[Pd] active and tot not right in pd-extended

[Michal Seta]

Discalimer:  not really PD related...

"Chuckk Hubbard" <badmuthahubbard at gmail.com> writes:

> Unfortunately, professional musicians who aren't programmers can't
> rely on free open source software at this point.  

Why not?  I just glanced at the "MacWorld's Music & Sound Bible"
(1992) and I realize that the state of open-source music software is a
little like the Mac in the 1992.  Well, granted, some things are a
little more advanced, other lag a little, but still.  If professional
musicians were able to produce professional music back then, using a
Mac with a (quite an impressive, actually) number of applications why
can't they do that now on linux with OSS?

I mean, there is even a short example of how to edit a sound sample
with RezEdit!  Common, this is even more hardcore than using SND!

(Side note.  There actually is a mention of Opcode's Max on page 12
and 77.  Merely mentioning that it is a visual iconic MIDI programming
language and that visual programming is easier than opject oriented
programming). 

> I tried, though I
> was leery about Lilypond, I gave it a chance and got pretty interested
> in it.  Then for whatever reason it began arbitrarily leaving out
> ties.  Whatever drawbacks Windows and Mac have, I've never had that
> happen in Finale or Sibelius.  

Hmm...  they must have improved a lot.  I found finale the most PITA
notation software around (but at the same the most flexible at the
time, which was mid-90s).   Not to mention that often the WYSIWYG of
finale was more on the WYSIWYG-M (what you see is what you get -
maybe) side.

Oh, the best notation package (but also the slowest, the most
crash-prone) was Igor Engraver.  You can still buy it but the company
does not exist anymore, it seems, and don't count on any support.  A
few old hardcore users still use it and come up with new workarounds
to get by.

> but if I need something by tomorrow I need it by tomorrow.  

And you can typset a score in Finale for tomorrow?  Wow!

> No open-source programmer wants to spend weeks or months making
> infinitesimal changes to an interface to shave seconds off some
> shmoe's production time, for free.  

And which proprietary software company wants to do such thing?
What I found interesting with lilypond is that you can sponsor a
feature.  the bugs are squished for "free".  If you want a specific
feature, the programmer gives a price and you walk home happy.  I am
not too up-to-date with commercial software but I would love to know
which boxed applications provide such flexibility.

> And that shmoe (me, for instance)
> is likely to rely on a system that has software designed to shave
> seconds off his production time.

Or pile up a few more minutes or hours in case you want to do something
that 99% of users will never do.  And suppose the developers think
it's a great idea to add to the sofwtare.  How many more days, weeks,
months will you have to wait for an upgrade?  Oh, and you will most
likely pay the same price again.

> I suspect this is changing.

I don't know.  I don't think so.  A lot of OSS software is modelled
after the commercial software and so it usually lags behind.  Some
software is unique and does not have commercial equivalent.  The thing
is that just like 14 years ago on a Mac you did what you could with
what you had (and it was still several thousands of dollars, including
hardware) you can easily do with what you have and go with 100% OSS.  I
started using linux for music in 1997 (on a PPC and most audio
software was not yet bit-order friendly!) and having upgraded from a
MacOS8.7 loaded with all the lates warez... ehm... sorry... thousands
of dollars worth of commecial super-slick software, I had to change
the way I though about music production.  I never liked protools et
al. anyways.  The commercial software world keeps up with usage trends
(or sets trends).  OSS software is often an experiment in implementing
some way of thinking that is not already covered by another
application.  Sometimes your way of thinking fits, sometimes it
doesn't. 

Now, the question arises: but am I a professional musician?  I guess
not.  I'm still keeping my day-job.

./MiS