Hello Michael,
> > However, allowing clean editing of these
> transpositions is something to be
> > considered. Should the user be able to update
> these through the Special
> > Parameter areas that allow them to edit other segment
> properties, or
> > should they double-click on the segments to open a
> special dialog to allow
> > the transposition to take
> place. Hmm.... Some things to think
> about
> > here.
>
> Most reasonable thing to me seems to be when you take a
> symlink copy of a
> segment, the copy adopts the track parameters on the
> destination track that
> are in effect at the time of creation. These track
> parameters are segment
> parameters for segments that don't yet exist, and creating
> a linked segment
> here on this track is essentially the same sort of action
> as creating a new
> segment from scratch, so having this behave the same way in
> both cases would
> be intuitive, and it would be very practical from a code
> standpoint.
Agreed.
>
> All the track parameters are segment parameters too, but
> many of them are not
> editable as such. The lowest and highest playable
> notes for given instrument
> can only be edited before segments exist, and never
> afterwards. This has
> never raised any eyebrows.
Never really used the feature.
>
> Taking track parameters would account for that one too,
> actually. Say you
> have a master segment where the highest playable note is
> two Cs above the
> staff, and you link it for an instrument where the highest
> playable note is an
> octave and a third lower than that. Take the
> highest/lowest playable notes
> from track parameters in effect on that track, and when you
> open this segment
> in notation, it will flag the fact that your part sounding
> as written does not
> work on the target instrument without modification.
> (In which case the user
> would have to make the linked copy into a permanent real
> copy (cf. the double-
> click to turn repeat segments into real segments procedure)
> and then doctor up
> the part to bring it into the usable range of the target
> instrument).
>
> > I see the potential here for more than the initial
> request, and I think the
> > avenue of altering the pitch is worth exploring,
> I'm just having a bit of
> > trouble imagining a clean interface for this.
>
> To underline what I'm getting at, this whole line of
> thought here doesn't
> involve *any* new interface.
>
> We could probably get into some questions like whether to
> play the part at the
> original pitch or transpose it suitably relative to track
> parameters, but this
> could probably just be an options dialog that appears when
> creating the link.
> You link from a flute segment to a bassoon, it detects the
> clef difference and
> asks whether to "maintain current pitch" or "transpose into
> suitable register"
> or what have you. It could be pretty nearly the same
> code that already exists
> for doing this job when you perform a clef change, with the
> same options. We
> could probably recycle 80% of that dialog, actually.
> --
I can see the potential of asking for this kind of conversion, but I thought
you wanted a to control this pitch transposition on a per sym-link segment
basis.
...
Example:
Say I create a source sym-link. 1 measure of 4/4
it has four quarter notes C E G C (C major arpeggio).
Now lets say I wanted to uses this a as the basis of a 12 measure blues
progression.
I I I I IV IV I I V IV I IV
C C C C F F C C G F C F
I would convert the segment into a symlink source segment then paste it 11
times (for a total of 12 measures).
Next I double-click on measure 5 of the progression and tell it to transpose
that segment +5 semi-tones (an F major chord)
Do the same for measure 6, 10, 11 of the progression.
Now double click on measure 10 of the progression and tell it to transpose +7
semi-tones (an G major chord).
...
That example was the kind of thing I initially thought you were talking about.
That way if I decide to change the source sym-link segment to C Eb G C. I get
C minor, F minor, G minor chords for the transposed sym-links.
But it sounds like you are more concerned about honoring the expected range for
the instrument and the clef. Those are honorable things to consider, but I
thought you wanted finer granularity than that.
Maybe I read too much into an earlier post.
Sincerely,
Julie S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
