Posted
Interpretation offers these Clip/Shift/Fold/Open options to deal with the limits of the 3 playing ranges in different ways. Are you using these often? If so, to what end?
Since reworking the figure recognition code, I wonder if the three ranges couldn't be much simplified. Maintaining 3 separate ranges per instrument is pretty complicated and sometimes their individual limits are somewhat arbitrary (and tedious to setup).
I wonder if we should replace them by a single maximum pitch range (limits of the instrument), plus 3 typical pitches that indicate where the instrument sounds best in the lower, middle and upper register respectively. The typical pitches would control the octave in which figure segments are rendered. Otherwise the ranges are open, i.e limited only by the maximum range.
Open ranges obviously mean that, for example, your bass segments may veer off into middle, even upper range, if your Figure suggests so. Then again, what the bass can physically play, can be played, so why bother?
And what's the point of having 3 ranges for a ... flute, anyway?
Simply put: Is there much benefit in clipping 3 separate ranges for a single instrument? Isn't that actually what is better done using separate instruments in the first place?
How about that?
Fri, 2023-03-24 - 23:27 Permalink
Yes, I use all these options and my general point of view is: You can't have enough options at all. By the way, I'm still struggling with the "simplified" quantization options, which now forces me to do such things outside of Synfire.
I use the Clip/Shift/Fold/Open options also as a creativity tool. For example, you can get quite interesting variations switching between these options from container to container (with the same figure played). Often it doesn't take more than that to vary a figure sufficiently. There are actually too few possibilities for automatic figure variation anyway, so you have to take what you have.
By the way, I would wish (I think I wrote this before) if you could dynamize the playing range. Would certainly bring fantastic results if you (best probably with the "Fold" or "Shift" setting) could let the playing range oscillate up and down, for example. Or dynamically narrow and widen it.
Sat, 2023-03-25 - 00:04 Permalink
I'm with Juergen on this one. Although still stuck on version 1 so not sure if version 2 would alter my workflow, I make use of these options a lot. Admittedly mostly through trial an error, but I 'mess around' with the options till the result sounds better.
Sat, 2023-03-25 - 09:38 Permalink
<I wonder if we should replace them by a single maximum pitch range (limits of the instrument), plus 3 typical pitches that indicate where the instrument sounds best in the lower, middle and upper register respectively. >
Possibly with a single maximum pitch range it could become easy to build chords, because chord tones these are in different octave register ?
Sat, 2023-03-25 - 12:09 Permalink
....."I wonder if we should replace them by a single maximum pitch range (limits of the instrument), plus 3 typical pitches that indicate where the instrument sounds best in the lower, middle and upper register respectively. The typical pitches would control the octave in which figure segments are rendered. Otherwise the ranges are open, i.e limited only by the maximum range.
Open ranges obviously mean that, for example, your bass segments may veer off into middle, even upper range, if your Figure suggests so. Then again, what the bass can physically play, can be played, so why bother?"................
Andre, I think this is a good idea. But I think it is important especially for synthsounds to have a free choice to set the central keys for the 3 registers.
Sat, 2023-03-25 - 12:10 Permalink
> Open ranges obviously mean that, for example, your bass segments may veer off into middle, even upper range, if your Figure suggests so.
I would prefer such simplification. I am constantly manually adjusting transposed figure repetitions over different harmonies, e.g., to be more similar to each other. In doing so the figure clipping/transformations occuring at range boundaries can get in my way.
I understand that some users like the figure "variations" (Clip/Shift/Fold/Open) currently resulting at the boundaries. However, I would prefer to instead have such transformations as explicit variations, and not as a side effect of an implementation that only happens at certain pitches that cannot be customized per figure.
> And what's the point of having 3 ranges for a ... flute, anyway?
Like other instruments, the flute can sound rather different in its different registers. Having access to these directly via pitch ranges makes musically sense. However the boundaries between these instrument registers are gradual -- much unlike the current instrument ranges in Synfire. So, in my view a musically more meaningful implementation of instrumental pitch registers (ranges) would also allow for more gradual boundaries. Still, these registers are not a single pitch, but they are still a range (which are not necessarily octaves, but in the case of the flute they tend to be octave-wide, as the flute overblows in octaves).
Sat, 2023-03-25 - 16:43 Permalink
you could dynamize the playing range
Absolutely. That would be especially easy with 3 typical pitches and one total range. They could be moved around by a parameter 'Range'. I am pondering this for years already.
you can get quite interesting variations switching between these options from container to container
A parameter 'Scope' (narrow or wide) might do a similar thing. It could narrow the total range around each typical pitch and then the Clip/Shift/Fold logic takes action. I'd rather come up with new creative parameters than exploiting side effects.
My point was to reduce the amount of advance setup and configuration (bureaucracy). The typical pitches are important for figure recognition, because they determine the vertical placement of segments. When a figure is rendered, they determine the octave of the output, automatic inversions, etc. Balancing this to make it work in both directions proved to be pretty complex. With 3 limiting ranges it's even more complex.
it could become easy to build chords, because chord tones these are in different octave register
Possibly. I didn't think about this yet. Yes, chords should be open to use all registers.
the boundaries between these instrument registers are gradual
All registers can be reached by transposing Figure segments (or using the Transpose parameter). I'd say this is easier to do than to edit an instrument's playing ranges, which are also global.
Sat, 2023-03-25 - 19:54 Permalink
The 'Range' and 'Scope' parameters would be great. This would indeed be an adequate replacement for the three separate playing ranges.
I'd rather come up with new creative parameters than exploiting side effects.
Absolutely agree with that. New creative parameters are always welcome. I exploit side effects only because I can't implement those creative parameters myself :)
Sun, 2023-03-26 - 16:36 Permalink
The range and scope parameters sound great. Also having just one range to set things up intially would help greatly, especially for new users.
I often try using ranges to help prevent lines crossing pitch when I have several monophonic instruments on different tracks (eg a string quartet) but it's very fiddly and inflexible. Scope and Range sound as if they might sort out that problem.