Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

Very good to know. Thank you!

On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 8:50 AM, D. Michael McIntyre
 wrote:
> On 04/11/2016 04:13 PM, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
>
>>> I *might* download and compile it
>
> As of revision 14597, working with your Unnamed.rg file:
>
> When you find the whole notes that are too big for their measures, you
> can select them and Adjust -> Notes... -> Tie Notes at Barlines
>
> When you find those three notes that are supposed to be in a separate
> voice, you can select them and Segment -> New Layer From Selection
>
> This creates a new segment with the same properties as the current
> working segment, cuts the notes out of the original, pastes them into
> the new segment at the same place.  They don't seem to move at all,
> etc., and just change places.  All I ended up doing was just stringing
> together a bunch of off-the-shelf stuff in a new and time-saving way.  I
> folded together bits of code lifted from several places, and got it
> knocked together in a couple of hours.
>
> There some issues with the new function I just added.
>
> * If you undo this operation, the notes move back where they came from,
> but the new segment remains.  I don't know how to solve that, so I left
> the loose end for someone else to attack one of these days.
>
> * The rests come out just looking like hell.  Rosegarden doesn't really
> handle this overall situation very well at all.  It's a hacky kludge
> more than a real feature, and it always has been.  I've been dealing
> with it for years, because fixing it properly would be a very large
> undertaking.  One day I want to improve the way Rosegarden deals with
> rests and such in alternative voice segments, but that is a big project,
> and I have bite sized chunks of time.
>
> * I haven't made up an icon for the thing yet.
> --
> D. Michael McIntyre
>
> --
> Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
> Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
> your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
> reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/11/2016 04:13 PM, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:

>> I *might* download and compile it

As of revision 14597, working with your Unnamed.rg file:

When you find the whole notes that are too big for their measures, you 
can select them and Adjust -> Notes... -> Tie Notes at Barlines

When you find those three notes that are supposed to be in a separate 
voice, you can select them and Segment -> New Layer From Selection

This creates a new segment with the same properties as the current 
working segment, cuts the notes out of the original, pastes them into 
the new segment at the same place.  They don't seem to move at all, 
etc., and just change places.  All I ended up doing was just stringing 
together a bunch of off-the-shelf stuff in a new and time-saving way.  I 
folded together bits of code lifted from several places, and got it 
knocked together in a couple of hours.

There some issues with the new function I just added.

* If you undo this operation, the notes move back where they came from, 
but the new segment remains.  I don't know how to solve that, so I left 
the loose end for someone else to attack one of these days.

* The rests come out just looking like hell.  Rosegarden doesn't really 
handle this overall situation very well at all.  It's a hacky kludge 
more than a real feature, and it always has been.  I've been dealing 
with it for years, because fixing it properly would be a very large 
undertaking.  One day I want to improve the way Rosegarden deals with 
rests and such in alternative voice segments, but that is a big project, 
and I have bite sized chunks of time.

* I haven't made up an icon for the thing yet.
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial!
https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/302982198;130105516;z
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/11/2016 07:09 AM, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:

> So this tie notes at bars thing does work, but these 4-beat notes in a
> 2-beat bar are a case it does not handle.  Looks like it has been that
> way about 15 years.

I got that one dealt with.  If you ever end up in this situation again, 
you can select all those whole notes in 2/4 time and Adjust -> Notes... 
-> Tie Notes at Barlines now.

As a nice bonus, the next time you change from 4/4 to 2/4 you won't even 
have to run this manually.  The underlying function was already being 
called in this scenario, but it didn't handle this case correctly.  It 
does now.

After manually fixing the whole notes in your file, I changed the time 
signature to 1/4 and immediately got four tied quarter notes, one per bar.

Perfect.

Well there you go.  Removing one = sign went a very long way this time!

-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[ram]

> On Apr 10, 2016 23:07, Silas Mortimer  wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, chuck elliot
>>  wrote:
>> > Actually there are devices that do this. I have a Roland GI 10
>> > guitar/midi interface which is basically a real time pitch to midi
>> > converter. It handles pitch bend too and does an impressive job
>> > without too much delay and glitches. Paired with a midi sound module,
>> > you can (in theory) play any instrument using the guitar as the input
>> > device. Whether this is effective or not depends on the nature of the
>> > target instrument; wind instruments work pretty well but piano say
>> > is harder to mimic in terms of playing style.
>>
>> That is excellent! I shall have to save up for that.
>
> My church band's former lead guitarist had a guitar MIDI setup with stomp
> box synthesizer. Got some great string sounds out of it. And it picked up
> bends and the whammy bar on his Strat.
>
> Jerry Garcia used a guitar MIDI setup (built into his custom-built
> guitars). So did Al Di Meola, running it into a Classic Mac that sat there
> on stage with him. Saw it in a solo performance of his televised ages ago.
>
> Apparently these things have been around a long time.
>
> David W. Jones
> gn...@hawaii.rr.com
> authenticity, honesty, community
> http://dancingtreefrog.com
>

You are right.  I remember these things from when I was a young man and
I'm an old man now.  On Linux you can set up a pitch to MIDI converter in
AMS (ALSA Modular Synthesizer) and  a MIDI output envelope tracker,
without too much trouble.  Or, you can output the pitch and envelope
information as a control voltage (CV) if you have a DC coupled soundcard 
(usually those are the really really cheap ones) and use that to control
an analog synthesizer with a guitar as the controller.

Once you start coupling innovative controllers with AMS and Rosegarden and
perhaps back the other way also, things get really interesting and
creative.
Have fun!




--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/11/2016 05:06 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> Thank you very much for the information! And I definitely won't be
> leaving Rosegarden any time soon. I'm really having fun with this.

You caught me at a better time than most new users do.  It's not often I 
can get work done this close to somebody having a problem.

So this tie notes at bars thing does work, but these 4-beat notes in a 
2-beat bar are a case it does not handle.  Looks like it has been that 
way about 15 years.

-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[David Jones]

On Apr 10, 2016 23:07, Silas Mortimer  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, chuck elliot 
>  wrote: 
> > Actually there are devices that do this. I have a Roland GI 10 
> > guitar/midi interface which is basically a real time pitch to midi 
> > converter. It handles pitch bend too and does an impressive job 
> > without too much delay and glitches. Paired with a midi sound module, 
> > you can (in theory) play any instrument using the guitar as the input 
> > device. Whether this is effective or not depends on the nature of the 
> > target instrument; wind instruments work pretty well but piano say 
> > is harder to mimic in terms of playing style. 
>
> That is excellent! I shall have to save up for that. 

My church band's former lead guitarist had a guitar MIDI setup with stomp box 
synthesizer. Got some great string sounds out of it. And it picked up bends and 
the whammy bar on his Strat.

Jerry Garcia used a guitar MIDI setup (built into his custom-built guitars). So 
did Al Di Meola, running it into a Classic Mac that sat there on stage with 
him. Saw it in a solo performance of his televised ages ago.

Apparently these things have been around a long time.

David W. Jones
gn...@hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com
--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 5:46 AM, chuck elliot
 wrote:
> Actually there are devices that do this. I have a Roland GI 10
> guitar/midi interface which is basically a real time pitch to midi
> converter. It handles pitch bend too and does an impressive job
> without too much delay and glitches. Paired with a midi sound module,
> you can (in theory) play any instrument using the guitar as the input
> device. Whether this is effective or not depends on the nature of the
> target instrument; wind instruments work pretty well but piano say
> is harder to mimic in terms of playing style.

That is excellent! I shall have to save up for that.

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/07/2016 07:00 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> I don't mind sending it here.

I'm going to address the "Tie Notes at Barlines" thing not working 
directly.  By the look of things, this has been broken for a very long 
time, and it looks to be a little adventure to sort this out.

The place where you experienced the weirdness with the tied notes not 
behaving as you expected is because you are trying to put two different 
voices on the same staff.  Finale, Sibelius, and MusE Score can't do 
that either.

In the top voice, you have:

2-4-4-4-4-

In the bottom voice, you have:

2-4 4 4 4-

The notes in the bottom voice can't be tied, because they change 
pitches.  This kind of figure is extremely common in guitar music with a 
walking bass line.

To get this kind of thing entered correctly, you have to put each voice 
in a different segment, and overlap them.

This tutorial is very old, but the gist of it is still applicable today:

http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/tutorials/supplemental/piano/

We have some new features that are supposed to make the job easier, but 
I just tried them, and I am not happy.  I made a feature request for a 
"Move selection to new layer" function that will automate a lot of the 
hand work and simplify this process.

Now I just need to go write the code!

You may as well hang out until I work on these issues.

-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[chuck elliot]

Actually there are devices that do this. I have a Roland GI 10
guitar/midi interface which is basically a real time pitch to midi
converter. It handles pitch bend too and does an impressive job
without too much delay and glitches. Paired with a midi sound module,
you can (in theory) play any instrument using the guitar as the input
device. Whether this is effective or not depends on the nature of the
target instrument; wind instruments work pretty well but piano say
is harder to mimic in terms of playing style.

Regards,
CE.


http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/jun95/rolandg110.html





On Sun, 2016-04-10 at 06:20 -0400, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> On 04/09/2016 06:22 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
> 
> > Can it cover bends and vibrato on an electric guitar?
>  >
> > Unless things have changed or I simply missed how to do it, these can
> > be put in a score for electric guitar, but MIDI can't do it. Am I
> > wrong?
> 
> I'm not aware of anything that could generate the controllers for that 
> kind of thing automatically, but if you put enough care and attention 
> into it, you can probably simulate both techniques adequately using 
> pitch bend controllers.  If nothing else, you can use MIDI to trigger 
> samples, therefore MIDI can reproduce literally anything.
> 
> This kind of nuanced expression requires a great deal of hand work, but 
> MIDI can do it.
> 
> Having done it both ways, I find it much easier to play the thing than 
> to fake it with MIDI.  This is why I bought an electric guitar, actually.
> 
> > Thank you very much. I'm in no hurry. Good luck dealing with the job.
> 
> I lived through my career as a gasoline tanker driver.  It is finished.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/09/2016 06:22 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> Can it cover bends and vibrato on an electric guitar?
 >
> Unless things have changed or I simply missed how to do it, these can
> be put in a score for electric guitar, but MIDI can't do it. Am I
> wrong?

I'm not aware of anything that could generate the controllers for that 
kind of thing automatically, but if you put enough care and attention 
into it, you can probably simulate both techniques adequately using 
pitch bend controllers.  If nothing else, you can use MIDI to trigger 
samples, therefore MIDI can reproduce literally anything.

This kind of nuanced expression requires a great deal of hand work, but 
MIDI can do it.

Having done it both ways, I find it much easier to play the thing than 
to fake it with MIDI.  This is why I bought an electric guitar, actually.

> Thank you very much. I'm in no hurry. Good luck dealing with the job.

I lived through my career as a gasoline tanker driver.  It is finished.
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

Going to try inline. Last time I tried it (a while back), Gmail didn't
handle it all that well.

On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 5:08 PM, D. Michael McIntyre
 wrote:
> On 04/09/2016 03:13 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>
>
>  >> Perhaps another limitation regarding scoring sequencer music are the
>  >> limitations of MIDI? Are there MIDI standard events for everything a
>  >> music score can convey?
>
>> I don't think there are MIDI standard events for everything, because I
>> know you can't use a guitar or guitar-like instrument to input MIDI.
>
> After thinking it over for awhile, I concluded that MIDI can be bent to
> cover virtually everything you can notate on a score, and I also
> concluded that scores are limited in what they can convey.  How do you
> notate for a didgeridoo or an Acme siren whistle?  How do you reproduce
> either of these expressive monophonic instruments meaningfully with MIDI?

Can it cover bends and vibrato on an electric guitar? That's what I
remember it not doing well. I know a keyboard can use a pitch shifter,
but I don't know if the score to show that is the same. An example of
what I'm talking about:

http://www.writing-music.com/images/product-032.jpg

Unless things have changed or I simply missed how to do it, these can
be put in a score for electric guitar, but MIDI can't do it. Am I
wrong?

> This puts me in the mood to compose a piece for siren whistle and
> didgeridoo.

I would LOVE to see/hear that, lol.

> (I have your .rg file and will have an opportunity to go through it with
> you tomorrow.  I'll show you how to paint yourself out of those corners
> you found yourself in.  I had hoped to get there sooner, but they are
> really putting the screws to me my last few days of work at this job.
> They are bitter and angry that I am exiting stage left and moving on.
> Two more loads, and then I am done with the fuel business.)

Thank you very much. I'm in no hurry. Good luck dealing with the job.

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

I don't think there are MIDI standard events for everything, because I
know you can't use a guitar or guitar-like instrument to input MIDI.
Well, I saw a machine a long time ago, but you couldn't play the
guitar like a guitar, if that makes sense. For instance, no bends.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 11:49 PM, david  wrote:
> That is a great analogy.
>
> I would also say that music notation is fundamentally visual, not audio
> or sequential. Musicians reading a score aren't necessarily going "note
> by note" anymore than the typical person reading text reads "letter by
> letter". I guess sequencers aren't quite up to the human visual system's
> powerful processing!
>
> Perhaps another limitation regarding scoring sequencer music are the
> limitations of MIDI? Are there MIDI standard events for everything a
> music score can convey?
>
> On 04/08/2016 06:30 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>> That makes a lot of sense.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Lorenzo Sutton  
>> wrote:
>>> As I already said this is really a bit of a conundrum
>>> I think a good analogy would be imagine writing in a word processor
>>> (e.g. Writer) or typesetting system (e.g. Latex) VS. trying to feed what
>>> you wrote to a Text To Speech (TTS) engine/system able of rendering the
>>> text you write as if it were a professional actress.
>>>
>>> Feed plain text to a text to speech and it will sound like... well text
>>> to speech, if you want to add articulations etc. you have to 'break' the
>>> plain text with some sort of semantics (markup), or invest a lot in some
>>> sort of interpretation engine which can also do linguistic analysis.
>>>
>>> That kind of thing gets magnitudes more complicated with music..
>>>
>>> But after all, notation is really made for humans, while the matrix
>>> editor (or even the event list editor) is much more similar (if still
>>> high-level) to what you would feed to a machine (by the way the matrix
>>> editor is called "piano roll" in some applications for a reason, so
>>> 'machine' is not necessarily a computer).
>>>
>>> Well well always very interesting discussions on the RG mailing list :)
>>>
>>> On 08/04/2016 15:19, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
 On 04/07/2016 07:04 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> If I might ask, because I've been wondering about this, what makes
> doing notation so difficult?

 I think the root of it is because notation is a very analog,
 infinitely-variable kind of thing that is difficult to represent and
 manipulate in an orderly digital world.

 I have probably over 1,000 pages of commercially published sheet music
 for various instruments sitting around in my house, and it probably
 wouldn't take me 30 seconds to find a score that Rosegarden can't be
 used to reproduce.  It would probably take me more on the order of 30
 minutes to find a score that Rosegarden CAN reproduce exactly like the
 original, with no compromises.  I would probably have to pull that out
 of some basic band method book too.

 Notation is difficult, because of the amount of effort that would be
 required to address any random one of a hundred different scenarios I
 could come up with that Rosegarden doesn't know how to handle.

 Kneed beams.  How the hell would we ever make kneed beams work without
 seriously rethinking everything from the ground up?  I have utterly no 
 idea.

 Anacrusis is something I've banged on off and on for years, and we still
 can't really handle it probably, or get it exported to LilyPond
 properly.  Close, but not really a cigar.  I have a trumpet method book
 with 1,000 pages of stuff Rosegarden can't handle.  It's basic, common
 stuff that's hard to work out how to achieve in a notation editor
 grafted onto a MIDI sequencer.

 After 15 years of this, I could go on for days, Silas.  Doing notation
 on top of a sequencer is borderline insanity, but it's a crazy kind of
 fun to challenge the limits of what is possible, even if it isn't smart
 or practical.

 The true notation editors like MusE Score and Finale (they work directly
 with notes and lines and staffs instead of MIDI) have an easier time
 with a great many of these problems, but they face their own nightmares.
 Those things are especially weak when it comes to rendering imperfect
 human performances on a page.  I've seen absolutely nothing on any
 platform in close to 30 years of computer music that could produce a
 playable sheet of music without a considerable amount of fiddling around
 to tweak all the glitches.

 I'm pretty sure if that magic button could be written, it would be on
 the market by now, and would probably cost $10,000 a copy.
>
>
> --
> David W. Jones
> gn...@hawaii.rr.com
> authenticity, honesty, community
> http://dancingtreefrog.com
>
> 

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[david]

That is a great analogy.

I would also say that music notation is fundamentally visual, not audio 
or sequential. Musicians reading a score aren't necessarily going "note 
by note" anymore than the typical person reading text reads "letter by 
letter". I guess sequencers aren't quite up to the human visual system's 
powerful processing!

Perhaps another limitation regarding scoring sequencer music are the 
limitations of MIDI? Are there MIDI standard events for everything a 
music score can convey?

On 04/08/2016 06:30 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
> That makes a lot of sense.
>
> On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Lorenzo Sutton  
> wrote:
>> As I already said this is really a bit of a conundrum
>> I think a good analogy would be imagine writing in a word processor
>> (e.g. Writer) or typesetting system (e.g. Latex) VS. trying to feed what
>> you wrote to a Text To Speech (TTS) engine/system able of rendering the
>> text you write as if it were a professional actress.
>>
>> Feed plain text to a text to speech and it will sound like... well text
>> to speech, if you want to add articulations etc. you have to 'break' the
>> plain text with some sort of semantics (markup), or invest a lot in some
>> sort of interpretation engine which can also do linguistic analysis.
>>
>> That kind of thing gets magnitudes more complicated with music..
>>
>> But after all, notation is really made for humans, while the matrix
>> editor (or even the event list editor) is much more similar (if still
>> high-level) to what you would feed to a machine (by the way the matrix
>> editor is called "piano roll" in some applications for a reason, so
>> 'machine' is not necessarily a computer).
>>
>> Well well always very interesting discussions on the RG mailing list :)
>>
>> On 08/04/2016 15:19, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
>>> On 04/07/2016 07:04 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>>>
 If I might ask, because I've been wondering about this, what makes
 doing notation so difficult?
>>>
>>> I think the root of it is because notation is a very analog,
>>> infinitely-variable kind of thing that is difficult to represent and
>>> manipulate in an orderly digital world.
>>>
>>> I have probably over 1,000 pages of commercially published sheet music
>>> for various instruments sitting around in my house, and it probably
>>> wouldn't take me 30 seconds to find a score that Rosegarden can't be
>>> used to reproduce.  It would probably take me more on the order of 30
>>> minutes to find a score that Rosegarden CAN reproduce exactly like the
>>> original, with no compromises.  I would probably have to pull that out
>>> of some basic band method book too.
>>>
>>> Notation is difficult, because of the amount of effort that would be
>>> required to address any random one of a hundred different scenarios I
>>> could come up with that Rosegarden doesn't know how to handle.
>>>
>>> Kneed beams.  How the hell would we ever make kneed beams work without
>>> seriously rethinking everything from the ground up?  I have utterly no idea.
>>>
>>> Anacrusis is something I've banged on off and on for years, and we still
>>> can't really handle it probably, or get it exported to LilyPond
>>> properly.  Close, but not really a cigar.  I have a trumpet method book
>>> with 1,000 pages of stuff Rosegarden can't handle.  It's basic, common
>>> stuff that's hard to work out how to achieve in a notation editor
>>> grafted onto a MIDI sequencer.
>>>
>>> After 15 years of this, I could go on for days, Silas.  Doing notation
>>> on top of a sequencer is borderline insanity, but it's a crazy kind of
>>> fun to challenge the limits of what is possible, even if it isn't smart
>>> or practical.
>>>
>>> The true notation editors like MusE Score and Finale (they work directly
>>> with notes and lines and staffs instead of MIDI) have an easier time
>>> with a great many of these problems, but they face their own nightmares.
>>> Those things are especially weak when it comes to rendering imperfect
>>> human performances on a page.  I've seen absolutely nothing on any
>>> platform in close to 30 years of computer music that could produce a
>>> playable sheet of music without a considerable amount of fiddling around
>>> to tweak all the glitches.
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure if that magic button could be written, it would be on
>>> the market by now, and would probably cost $10,000 a copy.


-- 
David W. Jones
gn...@hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
http://dancingtreefrog.com

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/08/2016 12:29 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> Not that I think we should abandon the old way by any means, but maybe
> there ought to be a notation 2.0, completely reworked to be an easy
> learning curve for those who already know the old notation, but make
> more sense to coding. I wonder if that's even possible.

There are all kinds of strange little projects out there already, but 
nothing ever gains enough traction to displace traditional notation. 
For that matter, I think and deal with western traditional notation 
exclusively, but there are other traditions that are of a similar age.

It reminds me of this cartoon about standards:

https://xkcd.com/927/

Reading back over my previous comments, I'd like to point out that all 
of those pages and pages of things Rosegarden can't render always come 
down to just a bar here and a bar there.  I've worked out a lot of ways 
to fake my way around things like this over the years, and usually get 
something done, but not without compromises.  Even LilyPond, vast and 
venerable as it is, still requires compromises sometimes.  People could 
engrave literally anything on a music plate back in the day, and they did!

> You know, I say that I'm completely new to composing on a computer,
> but that's not *quite* true. In the days of DOS, I remember creating a
> BASIC file that would play some notes using computer beeps, lol. I
> remember doing Slayer's "War Ensemble" that way and it was hilarious.
> Just a random thought.

The first program I used to compose computer music had four voices of 
polyphony, and no real control over what the voices sounded like.  I 
typed it out of a Rainbow magazine, and it took hours.  You composed 
melodies on a vertical grid, by typing pitches at the right time 
intervals.  It was just like a MOD tracker in that respect, but way 
before MOD files existed.

Things have come a long way!
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
Find and fix application performance issues faster with Applications Manager
Applications Manager provides deep performance insights into multiple tiers of
your business applications. It resolves application problems quickly and
reduces your MTTR. Get your free trial! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/
gampad/clk?id=1444514301=/ca-pub-7940484522588532
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

That makes a lot of sense.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Lorenzo Sutton  wrote:
> As I already said this is really a bit of a conundrum
> I think a good analogy would be imagine writing in a word processor
> (e.g. Writer) or typesetting system (e.g. Latex) VS. trying to feed what
> you wrote to a Text To Speech (TTS) engine/system able of rendering the
> text you write as if it were a professional actress.
>
> Feed plain text to a text to speech and it will sound like... well text
> to speech, if you want to add articulations etc. you have to 'break' the
> plain text with some sort of semantics (markup), or invest a lot in some
> sort of interpretation engine which can also do linguistic analysis.
>
> That kind of thing gets magnitudes more complicated with music..
>
> But after all, notation is really made for humans, while the matrix
> editor (or even the event list editor) is much more similar (if still
> high-level) to what you would feed to a machine (by the way the matrix
> editor is called "piano roll" in some applications for a reason, so
> 'machine' is not necessarily a computer).
>
> Well well always very interesting discussions on the RG mailing list :)
>
> On 08/04/2016 15:19, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
>> On 04/07/2016 07:04 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>>
>>> If I might ask, because I've been wondering about this, what makes
>>> doing notation so difficult?
>>
>> I think the root of it is because notation is a very analog,
>> infinitely-variable kind of thing that is difficult to represent and
>> manipulate in an orderly digital world.
>>
>> I have probably over 1,000 pages of commercially published sheet music
>> for various instruments sitting around in my house, and it probably
>> wouldn't take me 30 seconds to find a score that Rosegarden can't be
>> used to reproduce.  It would probably take me more on the order of 30
>> minutes to find a score that Rosegarden CAN reproduce exactly like the
>> original, with no compromises.  I would probably have to pull that out
>> of some basic band method book too.
>>
>> Notation is difficult, because of the amount of effort that would be
>> required to address any random one of a hundred different scenarios I
>> could come up with that Rosegarden doesn't know how to handle.
>>
>> Kneed beams.  How the hell would we ever make kneed beams work without
>> seriously rethinking everything from the ground up?  I have utterly no idea.
>>
>> Anacrusis is something I've banged on off and on for years, and we still
>> can't really handle it probably, or get it exported to LilyPond
>> properly.  Close, but not really a cigar.  I have a trumpet method book
>> with 1,000 pages of stuff Rosegarden can't handle.  It's basic, common
>> stuff that's hard to work out how to achieve in a notation editor
>> grafted onto a MIDI sequencer.
>>
>> After 15 years of this, I could go on for days, Silas.  Doing notation
>> on top of a sequencer is borderline insanity, but it's a crazy kind of
>> fun to challenge the limits of what is possible, even if it isn't smart
>> or practical.
>>
>> The true notation editors like MusE Score and Finale (they work directly
>> with notes and lines and staffs instead of MIDI) have an easier time
>> with a great many of these problems, but they face their own nightmares.
>>Those things are especially weak when it comes to rendering imperfect
>> human performances on a page.  I've seen absolutely nothing on any
>> platform in close to 30 years of computer music that could produce a
>> playable sheet of music without a considerable amount of fiddling around
>> to tweak all the glitches.
>>
>> I'm pretty sure if that magic button could be written, it would be on
>> the market by now, and would probably cost $10,000 a copy.
>>
>
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

I can definitely believe it, I just didn't see it before you explained
it. It makes sense.

Not that I think we should abandon the old way by any means, but maybe
there ought to be a notation 2.0, completely reworked to be an easy
learning curve for those who already know the old notation, but make
more sense to coding. I wonder if that's even possible.

You know, I say that I'm completely new to composing on a computer,
but that's not *quite* true. In the days of DOS, I remember creating a
BASIC file that would play some notes using computer beeps, lol. I
remember doing Slayer's "War Ensemble" that way and it was hilarious.
Just a random thought.

On Fri, Apr 8, 2016 at 8:19 AM, D. Michael McIntyre
 wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 07:04 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>
>> If I might ask, because I've been wondering about this, what makes
>> doing notation so difficult?
>
> I think the root of it is because notation is a very analog,
> infinitely-variable kind of thing that is difficult to represent and
> manipulate in an orderly digital world.
>
> I have probably over 1,000 pages of commercially published sheet music
> for various instruments sitting around in my house, and it probably
> wouldn't take me 30 seconds to find a score that Rosegarden can't be
> used to reproduce.  It would probably take me more on the order of 30
> minutes to find a score that Rosegarden CAN reproduce exactly like the
> original, with no compromises.  I would probably have to pull that out
> of some basic band method book too.
>
> Notation is difficult, because of the amount of effort that would be
> required to address any random one of a hundred different scenarios I
> could come up with that Rosegarden doesn't know how to handle.
>
> Kneed beams.  How the hell would we ever make kneed beams work without
> seriously rethinking everything from the ground up?  I have utterly no idea.
>
> Anacrusis is something I've banged on off and on for years, and we still
> can't really handle it probably, or get it exported to LilyPond
> properly.  Close, but not really a cigar.  I have a trumpet method book
> with 1,000 pages of stuff Rosegarden can't handle.  It's basic, common
> stuff that's hard to work out how to achieve in a notation editor
> grafted onto a MIDI sequencer.
>
> After 15 years of this, I could go on for days, Silas.  Doing notation
> on top of a sequencer is borderline insanity, but it's a crazy kind of
> fun to challenge the limits of what is possible, even if it isn't smart
> or practical.
>
> The true notation editors like MusE Score and Finale (they work directly
> with notes and lines and staffs instead of MIDI) have an easier time
> with a great many of these problems, but they face their own nightmares.
>   Those things are especially weak when it comes to rendering imperfect
> human performances on a page.  I've seen absolutely nothing on any
> platform in close to 30 years of computer music that could produce a
> playable sheet of music without a considerable amount of fiddling around
> to tweak all the glitches.
>
> I'm pretty sure if that magic button could be written, it would be on
> the market by now, and would probably cost $10,000 a copy.
>
> --
> D. Michael McIntyre
>
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/07/2016 07:04 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> If I might ask, because I've been wondering about this, what makes
> doing notation so difficult?

I think the root of it is because notation is a very analog, 
infinitely-variable kind of thing that is difficult to represent and 
manipulate in an orderly digital world.

I have probably over 1,000 pages of commercially published sheet music 
for various instruments sitting around in my house, and it probably 
wouldn't take me 30 seconds to find a score that Rosegarden can't be 
used to reproduce.  It would probably take me more on the order of 30 
minutes to find a score that Rosegarden CAN reproduce exactly like the 
original, with no compromises.  I would probably have to pull that out 
of some basic band method book too.

Notation is difficult, because of the amount of effort that would be 
required to address any random one of a hundred different scenarios I 
could come up with that Rosegarden doesn't know how to handle.

Kneed beams.  How the hell would we ever make kneed beams work without 
seriously rethinking everything from the ground up?  I have utterly no idea.

Anacrusis is something I've banged on off and on for years, and we still 
can't really handle it probably, or get it exported to LilyPond 
properly.  Close, but not really a cigar.  I have a trumpet method book 
with 1,000 pages of stuff Rosegarden can't handle.  It's basic, common 
stuff that's hard to work out how to achieve in a notation editor 
grafted onto a MIDI sequencer.

After 15 years of this, I could go on for days, Silas.  Doing notation 
on top of a sequencer is borderline insanity, but it's a crazy kind of 
fun to challenge the limits of what is possible, even if it isn't smart 
or practical.

The true notation editors like MusE Score and Finale (they work directly 
with notes and lines and staffs instead of MIDI) have an easier time 
with a great many of these problems, but they face their own nightmares. 
  Those things are especially weak when it comes to rendering imperfect 
human performances on a page.  I've seen absolutely nothing on any 
platform in close to 30 years of computer music that could produce a 
playable sheet of music without a considerable amount of fiddling around 
to tweak all the glitches.

I'm pretty sure if that magic button could be written, it would be on 
the market by now, and would probably cost $10,000 a copy.

-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/07/2016 07:00 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> I don't mind sending it here.

Got it, and took a quick look.  I need to take a more detailed look to 
figure out what's going on here, and I will have to come back to this 
tomorrow.  Everything is fixable though.  No worries.

-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Martin Tarenskeen]

>>> My understanding of notation is that a whole note is a whole measure.

Only in 4/4 or 2/2 time that is.

I would like to add that a whole REST can mean a whole measure, even if 
time is not 4/4, if the rest is placed in the middle of an otherwise empty 
bar! I have not tried if RG knows this.

-- 

MT

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Lorenzo Sutton]

On 07/04/2016 21:15, Silas Mortimer wrote:
> I should start doing that.
>
> Anyway, as I said before, I had to make the time signature 2/4, which
> would make a whole note of four beats span two measures. I know it's
> weird, but I started composing the piece on guitar and wound up having
> trouble finding the right signature before finding that 2/4 worked
> really well. Though now that I have a good portion of it down, I
> should be able to come up with a better signature.

Obviously I don't know the piece, but if you are using whole (semibreve 
- 4/4) notes, why not switch to 4/4? While there *is* a difference 
between 2/4 and 4/4 the fact you are using whole notes makes me guess 
you are actually "thinking in fours".

Anyway, as David says notation-wise if are in 2/4 and want a note to 
last 4/4 what you write is two tied minim notes (2/4).

>
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:31 PM, David Jones  wrote:
>> Hmmm, I use only the notation editor. My understanding of notation is that a 
>> whole note is a whole measure. So if I have a note to be held longer than a 
>> measure (say 3), I put a whole note in each measure and tie them together. 
>> Not make a dotted whole note to get a note that runs longer than a measure.
>>
>> Just my free contribution.
>>
>> David W. Jones
>> gn...@hawaii.rr.com
>> authenticity, honesty, community
>> http://dancingtreefrog.comOn Apr 7, 2016 02:37, Lorenzo Sutton 
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> On 07/04/2016 00:27, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
 One example is at one point I wanted to make a chord ring out
 longer than I'd originally put it and had already added notes after
 it. I searched for what I should do there, and from what I gather, I
 could only do that in the matrix editor. Is that the case? Anyway, I
 did it there, and the notation not only looks bad, it no longer makes
 sense. I think there might be a whole note listed in one bar (again,
 it's in 2/4), and there's something that should be tied, plays like
 it's tied, but it's not shown that way.
>>>
>>> I think that's expected and software can't really help you there.
>>>
>>> I guess this is the basic concept and conundrum of sequencer which (like
>>> rosegarden) also support notation: if the notation is 'perfect' from a
>>> visual/typesetting point of view it will sound mechanical from a
>>> performance point of view. The matrix editor (aka Piano Roll in some
>>> software) enables you to tweak notes so that e.g. they result more
>>> realistic but that will inevitably screw notation.
>>>
>>> Really, it's a conundrum in music itself. No one performs exactly what
>>> is written on a score (some contemporary music can be an exception), so
>>> imagine writing down on a score *exactly* what a performer is playing...
>>>
>>> Rosegarden actually does have some 'intelligence' when it comes to
>>> interpreting notation (e.g. dynamics), but it cannot 'imagine' what you
>>> would like especially in terms of note onsets and lengths.
>>>
>>> My recommendation would be to:
>>> a.) use notation for:
>>> 1. Inputting notes when you are familiar or more comfortable with
>>> traditional notation.
>>> 2. Want to concentrate on the notation aspects of your piece, e.g.
>>> because you want to eventually publish it.
>>>
>>> b.) Use the matrix editor when:
>>> 1. You want to concentrate on how your piece actually sounds.
>>> 2. You become familiar enough with the matrix paradigm to be able to
>>> input notes directly there.
>>> 3. Adjust at the fine level not onsets, durations, velocities etc.
>>>
>>> To conclude, take into account that some sequencers simply do not
>>> provide notation, so think of Rosegarden as a sequencer with a (very
>>> advanced compared to many sequencers) support for notation  ;)
>>>
>>> Hope this helps.
>>> Lorenzo.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ___
>>> Rosegarden-user mailing list
>>> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
>> --
>> ___
>> Rosegarden-user mailing list
>> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
>
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
>

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the 

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Lorenzo Sutton]

On 07/04/2016 17:55, D. Michael McIntyre wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 10:44 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>
>> do that and then use shortcuts in LilyPond to "clean it up" visually?
>> To be specific, what I'm asking is if LilyPond has ways of easily
>> fixing problems like my first example.
>
> The LilyPond export engine is very much GIGO.  Garbage in, garbage out.
>If the notation is a mess in Rosegarden, it will be even worse in
> LilyPond.

Still I did do some pretty crazy piano notation in RG which I then 
exported and hacked in Lilypond. The great advantage of that was that 
having worked in Rosegarden I could also have a very nice rendering of 
the piano part.. So, as said I consider RG notation support (including 
Lilypond export) way above average compared to many (even commercial) 
sequencers... ;)

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

I was thinking so much about the attachment that I forgot to say thank
you. And that "Tie Notes at Bar Lines" was what I was looking for, but
I'm glad to know that it might not work, lol.

If I might ask, because I've been wondering about this, what makes
doing notation so difficult? I know, of course, that there are many
rules to notation regardless of how you do it, but it's so
mathematical that I just kind of assumed that this would be one of the
most trivial parts. Boy, was I wrong, lol. So yeah, what makes it so
hard?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:18 PM, D. Michael McIntyre
 wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 07:19 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>
>> Anyway, here's one example:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8p6zThp4KIdN2NyUXBRWHkxUHc/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> Red bar lines are Rosegarden's way of telling you that something is wrong.
> The measure does not count correctly, and this typically happens because it
> is too full.
>
> The automagic tool that's supposed to fix this kind of thing is Adjust ->
> Notes... -> Tie Notes at Bar Lines.
>
> I constructed a test example, and of course it isn't working at all! I'm not
> sure if that's a bug or my rusty understanding.
>
> So the next easiest way to go at this is to select the whole note and use
> Ctrl+2 to convert it into a half note.  Add another half note, select the
> pair, and tie them manually.  (You can also use Ctrl+Alt+2 to convert the
> whole note into a single half note with a performance duration of a whole
> note.  The note will sound for two full measures of 2/4 but it will only be
> written as one half note.  It may not be a good idea to have such an extreme
> difference between notation duration and performance duration, but it's an
> option.)
>
> If in doubt, erasing a bit of stuff and drawing that bit over again will get
> you around a lot of glitches.  Some glitches are your fault, some glitches
> are our fault.  Every time I get frustrated and think Rosegarden is a
> hopeless piece of crap, I go play with Sibelius or Finale.  Commercial
> software with years on us and presumably millions of dollars invested in
> development is only marginally better, and Rosegarden was built by rank
> amateurs.
>
>> Here's one more:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8p6zThp4KIdSmZOdUx3eWR4YVU/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> When notes are circled like that, you can interpret that to mean "there is
> something awfully weird here.  To do anything to resolve this one, I need
> the file you're working on.  (Send it directly to me if you're shy.)  Then I
> can look at what's what and sort it out.  I'll walk you through how I did
> what.
>
> --
> D. Michael McIntyre

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

I don't mind sending it here.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 4:18 PM, D. Michael McIntyre
 wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 07:19 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>
>> Anyway, here's one example:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8p6zThp4KIdN2NyUXBRWHkxUHc/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> Red bar lines are Rosegarden's way of telling you that something is wrong.
> The measure does not count correctly, and this typically happens because it
> is too full.
>
> The automagic tool that's supposed to fix this kind of thing is Adjust ->
> Notes... -> Tie Notes at Bar Lines.
>
> I constructed a test example, and of course it isn't working at all! I'm not
> sure if that's a bug or my rusty understanding.
>
> So the next easiest way to go at this is to select the whole note and use
> Ctrl+2 to convert it into a half note.  Add another half note, select the
> pair, and tie them manually.  (You can also use Ctrl+Alt+2 to convert the
> whole note into a single half note with a performance duration of a whole
> note.  The note will sound for two full measures of 2/4 but it will only be
> written as one half note.  It may not be a good idea to have such an extreme
> difference between notation duration and performance duration, but it's an
> option.)
>
> If in doubt, erasing a bit of stuff and drawing that bit over again will get
> you around a lot of glitches.  Some glitches are your fault, some glitches
> are our fault.  Every time I get frustrated and think Rosegarden is a
> hopeless piece of crap, I go play with Sibelius or Finale.  Commercial
> software with years on us and presumably millions of dollars invested in
> development is only marginally better, and Rosegarden was built by rank
> amateurs.
>
>> Here's one more:
>>
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8p6zThp4KIdSmZOdUx3eWR4YVU/view?usp=sharing
>
>
> When notes are circled like that, you can interpret that to mean "there is
> something awfully weird here.  To do anything to resolve this one, I need
> the file you're working on.  (Send it directly to me if you're shy.)  Then I
> can look at what's what and sort it out.  I'll walk you through how I did
> what.
>
> --
> D. Michael McIntyre


Unnamed.rg
Description: application/rosegarden-composition
--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

I should start doing that.

Anyway, as I said before, I had to make the time signature 2/4, which
would make a whole note of four beats span two measures. I know it's
weird, but I started composing the piece on guitar and wound up having
trouble finding the right signature before finding that 2/4 worked
really well. Though now that I have a good portion of it down, I
should be able to come up with a better signature.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:31 PM, David Jones  wrote:
> Hmmm, I use only the notation editor. My understanding of notation is that a 
> whole note is a whole measure. So if I have a note to be held longer than a 
> measure (say 3), I put a whole note in each measure and tie them together. 
> Not make a dotted whole note to get a note that runs longer than a measure.
>
> Just my free contribution.
>
> David W. Jones
> gn...@hawaii.rr.com
> authenticity, honesty, community
> http://dancingtreefrog.comOn Apr 7, 2016 02:37, Lorenzo Sutton 
>  wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 07/04/2016 00:27, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > One example is at one point I wanted to make a chord ring out
>> > longer than I'd originally put it and had already added notes after
>> > it. I searched for what I should do there, and from what I gather, I
>> > could only do that in the matrix editor. Is that the case? Anyway, I
>> > did it there, and the notation not only looks bad, it no longer makes
>> > sense. I think there might be a whole note listed in one bar (again,
>> > it's in 2/4), and there's something that should be tied, plays like
>> > it's tied, but it's not shown that way.
>>
>> I think that's expected and software can't really help you there.
>>
>> I guess this is the basic concept and conundrum of sequencer which (like
>> rosegarden) also support notation: if the notation is 'perfect' from a
>> visual/typesetting point of view it will sound mechanical from a
>> performance point of view. The matrix editor (aka Piano Roll in some
>> software) enables you to tweak notes so that e.g. they result more
>> realistic but that will inevitably screw notation.
>>
>> Really, it's a conundrum in music itself. No one performs exactly what
>> is written on a score (some contemporary music can be an exception), so
>> imagine writing down on a score *exactly* what a performer is playing...
>>
>> Rosegarden actually does have some 'intelligence' when it comes to
>> interpreting notation (e.g. dynamics), but it cannot 'imagine' what you
>> would like especially in terms of note onsets and lengths.
>>
>> My recommendation would be to:
>> a.) use notation for:
>> 1. Inputting notes when you are familiar or more comfortable with
>> traditional notation.
>> 2. Want to concentrate on the notation aspects of your piece, e.g.
>> because you want to eventually publish it.
>>
>> b.) Use the matrix editor when:
>> 1. You want to concentrate on how your piece actually sounds.
>> 2. You become familiar enough with the matrix paradigm to be able to
>> input notes directly there.
>> 3. Adjust at the fine level not onsets, durations, velocities etc.
>>
>> To conclude, take into account that some sequencers simply do not
>> provide notation, so think of Rosegarden as a sequencer with a (very
>> advanced compared to many sequencers) support for notation  ;)
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>> Lorenzo.
>>
>> --
>> ___
>> Rosegarden-user mailing list
>> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

I appreciate it. And it sounds like the game is good, lol.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:55 AM, D. Michael McIntyre
 wrote:
> On 04/07/2016 10:44 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>
>> do that and then use shortcuts in LilyPond to "clean it up" visually?
>> To be specific, what I'm asking is if LilyPond has ways of easily
>> fixing problems like my first example.
>
> The LilyPond export engine is very much GIGO.  Garbage in, garbage out.
>   If the notation is a mess in Rosegarden, it will be even worse in
> LilyPond.
>
> I started playing a game and stayed up way past my bedtime,
> so I don't have time to look at your examples just now.  I recognize the
> kind of growing pains you are experiencing, and when I get time to
> reply, I should be able to help you.  Just hang in there, and I'll get
> back to you within 24 hours.
> --
> D. Michael McIntyre
>
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

I did it again. Last time, Lorenzo, I promise.

So what I said:

Well, here's the problem: When I initially put the chord in, I made
the notes dotted whole notes, which made them span three measures.
And, now that I'm suddenly remembering what happened there, I
determined that a note BEFORE this chord needed to be longer, which
meant that I had to somehow move three measures worth of chord over to
start at the next measure. I realize that you can do this in the
matrix editor (in fact, that's the instance that drove me to look at
the matrix editor in the first place), but I was hoping to keep the
notation up with the piece as I went along, so I tried to do what I
could with the notation and wound up with what you see in the picture.

But THEN, something happened... I think maybe I had the erase tool
activated and forgot about that or something... I don't remember, but
whatever it was, either undoing didn't fix it or I didn't want to
undo. This removed the tie from that first half note to the quarter
note in the next measure. No problem, I figured, I can just select
them and tie them. Unfortunately, ever since then, it SHOWS the tie,
but it plays like it's not tied. Since I had worked out an earlier
problem (with this same chord) with the matrix editor, I tried that. I
get the same problem, though.

Might it be worth deleting the whole chord altogether and putting it
back in? At least in the matrix editor?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Lorenzo Sutton
 wrote:
> On 07/04/2016 16:39, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>> Oh, geez. It's been a long time since I've used a mailing list and I
>> sent my reply to Lorenzo personally. Thanks for your patience,
>> Lorenzo.
>
> Happy to help new RG users, it's the least one can do.. ;)
>
>>
>> Okay, here's what I said in the reply:
>>
>> Oh, it definitely does help. It's not a showstopper by any means. I
>> asked all of this mainly because a) I'm new to composing this way and
>> b) I figured it was messing up because of something *I* was doing
>> wrong and that there might be a way to fix it that for some reason *I*
>> wasn't finding. The only implied failings here are mine, trust me. If
>> this is just how it is, I'm fine with that.
>>
>> Still, though, in that second example, even in the matrix editor, I
>> can't get the chord to ring out instead of sounding twice. What am I
>> doing wrong there?
>
> Do you mean notes spanning multiple measures? My experience is that the
> matrix editor doesn't always handle well tied notes... Try making tied
> notes into longer notes (just 'pull' them with the mouse to the right)?
>
> Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the issue.
>
> Lorenzo.
>
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/07/2016 10:44 AM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> do that and then use shortcuts in LilyPond to "clean it up" visually?
> To be specific, what I'm asking is if LilyPond has ways of easily
> fixing problems like my first example.

The LilyPond export engine is very much GIGO.  Garbage in, garbage out. 
  If the notation is a mess in Rosegarden, it will be even worse in 
LilyPond.

I started playing a game and stayed up way past my bedtime, 
so I don't have time to look at your examples just now.  I recognize the 
kind of growing pains you are experiencing, and when I get time to 
reply, I should be able to help you.  Just hang in there, and I'll get 
back to you within 24 hours.
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/07/2016 08:37 AM, Lorenzo Sutton wrote:

> Rosegarden actually does have some 'intelligence' when it comes to
> interpreting notation (e.g. dynamics), but it cannot 'imagine' what you
> would like especially in terms of note onsets and lengths.

It also has totally separate durations and note timings for performance 
and notation purposes.  You can have something that plays swung but 
reads straight, for example.  You can have something that sounds like a 
bunch of weird multi-dotted notes interspersed with weird multi-dotted 
rests, yet reads very cleanly.

-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Lorenzo Sutton]

On 07/04/2016 16:39, Silas Mortimer wrote:
> Oh, geez. It's been a long time since I've used a mailing list and I
> sent my reply to Lorenzo personally. Thanks for your patience,
> Lorenzo.

Happy to help new RG users, it's the least one can do.. ;)

>
> Okay, here's what I said in the reply:
>
> Oh, it definitely does help. It's not a showstopper by any means. I
> asked all of this mainly because a) I'm new to composing this way and
> b) I figured it was messing up because of something *I* was doing
> wrong and that there might be a way to fix it that for some reason *I*
> wasn't finding. The only implied failings here are mine, trust me. If
> this is just how it is, I'm fine with that.
>
> Still, though, in that second example, even in the matrix editor, I
> can't get the chord to ring out instead of sounding twice. What am I
> doing wrong there?

Do you mean notes spanning multiple measures? My experience is that the 
matrix editor doesn't always handle well tied notes... Try making tied 
notes into longer notes (just 'pull' them with the mouse to the right)?

Or maybe I'm totally misunderstanding the issue.

Lorenzo.

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

Yeah, I'm getting a better sense of the whole thing through this
thread. I like that it allows me to input notation as I find it a LOT
easier to think in that than the matrix editor, which, despite getting
the gist of it and being able to make modifications in it, I don't
fully understand yet.

Let me ask this, as I also don't have experience with things like
LilyPond: I think I saw that I can export to LilyPond, right? Could I
do that and then use shortcuts in LilyPond to "clean it up" visually?
To be specific, what I'm asking is if LilyPond has ways of easily
fixing problems like my first example.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 9:33 AM, David Tisdell  wrote:
> You could focus on how the piece sounds and when you have it the way you
> want, make a duplicate and clean it up from a notation point of view. For
> notation, I would just use a fermata where the matrix editor is messing with
> the notation.
> I love the fact that RG is a musical swiss army knife but that does, as
> Lorenzo pointed out, introduce trade offs. If you want the best out of the
> sequencer and the notation editor, I would make 2 files.
>
> Dave
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Silas Mortimer 
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi. I'm not only new to Rosegarden, I'm new to computer composing
>> beyond using guitarix/Hydrogen/Ardour for recording. I've been working
>> on a piece and learning bit by bit as I go along. Of course, this
>> means that I'm making a lot of mistakes as I go.
>>
>> The trouble winds up in the notation editor. By the time I'm done
>> fixing whatever needs to be fixed in what I previously did, the
>> notation is left looking terrible, lol. Not *really* the software's
>> fault, but I would think that there might be a way to, oh, I don't
>> know, hit a button or menu item that would reformat the entire thing
>> to be a little more elegant and/or make sense?
>>
>> What I'm currently writing is in 2/4 time, in the D melodic minor
>> scale. One example is at one point I wanted to make a chord ring out
>> longer than I'd originally put it and had already added notes after
>> it. I searched for what I should do there, and from what I gather, I
>> could only do that in the matrix editor. Is that the case? Anyway, I
>> did it there, and the notation not only looks bad, it no longer makes
>> sense. I think there might be a whole note listed in one bar (again,
>> it's in 2/4), and there's something that should be tied, plays like
>> it's tied, but it's not shown that way.
>>
>> Is there some way I can keep the music as it is, but discard and
>> regenerate the notation? I apologize for my ignorance here.
>>
>> I do love being able to do what I'm doing, though. This is a great
>> application.
>>
>>
>> --
>> ___
>> Rosegarden-user mailing list
>> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
>
>

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Silas Mortimer]

Oh, geez. It's been a long time since I've used a mailing list and I
sent my reply to Lorenzo personally. Thanks for your patience,
Lorenzo.

Okay, here's what I said in the reply:

Oh, it definitely does help. It's not a showstopper by any means. I
asked all of this mainly because a) I'm new to composing this way and
b) I figured it was messing up because of something *I* was doing
wrong and that there might be a way to fix it that for some reason *I*
wasn't finding. The only implied failings here are mine, trust me. If
this is just how it is, I'm fine with that.

Still, though, in that second example, even in the matrix editor, I
can't get the chord to ring out instead of sounding twice. What am I
doing wrong there?

On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Lorenzo Sutton  wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On 07/04/2016 00:27, Silas Mortimer wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> One example is at one point I wanted to make a chord ring out
>> longer than I'd originally put it and had already added notes after
>> it. I searched for what I should do there, and from what I gather, I
>> could only do that in the matrix editor. Is that the case? Anyway, I
>> did it there, and the notation not only looks bad, it no longer makes
>> sense. I think there might be a whole note listed in one bar (again,
>> it's in 2/4), and there's something that should be tied, plays like
>> it's tied, but it's not shown that way.
>
> I think that's expected and software can't really help you there.
>
> I guess this is the basic concept and conundrum of sequencer which (like
> rosegarden) also support notation: if the notation is 'perfect' from a
> visual/typesetting point of view it will sound mechanical from a
> performance point of view. The matrix editor (aka Piano Roll in some
> software) enables you to tweak notes so that e.g. they result more
> realistic but that will inevitably screw notation.
>
> Really, it's a conundrum in music itself. No one performs exactly what
> is written on a score (some contemporary music can be an exception), so
> imagine writing down on a score *exactly* what a performer is playing...
>
> Rosegarden actually does have some 'intelligence' when it comes to
> interpreting notation (e.g. dynamics), but it cannot 'imagine' what you
> would like especially in terms of note onsets and lengths.
>
> My recommendation would be to:
> a.) use notation for:
> 1. Inputting notes when you are familiar or more comfortable with
> traditional notation.
> 2. Want to concentrate on the notation aspects of your piece, e.g.
> because you want to eventually publish it.
>
> b.) Use the matrix editor when:
> 1. You want to concentrate on how your piece actually sounds.
> 2. You become familiar enough with the matrix paradigm to be able to
> input notes directly there.
> 3. Adjust at the fine level not onsets, durations, velocities etc.
>
> To conclude, take into account that some sequencers simply do not
> provide notation, so think of Rosegarden as a sequencer with a (very
> advanced compared to many sequencers) support for notation  ;)
>
> Hope this helps.
> Lorenzo.
>
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[David Tisdell]

You could focus on how the piece sounds and when you have it the way you
want, make a duplicate and clean it up from a notation point of view. For
notation, I would just use a fermata where the matrix editor is messing
with the notation.
I love the fact that RG is a musical swiss army knife but that does, as
Lorenzo pointed out, introduce trade offs. If you want the best out of the
sequencer and the notation editor, I would make 2 files.

Dave

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Silas Mortimer 
wrote:

> Hi. I'm not only new to Rosegarden, I'm new to computer composing
> beyond using guitarix/Hydrogen/Ardour for recording. I've been working
> on a piece and learning bit by bit as I go along. Of course, this
> means that I'm making a lot of mistakes as I go.
>
> The trouble winds up in the notation editor. By the time I'm done
> fixing whatever needs to be fixed in what I previously did, the
> notation is left looking terrible, lol. Not *really* the software's
> fault, but I would think that there might be a way to, oh, I don't
> know, hit a button or menu item that would reformat the entire thing
> to be a little more elegant and/or make sense?
>
> What I'm currently writing is in 2/4 time, in the D melodic minor
> scale. One example is at one point I wanted to make a chord ring out
> longer than I'd originally put it and had already added notes after
> it. I searched for what I should do there, and from what I gather, I
> could only do that in the matrix editor. Is that the case? Anyway, I
> did it there, and the notation not only looks bad, it no longer makes
> sense. I think there might be a whole note listed in one bar (again,
> it's in 2/4), and there's something that should be tied, plays like
> it's tied, but it's not shown that way.
>
> Is there some way I can keep the music as it is, but discard and
> regenerate the notation? I apologize for my ignorance here.
>
> I do love being able to do what I'm doing, though. This is a great
> application.
>
>
> --
> ___
> Rosegarden-user mailing list
> Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user
>
--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[Lorenzo Sutton]

Hi!

On 07/04/2016 00:27, Silas Mortimer wrote:

[...]

> One example is at one point I wanted to make a chord ring out
> longer than I'd originally put it and had already added notes after
> it. I searched for what I should do there, and from what I gather, I
> could only do that in the matrix editor. Is that the case? Anyway, I
> did it there, and the notation not only looks bad, it no longer makes
> sense. I think there might be a whole note listed in one bar (again,
> it's in 2/4), and there's something that should be tied, plays like
> it's tied, but it's not shown that way.

I think that's expected and software can't really help you there.

I guess this is the basic concept and conundrum of sequencer which (like 
rosegarden) also support notation: if the notation is 'perfect' from a 
visual/typesetting point of view it will sound mechanical from a 
performance point of view. The matrix editor (aka Piano Roll in some 
software) enables you to tweak notes so that e.g. they result more 
realistic but that will inevitably screw notation.

Really, it's a conundrum in music itself. No one performs exactly what 
is written on a score (some contemporary music can be an exception), so 
imagine writing down on a score *exactly* what a performer is playing...

Rosegarden actually does have some 'intelligence' when it comes to 
interpreting notation (e.g. dynamics), but it cannot 'imagine' what you 
would like especially in terms of note onsets and lengths.

My recommendation would be to:
a.) use notation for:
1. Inputting notes when you are familiar or more comfortable with 
traditional notation.
2. Want to concentrate on the notation aspects of your piece, e.g. 
because you want to eventually publish it.

b.) Use the matrix editor when:
1. You want to concentrate on how your piece actually sounds.
2. You become familiar enough with the matrix paradigm to be able to 
input notes directly there.
3. Adjust at the fine level not onsets, durations, velocities etc.

To conclude, take into account that some sequencers simply do not 
provide notation, so think of Rosegarden as a sequencer with a (very 
advanced compared to many sequencers) support for notation  ;)

Hope this helps.
Lorenzo.

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user

Re: [Rosegarden-user] Ugly notation formatting

[D. Michael McIntyre]

On 04/06/2016 06:27 PM, Silas Mortimer wrote:

> Is there some way I can keep the music as it is, but discard and
> regenerate the notation? I apologize for my ignorance here.

It seems to me the most productive way to deal with your questions would 
be for me to run through your composition with you, focusing on one 
specific problem at a time.  Find a bar you dislike, and I will show you 
what tools Rosegarden offers for dealing with those specific problems.

There will always be stuff to fiddle with, but once you gain experience 
the fiddling will go faster.  Rosegarden pretty much represents a 
compromise between how much hand work I have to keep doing due to a lack 
of features, and how long it would take me to develop the features, if I 
even could.  Dealing with a clunky Rosegarden eats a lot of time, but 
writing features eats a lot more time.  Features are expensive to develop.

Honestly, I haven't managed a good one in several years now.  I've 
started two or three ambitious projects that I just didn't have time to 
complete.
-- 
D. Michael McIntyre

--
___
Rosegarden-user mailing list
Rosegarden-user@lists.sourceforge.net - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-user