At Sat, 7 Aug 2004 09:02:30 -0700, David Rogers wrote: > On Aug 7, 2004, at 5:50 AM, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > > Real Jazzers write them in straight 8ths, 'nuff said. Chance is that > > if you don't know what it should sound like, it doesn't matter if it's > > written in 1:1, 3:1, 2:1, it just won't come out the right way. > > > > That said, I'd love it if you could instruct it to be swing and have > > the midi converter interprete it correctly (at least in a first > > approximation). > > > Written in straight 8ths, yes; and if there's any chance of > misunderstanding, write "swing" at the top - along with that little > diagram mentioned by the original poster if you want.
Exactly. With some people, you need to write Bossa in there to get them out of the swing ;) > Midi is a different story altogether. Machine-produced midi renditions > sound so mechanical anyway - would it really be worth all the work to > get pseudo-swing that never sounds quite right? It should be fairly straight-forward to implement, I might give it a try eventually. It seems worth to me for proof-listening to swing melodies of course, in particular if they are fast and have complex rhythms (ie, the eights are bound to longer notes of varying lengths, and syncopes). I also think that giving the midi interpreter just a tad of rhythmic feeling could be useful, so that it can stress notes a bit at the right places most of the time, so you don't get lost when hearing to it. A note to midi converter can not only be good for proof-reading, but also as a quick way to get an impression on an unfamiliar melody or rhythm at the right speed. The two suggestions above aim at making this a bit more practical. There are some very simple rules that can be applied for better rhythm and pronounciation. Of course, the proof is in the experiment. Thanks, Marcus _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
