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

David Powers cyborgk at gmail.com
Fri Sep 15 07:21:14 CEST 2006


On 15 Sep 2006 00:36:50 -0400, Michal Seta <mis at artengine.ca> wrote:

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

I think that Finale did improve a lot, I use it all the time and it's
quite fast when you get to know it. I used to hate it, and was very
resistant to using it when I was in college. But I think the interface
improved somewhat, and I suppose I just got used to it as well. It
took me a while, to quit notating everything by hand, but it certainly
helps not having to recopy parts when you change a line an hour before
rehearsal! I've never tried Lilypond though, so I can't compare.

Now, on the other hand, I have a specific notational need, that I
don't know any way of meeting currently: I want to write scores that
contain noteheads, but no stems or time signatures, with one line
being relative. I'd also like said program to be able to give an
approximate performance of said notation, with each line lasting
duration X. I've actually considered, whether I could use Gem, and
capture the output as images, to create my score! If anyone thinks
there's a way that PD could help .... let me know!

(I do make files like this in Finale, but it is a PAIN because I have
to pretend that there's a time signature, and then set it to hide
stems and such after it's notated. Very slow since measures end up
being 19/8 and such...)

> > 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.

Well, until there is an open source Ableton, and Reaktor, Kontakt and
Intakt, I'm stuck doing many things on WinXP (or Mac, but PC's are
cheaper).  Also, there are many VST's, free or cheap for WinXP, that I
just can't do without. (But PD does run them usually on WinXP, which I
hope to take fuller advantage of in the future)...

A lot of my musical needs ARE in the mainstream. About 10-20% of the
time, I need things more experimental.

When I'm being experimental and don't have as well-defined needs, it's
easier to try open source stuff. I started doing visuals and quite
successful have built a PD-gem VJ interface, and I'm thinking about
using Pure:Dyne to try out fluxus and see how that goes.

But for some things, the commercial stuff just works. For the record,
I hate Cubase. I'd love to replace it. But I don't know of any
realistic alternative...

~David




More information about the Pd-list mailing list