definition of "synth" I guess.
For one thing, there are a staggering number of csound patches on the net.
The problem is that few of them are plug-and-play in the way
that a hardware synth is. E.g. if a csound orc isn't designed to be
driven via midi, you have to hack that in yourself.
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
5:25 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 15:57 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:29:42PM +0000, S. Massy
wrote:
Most DSSI synths should work fine in jack-dssi-host without a GUI too.
If you run 'jack-dssi-host -n whysynth.so' (for example), it will load
the WhySynth plugin and create an ALSA-seq input port and JACK output
ports and connect them to the alsa_pcm playback ports, and you will be
able to connect your keyboard or sequencer to the ALSA-seq port and use
it to change programs and controllers.
--
Lars Luthman
PGP key: http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d00-llu/pgp_key.php
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
indeed. For example, I recently wanted to have a
poke at synths: there
is a staggering number of synths available for Linux (modular synths,
emulators, you name it), but finding one that doesn't require a GUI is
quite a challenge.
Depends on your definition of "synth" I guess.
For one thing, there are a staggering number of csound patches on the net.
The problem is that few of them are plug-and-play in the way
that a hardware synth is. E.g. if a csound orc isn't designed to be
driven via midi, you have to hack that in yourself.
24 Dec
24 Dec
1:59 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI synths; Was: Re: CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 10:28:21PM +0100, Lars Luthman wrote:
On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 15:57 -0500, Paul Winkler
wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:29:42PM +0000, S. Massy wrote:
> > indeed. For example, I recently wanted to have a poke at synths: there
> > is a staggering number of synths available for Linux (modular synths,
> > emulators, you name it), but finding one that doesn't require a GUI is
> > quite a challenge.
>
> Depends on your definition of "synth" I guess.
> For one thing, there are a staggering number of csound patches on the net.
> The problem is that few of them are plug-and-play in the way
> that a hardware synth is. E.g. if a csound orc isn't designed to be
> driven via midi, you have to hack that in yourself.
I've looked into a few
synthesis languages, but, of them all, though
csound as always seemed to me most interesting, it's also the one that's
always seemed to me most daunting. Maybe I ought to give it another
try...
Most DSSI synths should work fine in jack-dssi-host without a GUI too.
If you run 'jack-dssi-host -n whysynth.so' (for example), it will load
the WhySynth plugin and create an ALSA-seq input port and JACK output
ports and connect them to the alsa_pcm playback ports, and you will be
able to connect your keyboard or sequencer to the ALSA-seq port and use
it to change programs and controllers.
Tried it, it works and sounds great, but I
couldn't find anything in the
documentation telling me how to tweak the sounds without the GUI.
S.M.
--
Lars Luthman
PGP key: http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~d00-llu/pgp_key.php
Fingerprint: FCA7 C790 19B9 322D EB7A E1B3 4371 4650 04C7 7E2E
--
smassy(a)sdf.lonestar.org
4:55 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI synths; Was: Re: CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
S. Massy wrote:
I've looked into a few synthesis languages, but,
of them all, though
csound as always seemed to me most interesting, it's also the one that's
always seemed to me most daunting.
Really? Just tried out chuck and supercollider, and I'm back to csound.
Chuck is a really clean, nice language, but the concurrency can be
tricky to get your head around. Plus it's quite ineffective computation
wise,
Supercollider seems very confusing to me, esp being on linux. Startup
dir conventions, server/client concepts, the doc comming in strange rtf
format.
Csound admittedly has a strange, dated language at places, but that can
mostly be worked around using #include's and #define's. The strong sides
of csound is it very well documented, it's using clear conventions and
it's probl the fasted one outthere. You can do deferred time, python
stuff (didn't try it out yet) and realtime with midi, you can play
samples in almost any format even soundfonts. And somehow I don't feel
the thing is fighting me (which could be said about other linux
softsynths)...
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
8:26 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI synths
Atte André Jensen wrote:
S. Massy wrote:
Traditionally Csound has had the simplest linguistic elements for
beginners. I haven't tried Chuck yet, but I have worked with SC3 a fair bit.
SC3's modernity might be a handicap for new users, but if you have any
background in an OO language it may have more immediate appeal than Csound.
I've looked into a few synthesis languages,
but, of them all, though
csound as always seemed to me most interesting, it's also the one that's
always seemed to me most daunting.
Really? Just tried out chuck and supercollider, and I'm back to csound. Supercollider seems very confusing to me, esp being on
linux. Startup
dir conventions, server/client concepts, the doc comming in strange
rtf format.
I didn't have problems with these issues. The RTF docs are readable in
emacs (complete with examples for direct evaluation from within the docs
themselves, something Csound could use), the concept of an audio
client/server system is no weirder than your video system, and the Linux
installation was not particularly difficult.
That said, I'll emphasize again that SC3's semantics and syntax are
potentially more difficult in the initial learning stages, but I think
it can do some things better than Csound and more directly. However,
read on...
Csound admittedly has a strange, dated language at
places, but that
can mostly be worked around using #include's and #define's. The strong
sides of csound is it very well documented, it's using clear
conventions and it's probl the fasted one outthere. You can do
deferred time, python stuff (didn't try it out yet) and realtime with
midi, you can play samples in almost any format even soundfonts. And
somehow I don't feel the thing is fighting me (which could be said
about other linux softsynths)...
Csound5 is simply awesome. Virtually everything in the language has been
rewritten, and an amazing number of improvements has been added. Items
Atte didn't mention include multiple instantiations, support for JACK
and the ALSA sequencer, LADSPA support, and a hefty number of graphic
and command-line interfaces (Tcl/Tk, FLTK, Java, Python). And at long
last there is the brand-new Csound API, which is meeting approval from
the 3rd-party Csound developers such as Matt Ingalls, Jean Piche, and
Iain Duncan.
The Cs5 developers want to make a release before the year is out, and
RC1 is already available. Installers are available for Windows and the
Mac, and RPM packages are ready for Linux users. Of course the CVS
sources are also there for anyone who wants to build Cs5 locally.
These languages are becoming shamelessly incestuous. Cs5 now talks to Pd
and Common Music directly, and CM at least has had Csound as one of its
output targets for a long while already.
If it's command-line synthesis you want, we got it. :)
If it's command-line softsynths you want, well, we have some. Fluidsynth
comeds to mind immediately, and I believe someone has mentioned that
ZynAddSubFX can be run from the CLI too. Haven't tested that stuff yet,
but I suspect Julian Claasen has. Julian, are you there ?
Personally, I love having the best of all possible worlds. :)
Happy holidays to all !
dp
4:20 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI synths
On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 07:45:32AM -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
[...]
> If it's command-line synthesis you want, we got it. :)
> If it's command-line softsynths you
want, well, we have some. Fluidsynth
> comeds to mind immediately, and I believe someone has mentioned that
> ZynAddSubFX can be run from the CLI too. Haven't tested that stuff yet,
Ah, didn't know about ZynAddSubFX, will give it a try. I was mostly
hoping to find a modular synth to play with while I'm getting acquainted
with a synthesis language, as I'm mostly interested in created my own
sound for atmosphere and/or background purposes. So far, the only
modular synth I found which could be accessed from the command-line is
Om, but that involves using OSC, and would probably require me to write
a little front-end for it, which I might or might not do, depending on
how much time I have...
> but I suspect Julian Claasen has. Julian, are you there ?
> Personally, I love having the best of all
possible worlds. :)
On the whole, a GUI is probably best at dealing with certain tasks, like
creating a network for a modular synth; but X is sadly not yet
accessible to me, so CLI is what I've got.
Cheers,
S.M.
> Happy holidays to all !
> dp
--
smassy(a)sdf.lonestar.org
Csound5 is simply awesome. Virtually everything in the
language has been
rewritten, and an amazing number of improvements has been added. Items
Atte didn't mention include multiple instantiations, support for JACK
and the ALSA sequencer, LADSPA support, and a hefty number of graphic
and command-line interfaces (Tcl/Tk, FLTK, Java, Python). And at long
last there is the brand-new Csound API, which is meeting approval from
the 3rd-party Csound developers such as Matt Ingalls, Jean Piche, and
Iain Duncan.
That's it; you, guys, convinced me to have another go at csound.
Lately,
I've been playing with ChucK and liking it a lot, because it's rather
simple to use and understand (especially for someone who's only
done a bit of C here, a bit of PERL there, and mostly shell scripting in
between); but i find the language is perhaps lacking in maturity at this
point. Also, it's well documented and provides many simple examples, but
not many concrete, real-life examples. Still, I would say ChucK is one
language to keep one's eyes on...
8:57 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI synths
S. Massy wrote:
That's it; you, guys, convinced me to have another
go at csound.
Make sure to ask again, either here, on the csound list or to me offlist
if you need some pointers. I could throw a bunch of links at you, but
figure it's better you say what you need when you need it. I might not
be able to answer your question if you're trying to do things I've never
done, but for getting-starting-stuff, I could do ok. Besides that the
csound list if very friendly, knowing and frequented.
Lately,
I've been playing with ChucK and liking it a lot, because it's rather
simple to use and understand (especially for someone who's only
done a bit of C here, a bit of PERL there, and mostly shell scripting in
between); but i find the language is perhaps lacking in maturity at this
point. Also, it's well documented and provides many simple examples, but
not many concrete, real-life examples. Still, I would say ChucK is one
language to keep one's eyes on...
Yeah, it's syntax makes any java/C programmer feel at home. At this
point csound differs a bit. But familiar syntax will only take you so
far. Mostly I feel csound is more to the point and straight-ahead. That
said complex concepts seldom could be implemented in un-complex code.
Chuck is mostly concerned with on-the-fly (or live) programming, which
is cleanly supported in chuck but tricky/impossible to do in csound. But
if (and you hinted at that yourself) you're more interrested in making a
midi-controllable setup for realtime usage, I find csound easier to work
with.
So far, the only
modular synth I found which could be accessed from the command-line is
Om, but that involves using OSC, and would probably require me to write
a little front-end for it, which I might or might not do, depending on
how much time I have...
Speaking of om: Om is extremely nice, fast to work with, and uses gui in
a way that really makes sense. The fact that om uses ladspa plugins for
almost everything means that the speed of om is the speed of the
plugins. So although this actually has nothing to do with om, csound is
able to squeeze more out of my cpu. When om and (mostly) ladspa matures
this will for sure be a killer combo. Different from csound, but never
the less a killer combo.
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
26 Dec
26 Dec
5:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI synths
On Sun, Dec 25, 2005 at 01:57:11AM +0100, Atte Andr? Jensen wrote:
[...]
> >So far, the only
> >modular synth I found which could be accessed from the command-line is
> >Om, but that involves using OSC, and would probably require me to write
> >a little front-end for it, which I might or might not do, depending on
> >how much time I have...
> Speaking of om: Om is extremely nice, fast
to work with, and uses gui in
> a way that really makes sense. The fact that om uses ladspa plugins for
> almost everything means that the speed of om is the speed of the
> plugins. So although this actually has nothing to do with om, csound is
> able to squeeze more out of my cpu. When om and (mostly) ladspa matures
> this will for sure be a killer combo. Different from csound, but never
> the less a killer combo.
Yeah, LADSPA is a really, really neat thing, as far as re-usable code
goes. The only thing LADSPA lacks right now is some kind of way to
categorise and document plugins. Well, there's RDF, but I haven't seen
many plugins with RDF documentation.
Cheers,
S.M.
> --
> peace, love & harmony
> Atte
> http://www.atte.dk
--
smassy(a)sdf.lonestar.org
S. Massy wrote:
Thanks. One very nice thing
about csound is how long it's been around,
which means there's no shortage of documentation. The csound reference
manual seems fairly extensive, and I remember from back when I gave
csound a try, about two years ago now, that there were several tutorials
lying about on the internet. This said, if you happen to have a link for
a quickstart, example-based tutorial to get me rolling, I would
certainly appreciate it.
That's it; you, guys, convinced me to have
another go at csound.
Make sure to ask again, either here, on the csound list or to me offlist
if you need some pointers. I could throw a bunch of links at you, but
figure it's better you say what you need when you need it. I might not
be able to answer your question if you're trying to do things I've never
done, but for getting-starting-stuff, I could do ok. Besides that the
csound list if very friendly, knowing and frequented.
6:40 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI synths
S. Massy wrote:
<snip>if you happen to have a link for
a quickstart, example-based tutorial to get me rolling, I would
certainly appreciate it.
http://www.csounds.com/tootsother/vercoetut/Vercoe.html
http://www.csounds.com/toots/
http://www.csounds.com/cascone/
The amsterdam catalog is a large collection of csound code grouped by
synthesis method. Used to be online, but couldn't find it.
If you're serious about csound I'd also recommend getting the csound book.
--
peace, love & harmony
Atte
http://www.atte.dk
21 Dec
21 Dec
10:11 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Wed, 2005-21-12 at 10:09 -0500, Dave Phillips wrote:
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
>>However, I recognize that I am not like most musicians. Since no
>>one else here is either, I felt someone needed to stick up for
>>them. So many people seem to wonder why more musicians aren't
>>using Linux.... the "use the command line, it's better"
>>mentality is one of them. Most musicians and many recording
>>engineers are going to think something's gone horribly wrong if
>>they see a command line.
>>
>>
>right. "command line", the way we see it now, is a primitive way to put
>a computer to work.
Anyone who says "command line is better" is an idiot, just like anyone
who says "GUI is better" is an idiot.
Some things a command line is capable of doing isn't even feasibly
possible in a GUI (and I personally do many, many such things a day, as
I'm sure many others 'round here do).
Some things that's downright painful and obtuse in a command line can be
intuitive, quick, and simple in a GUI.
Isn't this painfully obvious?
-DR-
22 Dec
22 Dec
12:30 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
On Thursday 22 December 2005 04:34, Dave Robillard wrote:
On Wed, 2005-21-12 at 10:09 -0500, Dave Phillips
wrote:
what you must have meant is obviously true, with some formal correction:
«whenever we say "command line is better, we are idiots, just like
whenever we say "gui is better" we are idiots.»
this rephrase is clearly the only one valid, as it avoids labeling /
categorization of people. (and yes, we are very much different from one
moment to the other.)
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
>>However, I recognize that I am not like most musicians. Since no
>>one else here is either, I felt someone needed to stick up for
>>them. So many people seem to wonder why more musicians aren't
>>using Linux.... the "use the command line, it's better"
>>mentality is one of them. Most musicians and many recording
>>engineers are going to think something's gone horribly wrong if
>>they see a command line.
>
>right. "command line", the way we see it now, is a primitive way
> to put a computer to work.
Anyone who says "command line is better" is an idiot, just like
anyone who says "GUI is better" is an idiot. Some things a command line is capable of doing
isn't even feasibly
possible in a GUI (and I personally do many, many such things a day,
as I'm sure many others 'round here do).
Some things that's downright painful and obtuse in a command line can
be intuitive, quick, and simple in a GUI.
Isn't this painfully obvious?
(maybe not painfully, but) yes, it is obvious. only a snob might find it
desirable to try to place icons on the desktop from the command line
(instead of using drag-n-drop) :)
-DR-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
6:31 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com> writes:
very powerful
So many spots to put my comments in, but I just chose this neat spot;)
The most important thing, I think, is that the applications must
provide means to work in multiple kinds of interfaces. If an app only
can be driven via a gui, it's totally useless, in my opinion. Even a
scriptable gui app is crap.
The separation between the core and the ui is so important.
I am a strong believer in that you don't need multiple applications
that basically deals with the same thing for different needs; you only
need different interfaces. If the core is not able to serve both the
highly advanced and the extremely simple, it's of no use, except only
as a guideline for how not to design your application.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
[sip|iax]: e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
7:14 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] CLI vs. GUI and other Linux sound issues, was FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT
Esben Stien <b0ef(a)esben-stien.name> writes:
The most important thing, I think, is that the
applications must
provide means to work in multiple kinds of interfaces. If an app only
What I mean is that with a nice clean cut between core and ui, more
and more uis' will pop up. Some to serve advanced and some to serve
simple needs.
core [..] able to serve both the highly advanced and
the extremely
simple
It's worth noting that the core might talk to other cores, of course.
--
Esben Stien is b0ef@e s a
http://www. s t n m
irc://irc. b - i . e/%23contact
[sip|iax]: e e
jid:b0ef@ n n
8:45 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] How to avoid transient peaks? Limiter?
INFO from my devout PT using friend.. ..............And useful as hell....
http://duc.digidesign.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=892942&page=…
2 Jan
2 Jan
9:47 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] How to avoid transient peaks? Limiter?
Timothy A. Gorman wrote:
INFO from my devout PT using friend..
..............And useful as
hell....
http://duc.digidesign.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=892942&page=…
I read through a bit of this and wondered if/how the jack meterbridge
meters might help show the levels of reconstructed audio. From the jack
meterbridge webpage ( http://plugin.org.uk/meterbridge/ ), I read the
following about the VU meter:
<quote>
The -r flag (set reference level) is usful with these meters as it will
allow you to calibrate to your DA converters. The meter is pre-adjusted
so that it should allign correctly calibrated DA converters with
analogue systems. If you wish to run with 0dBFS = 0dBu then use "-r 20"
</quote>
Am I interpreting this to mean that the VU meter should be able to give
an estimate of the levels of the reconstructed signal?
I'm using a Delta 1010LT - can anyone point me at info about the DA
converter calibration procedure, or, better yet, what the "-r" value
should be for this card out of the box? I'm just beginning to look into
this, but tests with a tune I'm mixing shows quite a bit of it is "in
the red" on the VU meter, even though the digital meters are running
below 0dBFS. I want to make sure I'm looking at the right thing, or if
I am totally off-base.
Thanks!
Joel
22 Dec
22 Dec
1:14 p.m.
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 05:12, Rob was like:
However, I recognize that I am not like most
musicians. Since no
one else here is either, I felt someone needed to stick up for
them.
Yeah, I always stick up for my imaginary friends too. ;)
So many people seem to wonder why more musicians
aren't
using Linux.... the "use the command line, it's better"
mentality is one of them. Most musicians and many recording
engineers are going to think something's gone horribly wrong if
they see a command line.
That's because they're used to Windows which has a completely broken command
line. I've been using Linux for three years, coming from an entirely Windows
background and frankly the CLI interface in Linux seemed like a huge step
forward to me and was something that attracted me to the platform - as an
ordinary musician who was interested in learning programming. Do you honestly
_know_ any 'ordinary' creative people? Contradiction in terms IMO. :)
--
cheers,
tim hall
http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
2:24 p.m.
That's because they're used to Windows which
has a completely broken command
line. I've been using Linux for three years, coming from an entirely Windows
background and frankly the CLI interface in Linux seemed like a huge step
forward to me
the CLI on linux is a step backwards coming from windows. why? if you
want good ol' bash you can have a fully functioning native version of
that running in RXVT just by installing MinGW... plus you have MSH.
which there currently exists no equivalent on linux, or BSD for that
matter..
19 Dec
19 Dec
10:34 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
REFERENCE:
http://rnvs.informatik.tu-chemnitz.de/~jan/noteedit/noteedit.html
(i just found this!) the developers of noteedit say on their site they
want to end noteedit development because nobody cares about noteedit.
this makes me angry.
on their official page, they are blaming us for this situation. (maybe
they are right, maybe they are wrong.)
While I can appreciate your concern you should know that NoteEdit
version 2.8.0 rc1 was released on June 4 of this year. If you click on
the BerliOS link a little further down on the page you linked you'll
find that NE development has indeed been continued.
The page you linked to is no longer the official page and this is old
news, sorry. The original author felt that NE hadn't received sufficient
attention from the community, and his assertion that there was a Linux
Finale on the way was unfounded. Nevertheless he decided to discontinue
his involvement with its development. Thankfully it has been continued
by other developers.
I agree that it's a fine application. As to who else uses it, I don't know.
I don't work with notation much these days, but I found that NE had a
transparent interface and many useful features. I've been writing a
series of articles for the Linux Journal on music notation software for
Linux, NE will be profiled in the next installment, along with LilyPond.
Best,
dp
20 Dec
20 Dec
12:31 a.m.
This may be anti-open, but here it goes. I think if
you want to copyright a piece of music in the U.S.A,
it needs to be in standard music notation. This
requirement may be a Library of Congress requirement,
but I am not sure.
Anyway, if you want to publish and protect a MIDI
piano-roll composed piece of music, you need some way
of converting it to standard notation and printing it
out. It doesn't get much easier than importing a MIDI
file into noteedit!
And for those of us who are not proficient with a MIDI
keyboard, transcribing a piece of music from paper to
noteedit and then exporting it to MIDI is a great
starting point for learning music and songs.
The best thing about noteedit is that you don't need
Rosegarden+Lilypond to run it.
-=cybersean3000=-
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1:55 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
Sean Edwards wrote:
This may be anti-open, but here it goes. I think if
you want to copyright a piece of music in the U.S.A,
it needs to be in standard music notation. This
requirement may be a Library of Congress requirement,
but I am not sure.
Not sure what you mean, but copyrighting music does not require it to be
in standard notation, AFAIK. If you mean 'publishing' music, I don't
think standard notation is required either -- a book of guitar tablature
is considered published music, which is why online tablature sites are
still getting harassed by the music publishing industry.
And IIRC, only melodies and lyrics can be copyrighted -- harmonies and
song titles can't. (Hmmmm... what about counterpoint? Does that cont as
harmony or melody in the view of copyright laws?)
-- Brett
6:36 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I don't work with notation much these days, but I
found that NE had a
transparent interface and many useful features. I've been writing a
series of articles for the Linux Journal on music notation software
for Linux, NE will be profiled in the next installment, along with
LilyPond.
maybe you shouldn't mention them together, as it seems this creates
confusion. (somebody expressed it earlier in the thread.)
i suppose people need to know that noteedit is user friendly and gui. or
maybe you could emphasize this.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
8:14 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
I. I. Ooisen wrote:
NE creates output formatted for MusiXTeX/PMX, LilyPond, abc, MIDI, and
MusicXML, an impressive number of targets. I'm planning to include it
with the LilyPond profile precisely because it is such a superb
front-end for LilyPond.
I agree with Hans re: usage. Apps succeed in the world because of their
merit and because people actually use them. I also agree that getting
the word out is important to the public awareness of the app.
So maybe you should consider writing an article about NoteEdit ? I'm not
joking, there are a number of venues that would be interested in such an
article.
I don't
work with notation much these days, but I found that NE had a
transparent interface and many useful features. I've been writing a
series of articles for the Linux Journal on music notation software
for Linux, NE will be profiled in the next installment, along with
LilyPond.
maybe you shouldn't mention them together, as it seems this creates
confusion. (somebody expressed it earlier in the thread.)
i suppose people need to know that noteedit is user
friendly and gui. or
maybe you could emphasize this.
I will. There will be screenshots. :)
Best,
dp
3:44 p.m.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 14:32, Dave Phillips
wrote:
NE creates output formatted for MusiXTeX/PMX,
LilyPond, abc, MIDI,
and MusicXML, an impressive number of targets. I'm planning to
include it with the LilyPond profile precisely because it is such a
superb front-end for LilyPond.
I agree with Hans re: usage. Apps succeed in the world because of
their merit and because people actually use them. I also agree that
getting the word out is important to the public awareness of the app.
So maybe you should consider writing an article about NoteEdit ? I'm
not joking, there are a number of venues that would be interested in
such an article.
thanks for you suggestion. i am considering doing it.
i suppose
people need to know that noteedit is user friendly and
gui. or maybe you could emphasize this.
I will. There will be screenshots. :) Best,
dp
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1:55 a.m.
On 12/19/05, I. I. Ooisen <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are
gnome supporters?
localhost mp3 # emerge -pv noteedit
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kde-env-3-r4 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/arts-3.4.3 +alsa -arts -artswrappersuid
-debug +esd -hardened +jack -kdeenablefinal +mp3 -nas +vorbis
-xinerama 922 kB
[ebuild N ] media-libs/tse3-0.2.7 +alsa -arts -oss 589 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdelibs-3.4.3 +alsa -arts +cups -debug -doc
-jpeg2k -kdeenablefinal -kerberos -openexr +spell +ssl +tiff -xinerama
-zeroconf 16,482 kB
[ebuild N ] media-libs/taglib-1.4 -debug 715 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/libkcddb-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 5,366 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kioslaves-3.4.3 -arts -debug
+encode +flac -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) +mp3 +vorbis -xinerama 0
kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kfile-plugins-3.4.3 -arts
-debug -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -theora +vorbis -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kappfinder-data-3.4.3 -arts
-debug -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kmid-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kmix-3.4.3 +alsa -arts -debug
-kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/mpeglib-3.4.1 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 5,417 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kscd-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-meta-3.4.3 -arts +xine 0 kB
[ebuild N ] media-sound/noteedit-2.6.2 -arts -debug
-kdeenablefinal -xinerama 1,817 kB
Total size of downloads: 31,312 kB
I have to admit that is definately a point against it. Even with
emerge I'm not that interested in adding all that crap to my system
right now.
9:28 a.m.
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 07:55, Noah Roberts wrote:
On 12/19/05, I. I. Ooisen <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca>
wrote:
so it's just as i was supposing, it's mostly because it's a kde
application...
but hey, if you install rosegarden, you don't have to install all that
crap to your system. not because of noteedit, that is ;)
(which makes your "point against [noteedit]" pretty much irrelevant)
or you don't use rosegarden either?
(which pretty much makes *you* irrelevant to the LAU list) (just
teasing, really!) :D
sorry for the way i *had* to put it, i actually just liked the word
play... heh...
NOW SERIOUSLY:
the way i see it packed under portage is a point against GENTOO, not
against NOTEEDIT. really!
i didn't have to apt-get kappfinder in order to use noteedit or anything
like kdemultimedia (also kmid, or kmix, or arts, or mpeglib, or kscd?!?
-- GENTOO REALLY SCARES ME HERE... I HAD BETTER OPINIONS ON IT!)
(and yes, i *know* what i am talking about; of kde, debian uses *only*
kdelibs, which is a nice way debian deals with kde apps.)
maybe you should switch to debian? ;)
don't get me wrong on this, i myself very much appreciate the gentoo
project... i am even planning to try it...
but i am not sure i'll try it anymore... the way you imply gentoo deals
with kde apps kills all my enthusiasm about gentoo... i know kde is
bloatware, but the way you imply gentoo deals with it makes it...
scareware.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of
us are gnome
supporters?
localhost mp3 # emerge -pv noteedit
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kde-env-3-r4 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/arts-3.4.3 +alsa -arts -artswrappersuid
-debug +esd -hardened +jack -kdeenablefinal +mp3 -nas +vorbis
-xinerama 922 kB
[ebuild N ] media-libs/tse3-0.2.7 +alsa -arts -oss 589 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdelibs-3.4.3 +alsa -arts +cups -debug -doc
-jpeg2k -kdeenablefinal -kerberos -openexr +spell +ssl +tiff
-xinerama -zeroconf 16,482 kB
[ebuild N ] media-libs/taglib-1.4 -debug 715 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/libkcddb-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 5,366 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kioslaves-3.4.3 -arts -debug
+encode +flac -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) +mp3 +vorbis -xinerama 0
kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kfile-plugins-3.4.3 -arts
-debug -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -theora +vorbis -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kappfinder-data-3.4.3 -arts
-debug -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kmid-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kmix-3.4.3 +alsa -arts -debug
-kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/mpeglib-3.4.1 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 5,417 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kscd-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-meta-3.4.3 -arts +xine 0 kB
[ebuild N ] media-sound/noteedit-2.6.2 -arts -debug
-kdeenablefinal -xinerama 1,817 kB
Total size of downloads: 31,312 kB
I have to admit that is definately a point against it. Even with
emerge I'm not that interested in adding all that crap to my system
right now. 
9:46 a.m.
On 12/19/05, I. I. Ooisen <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 07:55, Noah Roberts
wrote:
I did not seem to have the problems that Noah did on my wife's Gentoo
box. I only had to emerge 4 KDE packages to get noteedit built. That
said I chose to build 2.8.0 as the noteedit page said it was the
curent stable version. So much for that being true:
kbuildsycoca: WARNING: '/usr/share/applications/mplayer.desktop'
specifies undefined mimetype/servicetype 'video/x-fli'
kbuildsycoca: WARNING: '/usr/share/applications/mplayer.desktop'
specifies undefined mimetype/servicetype 'video/vnd.vivo'
LilyPond check: not available.
KCrash: Application 'noteedit' crashing...
Unable to start Dr. Konqi
mark@dragonfly ~ $
Maybe I should try an earlier version one of these days.
Cheers,
Mark
On 12/19/05, I. I. Ooisen
<ii001001(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
so it's just as i was supposing, it's mostly because it's a kde
application...
but hey, if you install rosegarden, you don't have to install all that
crap to your system. not because of noteedit, that is ;)
(which makes your "point against [noteedit]" pretty much irrelevant)
or you don't use rosegarden either?
(which pretty much makes *you* irrelevant to the LAU list) (just
teasing, really!) :D
sorry for the way i *had* to put it, i actually just liked the word
play... heh...
NOW SERIOUSLY:
the way i see it packed under portage is a point against GENTOO, not
against NOTEEDIT. really!
i didn't have to apt-get kappfinder in order to use noteedit or anything
like kdemultimedia (also kmid, or kmix, or arts, or mpeglib, or kscd?!?
-- GENTOO REALLY SCARES ME HERE... I HAD BETTER OPINIONS ON IT!)
(and yes, i *know* what i am talking about; of kde, debian uses *only*
kdelibs, which is a nice way debian deals with kde apps.)
maybe you should switch to debian? ;)
don't get me wrong on this, i myself very much appreciate the gentoo
project... i am even planning to try it...
but i am not sure i'll try it anymore... the way you imply gentoo deals
with kde apps kills all my enthusiasm about gentoo... i know kde is
bloatware, but the way you imply gentoo deals with it makes it...
scareware. is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of
us are gnome
supporters?
localhost mp3 # emerge -pv noteedit
These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kde-env-3-r4 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/arts-3.4.3 +alsa -arts -artswrappersuid
-debug +esd -hardened +jack -kdeenablefinal +mp3 -nas +vorbis
-xinerama 922 kB
[ebuild N ] media-libs/tse3-0.2.7 +alsa -arts -oss 589 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdelibs-3.4.3 +alsa -arts +cups -debug -doc
-jpeg2k -kdeenablefinal -kerberos -openexr +spell +ssl +tiff
-xinerama -zeroconf 16,482 kB
[ebuild N ] media-libs/taglib-1.4 -debug 715 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/libkcddb-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 5,366 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kioslaves-3.4.3 -arts -debug
+encode +flac -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) +mp3 +vorbis -xinerama 0
kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kfile-plugins-3.4.3 -arts
-debug -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -theora +vorbis -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-kappfinder-data-3.4.3 -arts
-debug -kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kmid-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kmix-3.4.3 +alsa -arts -debug
-kdeenablefinal (-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/mpeglib-3.4.1 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 5,417 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kscd-3.4.3 -arts -debug -kdeenablefinal
(-kdexdeltas) -xinerama 0 kB
[ebuild N ] kde-base/kdemultimedia-meta-3.4.3 -arts +xine 0 kB
[ebuild N ] media-sound/noteedit-2.6.2 -arts -debug
-kdeenablefinal -xinerama 1,817 kB
Total size of downloads: 31,312 kB
I have to admit that is definately a point against it. Even with
emerge I'm not that interested in adding all that crap to my system
right now. 
21 Dec
21 Dec
12:32 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
"I. I. Ooisen" <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca>ca>, on Tue Dec 20, 2005 [08:56:49 AM]
said:
..
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 07:55, Noah Roberts
wrote:
> On 12/19/05, I. I. Ooisen <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are gnome
> > supporters?
>
> localhost mp3 # emerge -pv noteedit
>
> These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ genormous list of dependancies ]
Total size of downloads: 31,312 kB
I have to admit that is definately a point against it. Even with
emerge I'm not that interested in adding all that crap to my system
right now.
NOW SERIOUSLY:
the way i see it packed under portage is a point against GENTOO, not
against NOTEEDIT. really!
i didn't have to apt-get kappfinder in order to use noteedit or anything
like kdemultimedia (also kmid, or kmix, or arts, or mpeglib, or kscd?!?
-- GENTOO REALLY SCARES ME HERE... I HAD BETTER OPINIONS ON IT!)
Hi;
In all fairness, that ebuild is probably going a little
overboard, by being lazy. It actually depends on 'kdemultimedia',
to get its kde thing going, which drags in most of that stuff.
And then it ignores USE to force inclusion of arts, and also
includes the optional tse3 lib.
This is fairly anti-ethical to the Gentoo Way, and if
I cared at all about noteedit, I would probably fix the ebuild
and submit a bug report. (At the *very least*, arts should not be
being forced here, and some of the other stuff like tse3 should
probably depend on if midi is desired.)
Paul
set(a)pobox.com
12:50 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
This is fairly anti-ethical to the Gentoo Way,
and if
I cared at all about noteedit, I would probably fix the ebuild
and submit a bug report. (At the *very least*, arts should not be
or maybe fix noteedit ;) the ebuild is fine, but noteedit crashes on
launch.. only needed 2 deps (arts and something else) that werent
already installed w/ a minimal KDE (sans multimedia gunk)
being forced here, and some of the other stuff like
tse3 should
probably depend on if midi is desired.)
Paul
set(a)pobox.com
1:21 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:50:15AM +0000, c wrote:
Noteedit use to crash for me. Then I realized I had multiple versions of kde/kdelibs. I
cleaned it up to one version then recompiled. Now it no longer crashes but not all the
features seem to work on the
described machine. It works well on anouther mahine with debian on the ppc architecture.
Jeremiah
This
is fairly anti-ethical to the Gentoo Way, and if
I cared at all about noteedit, I would probably fix the ebuild
and submit a bug report. (At the *very least*, arts should not be
or maybe fix noteedit ;) the ebuild is fine, but noteedit crashes on
launch.. only needed 2 deps (arts and something else) that werent
already installed w/ a minimal KDE (sans multimedia gunk)
5:14 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 07:10, Jeremiah Benham wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 04:50:15AM +0000, c wrote:
Noteedit use to crash for me. Then I realized I had multiple versions
of kde/kdelibs. I cleaned it up to one version then recompiled. Now
it no longer crashes but not all the features seem to work on the
described machine. It works well on anouther mahine with debian on
was the "described machine" also debian (the non-ppc one)?
This is fairly anti-ethical to the Gentoo Way, and if
I cared at all about noteedit, I would probably fix the ebuild
and submit a bug report. (At the *very least*, arts should not be
or maybe fix noteedit ;) the ebuild is fine, but noteedit crashes
on launch.. only needed 2 deps (arts and something else) that
werent already installed w/ a minimal KDE (sans multimedia gunk) the ppc architecture.
Jeremiah
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
10:56 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:36:49AM +0200, I. I. Ooisen wrote:
The machine I described was actually gentoo on the amd64 in 64bit mode. I assume the 64bit
mode is what is causing some features not to work. I am talking specifically about note
entry. Note entry from
external midi keyboard does not respond to every note hit. Entry via keyboard does not
respond at all. Entry via mouse works. I would try to fix the bugs but I don't know
c++ as well as I know c. I have
debian on my ppc. I apt-got it. It seems to just work. I have not tested midi on it yet
though. I assume it probably works well. I don't know about quatization or real time
recording but it does a kind of
step entry via midi and keyboard entry.
Jeremiah
Noteedit use
to crash for me. Then I realized I had multiple versions
of kde/kdelibs. I cleaned it up to one version then recompiled. Now
it no longer crashes but not all the features seem to work on the
described machine. It works well on anouther mahine with debian on
was the "described machine" also debian (the non-ppc one)?
4:46 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 16:45, Jeremiah Benham wrote:
On Wed, Dec 21, 2005 at 07:36:49AM +0200, I. I. Ooisen
wrote:
The machine I described was actually gentoo on the amd64 in 64bit
mode. I assume the 64bit mode is what is causing some features not to
work. I am talking specifically about note entry. Note entry from
external midi keyboard does not respond to every note hit. Entry via
keyboard does not respond at all. Entry via mouse works. I would try
to fix the bugs but I don't know c++ as well as I know c. I have
debian on my ppc. I apt-got it. It seems to just work. I have not
tested midi on it yet though. I assume it probably works well. I
don't know about quatization or real time recording but it does a
kind of step entry via midi and keyboard entry.
Jeremiah
thanks... it seems gentoo has a weird way to package noteedit anyway.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
Noteedit
use to crash for me. Then I realized I had multiple
versions of kde/kdelibs. I cleaned it up to one version then
recompiled. Now it no longer crashes but not all the features
seem to work on the described machine. It works well on anouther
mahine with debian on
was the "described machine" also debian (the non-ppc one)?
9:35 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
Jeremiah Benham wrote:
Noteedit use to crash for me. Then I realized I had
multiple versions of kde/kdelibs. I cleaned it up to one version then recompiled. Now it
no longer crashes but not all the features seem to work on the
described machine. It works well on anouther mahine with debian on the ppc architecture.
I installed NoteEdit on Debian unstable last night... it installed
cleanly (there have been some issues lately with unstable with broken
dependencies) and started up without a hitch. MUCH more stable now.
Couldn't print since it required some external program
(abcsomethingorother), and I was able to import some MIDI (an old MIDI I
created with Rosegarden2 many years ago imported perfectly and I was
able to play it back). Oddly, NoteEdit didn't break the piece up into
measures. A larger MIDI file locked up the application completely and I
had to kill it manually.
I'll play around with it some more, it will be useful for playing with
ideas and harmonies, since it's much more lightweight than Rosegarden.
For serious recording and integration with Ardour + jack, though, I will
still have to use Rosegarden.
-- Brett
10:43 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 15:35, Brett McCoy wrote:
Jeremiah Benham wrote:
very nice to hear that... haven't tried the latest version yet.
Noteedit use to crash for me. Then I realized I
had multiple
versions of kde/kdelibs. I cleaned it up to one version then
recompiled. Now it no longer crashes but not all the features seem
to work on the described machine. It works well on anouther mahine
with debian on the ppc architecture.
I installed NoteEdit on Debian unstable last night... it installed
cleanly (there have been some issues lately with unstable with broken
dependencies) and started up without a hitch. MUCH more stable now. Couldn't print since it required some external
program
(abcsomethingorother)
apt-get install abcsomethingorother
modularity (specialized tools, dependency hell/heaven) is what gnu/linux
is all about, discouraging idiotic code duplication.
i hate any app which has it's own sound system or printing system
(unless it is specialized on that). they lose time working hard on
trying to get their "unique" sound system work (or printing, or
windowing, or etc.), which reduces quality and quantity of the
specialized code their tool must include.
and I was able to import some MIDI (an old
i don't like how noteedit imports *any* midi at all. i just hope the
latest version does it better. (rosegarden has the same problem, but at
least it won't crash on larger midi files import.)
MIDI I created with Rosegarden2 many years ago
imported perfectly and
I was able to play it back). Oddly, NoteEdit didn't break the piece
up into measures.
simply use ALT + e, a (edit / autobar)
by the way...
i hated it when finale was not allowing me to input anything, because it
was forcing me to respect its concept of measuring... i generally avoid
restrictive "autocorrection" "features", especially when they are
based
on an "automatic replacement" concept and/or when they make me feel
contrained at every move.
i prefer to be notified of the error rather than get the feeling i
can't... live, act... you know that feeling of your hands being tied
tightly... and i couldn't find any way to disable that "feature"...
(right, i don't remember finale ever having been intuitive, but at that
time it was actually lacking that option -- maybe even now (i haven't
used it for a long time)).
[i am aware my finale comment above is mostly off-topic]
A larger MIDI file locked up the application
completely and I had to kill it manually.
yes, it happens to me, too.
I'll play around with it some more, it will be
useful for playing
with ideas and harmonies, since it's much more lightweight than
Rosegarden. For serious recording and integration with Ardour + jack,
though, I will still have to use Rosegarden.
right. rosegarden rulez. it is a sequencer, after all. noteedit is a
score editor (although some could use it as a minimal sequencer...)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1:47 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 06:50, c wrote:
it works in debian without the two deps you're mentioning. so fix
gentoo, not noteedit... ;)
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This
is fairly anti-ethical to the Gentoo Way, and if
I cared at all about noteedit, I would probably fix the ebuild
and submit a bug report. (At the *very least*, arts should not be
or maybe fix noteedit ;) the ebuild is fine, but noteedit crashes on
launch.. only needed 2 deps (arts and something else) that werent
already installed w/ a minimal KDE (sans multimedia gunk)
5:03 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Re: FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Wednesday 21 December 2005 06:32, Paul wrote:
fair comment. in addition, from what i know, not even tse is *vital*,
even for some of the midi functionality.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
"I. I. Ooisen" <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca>ca>, on
Tue Dec 20, 2005 [08:56:49 AM]
said:
On Tuesday 20
December 2005 07:55, Noah Roberts wrote:
> On 12/19/05, I. I. Ooisen <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > is it because noteedit is a kde app and most of us are gnome
> > supporters?
>
> localhost mp3 # emerge -pv noteedit
>
> These are the packages that I would merge, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ genormous list of dependancies ]
> Total size of downloads: 31,312 kB
>
>
> I have to admit that is definately a point against it. Even with
> emerge I'm not that interested in adding all that crap to my
> system right now.
..
NOW SERIOUSLY:
the way i see it packed under portage is a point against GENTOO,
not against NOTEEDIT. really!
i didn't have to apt-get kappfinder in order to use noteedit or
anything like kdemultimedia (also kmid, or kmix, or arts, or
mpeglib, or kscd?!? -- GENTOO REALLY SCARES ME HERE... I HAD BETTER
OPINIONS ON IT!)
Hi;
In all fairness, that ebuild is probably going a little
overboard, by being lazy. It actually depends on 'kdemultimedia',
to get its kde thing going, which drags in most of that stuff.
And then it ignores USE to force inclusion of arts, and also
includes the optional tse3 lib.
This is fairly anti-ethical to the Gentoo Way, and if
I cared at all about noteedit, I would probably fix the ebuild
and submit a bug report. (At the *very least*, arts should not be
being forced here, and some of the other stuff like tse3 should
probably depend on if midi is desired.)
Paul
set(a)pobox.com 
20 Dec
20 Dec
7:47 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] FOLKS, PAY ATTENTION TO NOTEEDIT, the score editor!
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:27:36 +0200
"I. I. Ooisen" <ii001001(a)yahoo.ca> wrote:
NOTEEDIT (which is GPL), THE BEST USER-FRIENDLY SCORE
EDITOR FOR
GNU/LINUX (cause that's what it is!), doesn't deserve to be ignored.
what is wrong with us? i wonder why most of us ignore it...
Hi,
it doesn't get ignored deliberately. If the author complained about too
little feedback, he should have written a more buggy software ;)
Noteedit is cool. Plus it's alive and kicking (not maintained by the
original author anymore, but that's ok, too. Long live open source
software)
Have fun,
Flo
--
Palimm Palimm!
http://tapas.affenbande.org
3:29 p.m.
See the new homepage at
http://noteedit.berlios.de/
and the project page at
http://developer.berlios.de/projects/noteedit/
Best regards
ce
6928
days inactive
6942
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
93 comments
32 participants
participants (32)
-
Atte André Jensen -
Brett McCoy -
c -
Carlos Pino -
Cesare Marilungo -
Chris Cannam -
Christoph Eckert -
Dave Phillips -
Dave Robillard -
Emiliano Grilli -
Esben Stien -
Florian Schmidt -
Greg Wilder -
Hans Fugal -
I. I. Ooisen -
jjbenham＠chicagoguitar.com -
Joel White -
John Anderson -
Lars Luthman -
Mark Knecht -
Michael T D Nelson -
Noah Roberts -
Paul -
Paul Davis -
Paul Winkler -
R Parker -
Rob -
S. Massy -
Sean Edwards -
studio64 -
tim hall -
Timothy A. Gorman