this piano roll view...the timing and pitches is from the rendered output yes? This could look a lot different from the original phases depending on instrument ranges, progression, rythem,step,etc... It would probably have to be read only, not sure if even Andre could work out how editing the piano roll could be converted to changes to all the different source parameters. As an example. You could move a note up in pitch, now to stop synfire transposing it down because of playing ranges, it has to either change the playing range or the interpretation.
so given it has to be read only (although maybe Andre could find a way?), would a separate display be useful maybe with a refresh now button and an auto refresh toggle. Would that prove more useful than the current extract output to take function? Have you used the extract output function, did that help you with your workflow?
Yes, the SFP display is extremely simple,, the bass note appears to be the same, but of course when you calculate in the constantly changing chord progression, chromatic, diatonic scales, analazation, interpretation, pause, variation and all the other parameters. You will then get a 'realworld' view of the music. I for one having spent 50 years reading the traditional clefs, would like to keep reading them, because they are so engrained in my brain..
I can interpret some of SFP visually, because of all these complex (and wonderful) processes.. But the fact it lacks traditional scoring, will turn off a lot of potential users. I would be content with a switch which translates the tracks to a score and sliding pianoroll. It's a lot easier to see where bum notes are.. Because I do not know, or perhaps may never get, cause some of the algorhythms and complex processes, some very nebusouly defined. I doubt will never reach the proficiency which which Andre has on SFP. And that is the kernal of the problem.
40 years back I met Emmet Chapman. He designed an instrument called the stick.. (Chapman Stick) He was criss crossing the US stopping at every recording (there were only 16 track studios then.. He brought out this exotic, simplistic stick.. Basically a long guitar neck.. It had 8 strings.. He would lay down a track or two on any of your music. It was deceiving simple looking, just a long guitar neck.. But the 8 strings, some bass, and the tuning of the strings, really threw people off , once they quickly bought one.. It quickly found it's place in the closet.
Bob Moog, did the same .. In the late 60's he'd lug his gear from studio to studio, mesmerizing future owners, with promises of infinite possibilities.. He would program some amazing sounds, and the keyboard or guitar play would put a few riffs on their songs.. Then of couse came Walter/Wendy Carlos.. who really shined the spotlight on it..
Back to the Stick, Since Emmett invented it, He could make it do handstands, cartwheels, and almost anything imagineable.. In a way it was a response for guitarists feeling threatened by all the synths that were coming out.. A lot of people immediately bought it, but soon gave up, because it's hard to unlearn the way you played guitar... So you never hear much about it.. He preservered.. Soon he got some serious 'fans who became customers '.. who spent the hallowed '10,000 hours' to master an instrument.. And became very proficient at it.. A proficient Stick player can play guitar and bass simultainousl . Emmett of course was like Bob Moog, our own Andre, Ray Kurwseil and a number of other visionaries. They spent untold hours thinking, designing, mastering their particular instrument.
Andre you make your method look so simple, but I can not even quess how long, this idea has been in your head (over 10 years?). Actually all the events in your life, brought you to this point.
The really hard part, is refining, condensing, re-defining this so that the average person, can get some working grasp.
Gradually all the patchchord synths, gave way to ones with presets, and memory buttons.. To be good at Analog Modular Synths, one had to employ logic, and have a good working knowledge of all the different modules, that were in their particual unit. So the first handful of a thousand or so MOOG, Bucha, ARP, EMI synths gave way to millions of preprogrammed units which keyboard player's which could now play some of those original sounds, but not have to have an engineers mind, to understand how to program a particular sound. They gave up 'audio infinity' for predetermined features..which is the only way you can mass produce something. Then The sound programmers came in, each couple of months there were sound cards, or mini floppies, so you could get the same synth sound on the latest hits.
When I work on music, I want to be proficient at it, but I also want to move at a reasonable pace.. Yes, in the old days I would spend days on patchchord synths.. Hours working every angle of Logic Pro.. I don't spend as much time tweaking all of SFP's invisible knobs.. I don't have the time and patience.. My primary goal is to create music, efficiently, and I am putting my attention, into arranging, and production and the theory of music in general. I need a certain sound (from software, synth, and I need a certain bunch of notes, to create the mood, I want.
SFP is an excellent invention.. It has the potential to be a great Learning Tool. because you can see and hear different scales, chord pallettes, relationships.. It could be so much more than a 'gimmick' to come up with music quickly. It has all these things going for it.. Indeed my musical 'literacy' has risen greatly cause of using SFP. I use it in my own method. back/forth with Logic..
It would great someday, if it got down to macro editing and manipulation of data, that you can only do in a DAW right now.. To be able to create completely in Synfire Pro is a Noble goal..
People love guitars, cause you can be playing any of of several hundred songs, just knowing 3 chords.. You can also spend the rest of your life refining and becoming better at the guitar..
Same for any instrument.. SPF is definetely the most intense piece of commercial music software I have ever seen,
And at two + years, I've barely scratched the surface. Yes some musicians can create a lot of complex music with just their ears, thosed blessed with perfect pitch are way ahead of the game, some are just super intuitive, those who learn relative pitch, have a useful tool too. But as I've mentioned before the predominate amount of data that goes into our brain comes from our eyes,
Not to make the most use out of visual data communication, is off point.. Music notation has been around in some form since 2000BC The first audio recording about 140 years ago... In the last 40 years we have seen amazing changes in hearing technology.. Software to analyze and tell us practical, note data, harmonics etc. is now on the market and getting better every two years.
With these rapid changes, different people develop different techniques to create their music. pictorials, videos,
Color schemes, design layout. These are all extremely vital tools necessary to bring a SFP player up to par.. Happily SFP has taken steps toward that. There is still much to do.
I've worked with a lot of musicians, and non musicians, I know computer programmers, who smoke pot, cause it helps them to visualize and make coding easier for them (me no more - but it was sex, food, sleep). I know some guys who sense colors when they hear certain chords, or chordal scales. I know guys who 'try to shut their brain off', and the most amazing notes come from their fingers' I helped a guy write a musical.. He kne absolutely nothing about music, but would just sing the notes to me, for each instrument, and when it was done, it sounded like Mozart.
We generally think the same, but many people use their brains differently. It would be good for SFP to able to be 'approachable' to those people.. Indeed we all have some idea how each of us approaches music.
In truth, I think that that Synfire Pro is moving at as good a pace it can with with the limited amount of personel and resources.. I don't regret parting with the $$$$$$$$ to buy SFP, cause Andre has proved time and time again, his commitment to it.. It's still a good ways away from where I would like it be. I showed to to a few big time keyboardists,, and they just shook, their head no.. Way too complicated, and they did not and could not make the necessary time committment to master it.
I've integrated a lot of things I've learned from SFP, into Logic, just by creating some analog equivalents to Synfire features.. (nothing compared to what SFP actually does). Now I do two passes of a keyboard, solo, pick out the best sections, slide them to the appropriate measure I need them, and edit them into key on the score editor. Something I never could have done two years ago.
Yes we all want particular features, etc.. But we should be striving for a thorough understanding of what there already is.. When I first saw the new version of SFP, I was a bit disappointed,, it just looked like things were laid out differently, I didn't see any inherent simplicity. But after playing with it a while, there is much improvement. And I have no idea of how to make it more simple.. The model of Apple computers comes to mind.. The programers thought about what features they wanted, made them possible, and then found a way to strip it down to the bare minimum and still be functional. They sacrificed some choices to make it simpler to use, for the average ADD customer.
When exploring the unknown, we first establish a pattern or theory.. Then after playing around with it, we gain understanding and insight.. Sometimes we must completely abolish our original pattern or theory and built from the ground up to incorporate new ideas or facts that come to life.
When Moog and ARP synthesizers, back in the early 70's realized the demand was becoming too much, they could no long afford to hand build the units, they made the decision to take away some of the original functions, in order to accomodate larger sales,, (No more patchchords, buttons instead. Hand assembled boards were mass produced somewhere else..
The original code for Logic Pro, came from a program called Notator.. In it's infancy, they wrote a big chunk of code to make Logic capable of Score display and editing.. All the manufactorers were.. The scoring code for Logic was even more esoteric than SFP.. in a way the scoring was very 'Rue Goldberg". (When you look underneath there is an amazing mess of wires, gears, etc, which seem indeciperable to anyone but the inventer Rue Goldberg..
Well Andre can't wander Europe and America going to recording studios, and programming up ingenious audio goodies to sell his wares.. First off the vast majority of music is now done in home, project studios or on laptops, and now ipads, anywhere..
Andre must get his product as universal and 'dumbed' down as he is willing to get it.. He already explained that it first was a tool he made for himself to compose with , as indeed were all sequencer programs.. But as some point he needs to sell the programs to allow him the time to continue programming and not have to work as a trolley conductor and spent time with his family (I think he's human and does have a family!!).. Andre's also mentioned he's not out to sell a million copies of SFP.. Because when that happens, the inventrs, the owners, and managers, stop playing music and deal with the business of selling instead..
To cap it up, I'd love to see some traditional scoring or piano roll notation, but overall, I want more as Obama put it, 'Transparency' in the operations of SFP. So that it's easier to comprehend and get the intended music we want to create, not a series of 'happy musical accidents' (which are also great too)_
PS This was the product of two cups of coffee at 2AM...
Yes, i think this is the case , because only Cognitone knows exactly how it works and too much time spending on this subject ..is a waste of time. The math used is advanced and specially developed for Synfire as read about this in the past and the inner working of Synfire is a black box for me as user ... we shall never know the logic behind as user .
Will the logic behind the interpretation process ever be documented unambiguously or will it always remain a mysterious black box?
I got the feeling that i as user has contribute enough about this improvement ..and i shall see what the future is bringing for Synfire.
I think cognitone must be further breed on this and happy breeding for you cognitones ( let us know when the egg is there ) :thumbsup:
this piano roll view...the timing and pitches is from the rendered output yes? This could look a lot different from the original phases depending on instrument ranges, progression, rythem,step,etc... It would probably have to be read only, not sure if even Andre could work out how editing the piano roll could be converted to changes to all the different source parameters. As an example. You could move a note up in pitch, now to stop synfire transposing it down because of playing ranges, it has to either change the playing range or the interpretation.
so given it has to be read only (although maybe Andre could find a way?), would a separate display be useful maybe with a refresh now button and an auto refresh toggle. Would that prove more useful than the current extract output to take function? Have you used the extract output function, did that help you with your workflow?
Exactamundo, my friend!
I'm not really expecting this to be an editing view ... although that would be nice, too. I primarily want the visual display to see what the phrases have rendered.
I would find this fantastic for learning, and also for opening two or more phrase windows and moving phrases around to see how I can create better musical interactions. I know in the end it is all about how it sounds, but it is also good to be able to know how to replicate or create from sheet music and piano roll editing the sounds you want.
A final thought on editing. If you had a display of the rendered actual notes, as dictated by your underlying phrase in its hamonic context of the arrangement, you could conceivable drag one or more of those notes ... not to place them on the actual notes, but to have them 'snap' to positions permitted from rerendering ... just as happens with the phrase segments in the phrase editor display.
It would be the same. Just as the phrase only permits certain notes upon rerendering after changing it, this could be the same in the (for lack of a better description) the midi key editor.
So it wouldn't be exactly like the midi key editor in your DAW. Instead it would be a 'smart' key editor that only permitted repositioning that fit the either newly rerendered notes (best scenario!) or moved to possible note values on another rerendering.
I think that would be fantastic and an improved work flow and better learning tool.
No, I haven't yet delved into the extract output function.
This would not be multi-octave editor or permit everything that can normally be done with a DAW midi key editor.
It could be restricted to only permitting changes dictated by the current interpretation and note ranges ... or other parameters required by the AI.
As I said, not all note values would be permitted ... only those that conform to the current harmonic context of the arrangement would be permitted.
This would primarily permit things like moving the notes to other conforming intervals and adjusting the note lengths and position across the arrangement timeline, i.e., shorter or longer notes and earlier or later position.
Ideally, it would permit chromatic adjustments that made musical sense. For example b5 or b6, but not b2.
Synfire already calculates all data and parameters to output as midi.. So displaying it as pianoroll or traditional scoring (I would like both) would be very little work.
I'd be content for now, just to SEE it. Ultimately I'd like to edit it too. But that is a different barrel of monkeys. In fact 'seeing it', would help us to grasp the inner workings of SFP better.. We could open two copies of the same file, do some processes, then see it in MIDI form.. I think that would go a long way, towards understanding at least the outcome of certain procedures..
When I record or manipulate tracks, I do it in relation to what is already there. I have to know where there are audio holes. Where I need to have two more instruments re-inforce the root note, or add a 13th somewhere for more color.
Traditional visual representation would go a long way.
There is a somewhat competing program called "liguid notes" (but nowhere the depth SFP has).. His approach is very simple, and while it can create some useful material, it's all under the hood. For people who don't want to roll up their sleeves and have notes dripping off their hands.. Synfire has the potential to have a transparent shell, so we can roll up our sleeves, and accomplish exactly what we want to do..
Andre is probably the most proficient at this, knowing how to go about doing something to get the exact results he desires. . I love the surprises that SFP can yield, but I also want to know what processes and what order I execute them to realize something I hear in my head. In other words I want to know the logic flow of what happens.
Again since much of SFP does is 'new' it's hard to know exactly what one wants, or what is practical, or just beyond the scope of programming..
The more code you add, the greater the potential for software conflict - that applies to real life too
So how would my 'smart' midi key editor deal with the chords and bass symbols? Well, the same way SFP/E phrase already does: assign the notes in the key editor different colors as the symbols currently display, but display them (transposed behind the scenes) on a similar shortened vertical axis by defining the bass notes as actually being -24 semitones from where they appear in the 'smart' midi key editor display.
Right now there seems to be approximately an octave above and and octave below the midline. But that midline note is different for the different types of symbols, i.e., the bass and other notes. If the same colors from the symbols in the phrase editor were used and the same types of selection tools, the 'smart' midi key editor view could replace the phrase editor display ... only for those who preferred to use it, of course.
I think it would also make chord inversions very accessible by moving the chord to different root positioins and seeing exactly which inversion you are using. If a particular inversion conflicted with the harmonic context of the arrangement, a note would not be permitted to 'snap' at that point.
The extracted outputs from the tracks feed back in the tracks as greyed ( or colored ) symbols, but the imported midi tracks in the phrase editor are different from the original midi.
So showing the extracted output tracks besides the imported midi track make still no sense. Only the extracted output comparing with a original midi and be able to to chance the symbolpositions from the extracted output symbols into those of a static midi gives the same music. As i did with the accordion ..sounds not good after import, than i made a static track of the accordion and convert it to blue symbols and strange enough it sounds like the original midi, while the imported symbols of the accordiontrack are not solely blue symbols.
So the symbols for the accordion are not the same anymore, this fact is to think about more..with the possibility to filter out different symbols in a track in the future ?
A final thought on editing. If you had a display of the rendered actual notes, as dictated by your underlying phrase in its hamonic context of the arrangement, you could conceivable drag one or more of those notes ... not to place them on the actual notes, but to have them 'snap' to positions permitted from rerendering ... just as happens with the phrase segments in the phrase editor display.
Sat, 2013-10-12 - 08:32 Permalink
Prado,
quick question so I can understand more fully.
this piano roll view...the timing and pitches is from the rendered output yes? This could look a lot different from the original phases depending on instrument ranges, progression, rythem,step,etc... It would probably have to be read only, not sure if even Andre could work out how editing the piano roll could be converted to changes to all the different source parameters. As an example. You could move a note up in pitch, now to stop synfire transposing it down because of playing ranges, it has to either change the playing range or the interpretation.
so given it has to be read only (although maybe Andre could find a way?), would a separate display be useful maybe with a refresh now button and an auto refresh toggle. Would that prove more useful than the current extract output to take function? Have you used the extract output function, did that help you with your workflow?
Sat, 2013-10-12 - 08:33 Permalink
Will the logic behind the interpretation process ever be documented unambiguously or will it always remain a mysterious black box?
Sat, 2013-10-12 - 08:55 Permalink
Yes, the SFP display is extremely simple,, the bass note appears to be the same, but of course when you calculate in the constantly changing chord progression, chromatic, diatonic scales, analazation, interpretation, pause, variation and all the other parameters. You will then get a 'realworld' view of the music. I for one having spent 50 years reading the traditional clefs, would like to keep reading them, because they are so engrained in my brain..
I can interpret some of SFP visually, because of all these complex (and wonderful) processes.. But the fact it lacks traditional scoring, will turn off a lot of potential users. I would be content with a switch which translates the tracks to a score and sliding pianoroll. It's a lot easier to see where bum notes are.. Because I do not know, or perhaps may never get, cause some of the algorhythms and complex processes, some very nebusouly defined. I doubt will never reach the proficiency which which Andre has on SFP. And that is the kernal of the problem.
40 years back I met Emmet Chapman. He designed an instrument called the stick.. (Chapman Stick) He was criss crossing the US stopping at every recording (there were only 16 track studios then.. He brought out this exotic, simplistic stick.. Basically a long guitar neck.. It had 8 strings.. He would lay down a track or two on any of your music. It was deceiving simple looking, just a long guitar neck.. But the 8 strings, some bass, and the tuning of the strings, really threw people off , once they quickly bought one.. It quickly found it's place in the closet.
Bob Moog, did the same .. In the late 60's he'd lug his gear from studio to studio, mesmerizing future owners, with promises of infinite possibilities.. He would program some amazing sounds, and the keyboard or guitar play would put a few riffs on their songs.. Then of couse came Walter/Wendy Carlos.. who really shined the spotlight on it..
Back to the Stick, Since Emmett invented it, He could make it do handstands, cartwheels, and almost anything imagineable.. In a way it was a response for guitarists feeling threatened by all the synths that were coming out.. A lot of people immediately bought it, but soon gave up, because it's hard to unlearn the way you played guitar... So you never hear much about it.. He preservered.. Soon he got some serious 'fans who became customers '.. who spent the hallowed '10,000 hours' to master an instrument.. And became very proficient at it.. A proficient Stick player can play guitar and bass simultainousl . Emmett of course was like Bob Moog, our own Andre, Ray Kurwseil and a number of other visionaries. They spent untold hours thinking, designing, mastering their particular instrument.
Andre you make your method look so simple, but I can not even quess how long, this idea has been in your head (over 10 years?). Actually all the events in your life, brought you to this point.
The really hard part, is refining, condensing, re-defining this so that the average person, can get some working grasp.
Gradually all the patchchord synths, gave way to ones with presets, and memory buttons.. To be good at Analog Modular Synths, one had to employ logic, and have a good working knowledge of all the different modules, that were in their particual unit. So the first handful of a thousand or so MOOG, Bucha, ARP, EMI synths gave way to millions of preprogrammed units which keyboard player's which could now play some of those original sounds, but not have to have an engineers mind, to understand how to program a particular sound. They gave up 'audio infinity' for predetermined features..which is the only way you can mass produce something. Then The sound programmers came in, each couple of months there were sound cards, or mini floppies, so you could get the same synth sound on the latest hits.
When I work on music, I want to be proficient at it, but I also want to move at a reasonable pace.. Yes, in the old days I would spend days on patchchord synths.. Hours working every angle of Logic Pro.. I don't spend as much time tweaking all of SFP's invisible knobs.. I don't have the time and patience.. My primary goal is to create music, efficiently, and I am putting my attention, into arranging, and production and the theory of music in general. I need a certain sound (from software, synth, and I need a certain bunch of notes, to create the mood, I want.
SFP is an excellent invention.. It has the potential to be a great Learning Tool. because you can see and hear different scales, chord pallettes, relationships.. It could be so much more than a 'gimmick' to come up with music quickly. It has all these things going for it.. Indeed my musical 'literacy' has risen greatly cause of using SFP. I use it in my own method. back/forth with Logic..
It would great someday, if it got down to macro editing and manipulation of data, that you can only do in a DAW right now.. To be able to create completely in Synfire Pro is a Noble goal..
People love guitars, cause you can be playing any of of several hundred songs, just knowing 3 chords.. You can also spend the rest of your life refining and becoming better at the guitar..
Same for any instrument.. SPF is definetely the most intense piece of commercial music software I have ever seen,
And at two + years, I've barely scratched the surface. Yes some musicians can create a lot of complex music with just their ears, thosed blessed with perfect pitch are way ahead of the game, some are just super intuitive, those who learn relative pitch, have a useful tool too. But as I've mentioned before the predominate amount of data that goes into our brain comes from our eyes,
Not to make the most use out of visual data communication, is off point.. Music notation has been around in some form since 2000BC The first audio recording about 140 years ago... In the last 40 years we have seen amazing changes in hearing technology.. Software to analyze and tell us practical, note data, harmonics etc. is now on the market and getting better every two years.
With these rapid changes, different people develop different techniques to create their music. pictorials, videos,
Color schemes, design layout. These are all extremely vital tools necessary to bring a SFP player up to par.. Happily SFP has taken steps toward that. There is still much to do.
I've worked with a lot of musicians, and non musicians, I know computer programmers, who smoke pot, cause it helps them to visualize and make coding easier for them (me no more - but it was sex, food, sleep). I know some guys who sense colors when they hear certain chords, or chordal scales. I know guys who 'try to shut their brain off', and the most amazing notes come from their fingers' I helped a guy write a musical.. He kne absolutely nothing about music, but would just sing the notes to me, for each instrument, and when it was done, it sounded like Mozart.
We generally think the same, but many people use their brains differently. It would be good for SFP to able to be 'approachable' to those people.. Indeed we all have some idea how each of us approaches music.
In truth, I think that that Synfire Pro is moving at as good a pace it can with with the limited amount of personel and resources.. I don't regret parting with the $$$$$$$$ to buy SFP, cause Andre has proved time and time again, his commitment to it.. It's still a good ways away from where I would like it be. I showed to to a few big time keyboardists,, and they just shook, their head no.. Way too complicated, and they did not and could not make the necessary time committment to master it.
I've integrated a lot of things I've learned from SFP, into Logic, just by creating some analog equivalents to Synfire features.. (nothing compared to what SFP actually does). Now I do two passes of a keyboard, solo, pick out the best sections, slide them to the appropriate measure I need them, and edit them into key on the score editor. Something I never could have done two years ago.
Yes we all want particular features, etc.. But we should be striving for a thorough understanding of what there already is.. When I first saw the new version of SFP, I was a bit disappointed,, it just looked like things were laid out differently, I didn't see any inherent simplicity. But after playing with it a while, there is much improvement. And I have no idea of how to make it more simple.. The model of Apple computers comes to mind.. The programers thought about what features they wanted, made them possible, and then found a way to strip it down to the bare minimum and still be functional. They sacrificed some choices to make it simpler to use, for the average ADD customer.
When exploring the unknown, we first establish a pattern or theory.. Then after playing around with it, we gain understanding and insight.. Sometimes we must completely abolish our original pattern or theory and built from the ground up to incorporate new ideas or facts that come to life.
When Moog and ARP synthesizers, back in the early 70's realized the demand was becoming too much, they could no long afford to hand build the units, they made the decision to take away some of the original functions, in order to accomodate larger sales,, (No more patchchords, buttons instead. Hand assembled boards were mass produced somewhere else..
The original code for Logic Pro, came from a program called Notator.. In it's infancy, they wrote a big chunk of code to make Logic capable of Score display and editing.. All the manufactorers were.. The scoring code for Logic was even more esoteric than SFP.. in a way the scoring was very 'Rue Goldberg". (When you look underneath there is an amazing mess of wires, gears, etc, which seem indeciperable to anyone but the inventer Rue Goldberg..
Well Andre can't wander Europe and America going to recording studios, and programming up ingenious audio goodies to sell his wares.. First off the vast majority of music is now done in home, project studios or on laptops, and now ipads, anywhere..
Andre must get his product as universal and 'dumbed' down as he is willing to get it.. He already explained that it first was a tool he made for himself to compose with , as indeed were all sequencer programs.. But as some point he needs to sell the programs to allow him the time to continue programming and not have to work as a trolley conductor and spent time with his family (I think he's human and does have a family!!).. Andre's also mentioned he's not out to sell a million copies of SFP.. Because when that happens, the inventrs, the owners, and managers, stop playing music and deal with the business of selling instead..
To cap it up, I'd love to see some traditional scoring or piano roll notation, but overall, I want more as Obama put it, 'Transparency' in the operations of SFP. So that it's easier to comprehend and get the intended music we want to create, not a series of 'happy musical accidents' (which are also great too)_
PS This was the product of two cups of coffee at 2AM...
Sun, 2013-10-13 - 00:55 Permalink
Yes, i think this is the case , because only Cognitone knows exactly how it works and too much time spending on this subject ..is a waste of time.
I got the feeling that i as user has contribute enough about this improvement ..and i shall see what the future is bringing for Synfire.The math used is advanced and specially developed for Synfire as read about this in the past and the inner working of Synfire is a black box for me as user ... we shall never know the logic behind as user .
I think cognitone must be further breed on this and happy breeding for you cognitones ( let us know when the egg is there ) :thumbsup:
Sun, 2013-10-13 - 03:14 Permalink
Exactamundo, my friend!
I'm not really expecting this to be an editing view ... although that would be nice, too. I primarily want the visual display to see what the phrases have rendered.
I would find this fantastic for learning, and also for opening two or more phrase windows and moving phrases around to see how I can create better musical interactions. I know in the end it is all about how it sounds, but it is also good to be able to know how to replicate or create from sheet music and piano roll editing the sounds you want.
A final thought on editing. If you had a display of the rendered actual notes, as dictated by your underlying phrase in its hamonic context of the arrangement, you could conceivable drag one or more of those notes ... not to place them on the actual notes, but to have them 'snap' to positions permitted from rerendering ... just as happens with the phrase segments in the phrase editor display.
It would be the same. Just as the phrase only permits certain notes upon rerendering after changing it, this could be the same in the (for lack of a better description) the midi key editor.
So it wouldn't be exactly like the midi key editor in your DAW. Instead it would be a 'smart' key editor that only permitted repositioning that fit the either newly rerendered notes (best scenario!) or moved to possible note values on another rerendering.
I think that would be fantastic and an improved work flow and better learning tool.
No, I haven't yet delved into the extract output function.
Sun, 2013-10-13 - 03:29 Permalink
A further thought on my 'smart' midi key editor.
This would not be multi-octave editor or permit everything that can normally be done with a DAW midi key editor.
It could be restricted to only permitting changes dictated by the current interpretation and note ranges ... or other parameters required by the AI.
As I said, not all note values would be permitted ... only those that conform to the current harmonic context of the arrangement would be permitted.
This would primarily permit things like moving the notes to other conforming intervals and adjusting the note lengths and position across the arrangement timeline, i.e., shorter or longer notes and earlier or later position.
Ideally, it would permit chromatic adjustments that made musical sense. For example b5 or b6, but not b2.
Sun, 2013-10-13 - 05:19 Permalink
Synfire already calculates all data and parameters to output as midi.. So displaying it as pianoroll or traditional scoring (I would like both) would be very little work.
I'd be content for now, just to SEE it. Ultimately I'd like to edit it too. But that is a different barrel of monkeys. In fact 'seeing it', would help us to grasp the inner workings of SFP better.. We could open two copies of the same file, do some processes, then see it in MIDI form.. I think that would go a long way, towards understanding at least the outcome of certain procedures..
When I record or manipulate tracks, I do it in relation to what is already there. I have to know where there are audio holes. Where I need to have two more instruments re-inforce the root note, or add a 13th somewhere for more color.
Traditional visual representation would go a long way.
There is a somewhat competing program called "liguid notes" (but nowhere the depth SFP has).. His approach is very simple, and while it can create some useful material, it's all under the hood. For people who don't want to roll up their sleeves and have notes dripping off their hands.. Synfire has the potential to have a transparent shell, so we can roll up our sleeves, and accomplish exactly what we want to do..
Andre is probably the most proficient at this, knowing how to go about doing something to get the exact results he desires. . I love the surprises that SFP can yield, but I also want to know what processes and what order I execute them to realize something I hear in my head. In other words I want to know the logic flow of what happens.
Again since much of SFP does is 'new' it's hard to know exactly what one wants, or what is practical, or just beyond the scope of programming..
The more code you add, the greater the potential for software conflict - that applies to real life too
Sun, 2013-10-13 - 07:24 Permalink
So how would my 'smart' midi key editor deal with the chords and bass symbols? Well, the same way SFP/E phrase already does: assign the notes in the key editor different colors as the symbols currently display, but display them (transposed behind the scenes) on a similar shortened vertical axis by defining the bass notes as actually being -24 semitones from where they appear in the 'smart' midi key editor display.
Right now there seems to be approximately an octave above and and octave below the midline. But that midline note is different for the different types of symbols, i.e., the bass and other notes. If the same colors from the symbols in the phrase editor were used and the same types of selection tools, the 'smart' midi key editor view could replace the phrase editor display ... only for those who preferred to use it, of course.
I think it would also make chord inversions very accessible by moving the chord to different root positioins and seeing exactly which inversion you are using. If a particular inversion conflicted with the harmonic context of the arrangement, a note would not be permitted to 'snap' at that point.
Sun, 2013-10-13 - 11:48 Permalink
The extracted outputs from the tracks feed back in the tracks as greyed ( or colored ) symbols, but the imported midi tracks in the phrase editor are different from the original midi.
So showing the extracted output tracks besides the imported midi track make still no sense.
Only the extracted output comparing with a original midi and be able to to chance the symbolpositions from the extracted output symbols into those of a static midi gives the same music.
As i did with the accordion ..sounds not good after import, than i made a static track of the accordion and convert it to blue symbols and strange enough it sounds like the original midi, while the imported symbols of the accordiontrack are not solely blue symbols.
So the symbols for the accordion are not the same anymore, this fact is to think about more..with the possibility to filter out different symbols in a track in the future ?
Must be complicated to program this ?