On Tuesday 17 December 2002 04.53, Pascal Haakmat wrote: > 17/12/02 02:59, David Olofson wrote: > > For the exact reason I've suggested once or twice: A musical time > > aware effects might want to know the length of one beat, or one > > bar. Why not just allow the user to select "beats" or "bars" > > instead of "note value" when configuring such a plugin? > > > > If you have integer-only meters, you make it impossible to do > > exactly that, in the cases where beat or bar sync is most > > interesting; in polyrythmic compositions. Users will have to > > resort to telling these plugins about the correct lengths in > > other, potentially non-obvious and/or inaccurate ways. > > Well, I hope you're right.
So do I. ;-) > > > I do not believe that the goal of instrument design should be > > > to accomodate every possible musical expression under the sun. > > > > No, but we should at least try to cover what we know about, are > > interested in, and can handle without too much trouble. (And I'm > > definitely interested in exploring stuff beyond 4/4 and 6/8.) > > Of course. If it is really that little trouble, and, say, user > interfaces don't suffer because they can no longer make a > particular assumption, I suppose it is pure gain. I think it's acceptable that applications just display the signature as two fp values with some decimals. That's ok for *.5 and *.25 and the like, but not very sexy for N/3 and the like. More sophisticated applications might look for nicer ways of expressing such values, but that's entirely optional. > > > A > > > musical instrument is always part of a culture and a history > > > and this defines its use. > > > > So, you're not supposed to use cutting edge technology, unless > > you're interested only in traditional western european music? > > > > That is very discriminating, not only towards other cultures, but > > also towards those of us who want to experiment and explore > > things beyond 12tET and simple rhythms. > > Discriminating towards other cultures? That is a bit of a stretch > don't you think? Besides, discrimination (distinction) is the > essence of culture. Well, yes - I just meant that there is no need for the distinction, unless removing it results in real, technical issues. > Of course you're supposed to use cutting edge technology. But, > surely you realize that the desire for (technological) progress in > art is itself firmly rooted in the Western canon? Let's not fool > ourselves: Western musical tradition and Western technology are > "where it's at" at the moment. > > Therefore any system or instrument we design, if it is to gain > broad acceptance (which is by no means a given), must first and > foremost address the concerns of "popular" music (for some > definition of popular). Yes. I just don't see a conflict here; that's my point. > That is not discriminating against other cultures; what is > discriminating is to think that you can reduce hundreds of years of > culture and tradition to a decision about whether to use an int or > a float. That's not at all what I'm suggesting. There is a very big difference between "understanding something" and "supporting something". A synth does not have to understand *any* musical scale to play 1.0/octave. Yet, it can reproduce any pitch in the audible spectrum, and then some. As a result, it *will* play whatever you feed it, no matter what theory, culture or tradition the pitch values are related to. > > > It makes little sense to say that the piano is a flawed > > > instrument because it is so closely tied to Western musical > > > values. In fact the opposite is true: the piano is one of the > > > great instruments precisely because it lends itself so well to > > > the expression of Western musical values. > > > > So what? I sure still want to explore harmonies beyond the 12tET > > scale. We're not *excluding* anything here; just trying to find > > the smallest common denominators for *music*, rather than just > > for most kinds of western european music. > > There's obviously nothing wrong with wanting to explore eccentric > scales. Personally I would also prefer to have that option. The > question is whether the added complexity is justified. You seem > very confident that the extra cost is neglible, which is good > enough for me. Ok. Let's just hope I'm right. ;-) //David Olofson - Programmer, Composer, Open Source Advocate .- The Return of Audiality! --------------------------------. | Free/Open Source Audio Engine for use in Games or Studio. | | RT and off-line synth. Scripting. Sample accurate timing. | `---------------------------> http://olofson.net/audiality -' --- http://olofson.net --- http://www.reologica.se ---