[ramblings] (was RE : [Pd] active and tot not right in pd-extended)
Michal Seta
mis at artengine.ca
Fri Sep 15 15:30:02 CEST 2006
"David Powers" <cyborgk at gmail.com> writes:
> 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.
You mean, you don't have to click through several dialog boxes in
order to get to some specific feature?
> 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.
in lilypond you work backwards. You set up one document which
contains the full score and you define parts/instruments in (usually) a
sperate file(s).
> 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.
It should be fairly straight-forward with lilypond in the /cadenzaOn
context (and of course setting up the staff with one line and hiding
various engraver elements (such as stems, beams, rests, whatever)
globally.
> I'd also like said program to be able to give an
> approximate performance of said notation, with each line lasting
> duration X.
lilypond probably can't do this but maybe there'd be a way to hack
something up with guile.
> 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!
How about scoring the music in PD (or Pd) (and performing it via MIDI
or whatnot) and transcribing it into a lilypond score.
> 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).
except for Ableton, which I tried for a few days some years ago, I
don't even know what we're talking about (I've heard of Reaktor but
never used/seen it). But I see what you mean.
> A lot of my musical needs ARE in the mainstream. About 10-20% of the
> time, I need things more experimental.
I really don't see the correlation between mainstream music and
commercial software. It's not like you cannot write 4/4 music in C
major, using I-IV-V chord progressions using existing open-source
software (in linux on top of that).
> When I'm being experimental and don't have as well-defined needs, it's
> easier to try open source stuff.
Actually, there are 2 applications that I miss from my mac days: thonk
and Argeïphontes Lyre. So good for experimental stuff. Nothing like
that exists in the open-source world.
> 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...
Sorry, can't help you with that. The last time I used Cubase was in
1995. It's true, it was useless.
./MiS
More information about the Pd-list
mailing list