Am 3. März 2012 23:29 schrieb Paul Davis <[email protected]>: > >> OSC > > this general language is the whole problem. > > you can't send OSC to "an OSC capable plugin" or "an external OSC > application" in any generalized sense, because there is no shared > format for the messages. > > the sequence of messages that you record may make sense to Pure Data, > but make absolutely no sense to, say, CSound. > > the motivation to develop the infrastructure for recording, playback, > disk storage and editing of such messages is not very strong when any > given sequence can only target one particular OSC receiver. the > motivation isn't zero, to be clear. but it just isn't that strong. > >> I don't know if it's of practical use for anyone else, but time and again I >> would have had good use for this apparently simple feature. If anyone knows >> a sequencer or DAW which can do what I sketched out above, please do tell >> me. OSC has been around since 1997, for crying out loud. It's about time >> that sequencers do more with it than just automatizing the transport >> controls. ;-) > > then its about time that people using OSC start defining some > standardized messages. MIDI did this from the start, and for all of > its limitations, its been a wild success. the OSC community has > self-consciously avoided doing this - lets queue up another pointless > argument about how to represent notes/frequencies/intervals - and as a > result is still only a niche protocol with every transmitter and > receiver defining their own messages. double fail ... > >
I totally agree. Actually OSC missed the point of MIDI. (Or there was no intention to acctually become a replacement !? ) There should at least be an accepted, standardized way for transmission of MIDI data over OSC ! I've started a draft: http://wiki.linuxaudio.org/wiki/user/emrum/midi-osc-map -- E.R. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
