On Wed, Mar 11, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Richard Shann <address@hidden>
On Tue, 2009-03-10 at 23:21 +0100, Nils Gey wrote:As I recall the last email from Jeremiah on this topic was that he was
> Hi Jeremiah,
> do you think some kind of live-midi-out via jackmidi will be ready for the next release?
> If you need any information or help I would be glad to provide you with research etc.
not convinced that it was worth doing ... is this still the case?
I think you chaps are doing a great job of improving denemo, and i've had a lot of enjoyment trying things out, and building decent orchestral templates.
I'll say this honestly and frankly as a user.
I'd be somewhat sad if live out to jackmidi wasn't considered.
There are many plusses in this, including the original discussion about using linuxsampler as the audio engine, driven through jackmidi from denemo. As a long time Sibelius and Igor Engraver user, it was apparent in both those apps that playback was considered secondary to scoring, although the IG team did a good job of fine midi interpretation and built many 'finesse' tools that improved playback a great deal with the tools available at the time. (Soundfonts.)
Add to this the concept of a playback dictionary in which one could match midi out port/channel/patch to a symbol, i.e. violins up bow, and denemo would be a truly powerful tool of use, with a playback potential to rival anything else.
To respond to a misconception (imho) that has lingered for many years.
Scoring and playback need not be awkward bedfellows. Scoring on a computer, after all, is equivalent to matrix and event inputting and editing, just in a musical image format. And that applies to playback. For the finetuning and tweaking we can apply in matrix and event editors, it's a leap of imagination to apply that to scoring/playback.
how long should a note be in playback, whatever the score tells you visually? A simple popup, or keystroke driven note editor, used on the fly to adjust parameters, would supply a decent answer. (Write a staccato note, then edit the note length with a percentage adjustment, for just one example. The note appears as written, but the playback reflects the user's definition of aural satisfaction)
For some, and i include myself in this, scoring remains the fastest and most efficient way of composing, above a matrix or event editor. It not only gives us a consistent workflow, but a constant overview, and for those of us who 'see music' in a score environment as easily as reading the written word, matching a playback that 'confirms' what we see and hear simultaneously, is an end result many have longed for in many years of using computers, and again, i include myself in this.
Soundfonts, as powerful as they are in providing some method of playback, have some limitations. And in a view to a modern score/playback, having the means to almost infintely shape a playback through some sort of device, like a playback dictionary, and out through, in this case, jackmidi, is imho a natural evolution that offers a far greater opportunity to 'write near finished score and recorded product' than soundfonts will, going forward. To score, playback, record, and polish is several steps. Removing some of that duplicated donkey work with a user defined template, or adjustments, as we go, offers the enjoyment of a more efficient workflow, and the chance to get a lot more writing done, again, live.