Hi again Blaise, This one is really fun from a creative standpoint. You wrote,
For music notation there are a couple, ABC Notation is included in Debian, which I understand is a really simple tool. there are some more complete doors though,
I wouldn't discount ABC notation as being too simple. I haven't used it yet, but it's been on my radar for a while. It could be very useful for entry and editing, because you can do that all in plain text, and then convert to MIDI or typeset with Lilypond.
This is the nifty thing about creating here. do I want to create the music in midi files first then turn them into notation, or the other way around? decisions, decisions.
I had the sense there are a wide variety of tools like this for turning ABC into something else. You can think of it like a sort of "source code" for your music -- you can write in in ABC, but then "compile" or convert it to other forms when you're finished.
I wouldn't rule ABC out for being too simple. It seems very powerful. I'd be more concerned if it's too cryptic, i.e. are you comfortable managing music notation with this syntax?
and that seems to be the challenge some musicians I know express about the abc notation platform, the syntax is perhaps too simplistic. I wonder myself what it does that Lillypond does not truth be told. And again there is that creative question, which comes first the notation, or the music? Peter's creative philosophy outlined in the program below is yet another variation.
Like muscript, for example :-) http://www.pjb.com.au/muscript/index.html with its associated midi2muscript utility: http://www.pjb.com.au/midi/midi2muscript.html Which lets you shift a midi file into notation..or so I understand.
Cool, I hadn't heard of that. In comparing Muscript to ABC Notation, I'd be curious if Muscript has the same wide support for its standard notation.
ABC has tons of software avaiable around it: http://abcnotation.com/software#linux
Yet another more philosophical question I dare say largely tied to how one defines their computer experiences. I am a member of the Debian-users discussion group here, lists.debian.org It is where I heard about abc notation, and got an invitation to join their own discussion group. However Peter who wrote the other program is directly involved in support and assistance. Who is best able to fortify the user experience, the individual directly involved in writing the software, or others who have built tools around the software? Speaking only for myself, I do not equate music making with writing software code, if that makes sense. Since I am personally less worried at this stage about how the computer elements enter act than I am how easily I can translate music I have played first into printed form for other musicians to play, I suspect a tool that starts with midi translates into notation, then lets me do cleanup in something like lillypond before printing may feel more natural...for me.
e.g. abcMIDI: http://abc.sourceforge.net/abcMIDI/ Or abc2ly, which comes with LilyPond tools abound to be sure yes.
My sense is that ABC has a more mature ecosystem, with broader support, but that's just the first I'm encountering Muscript, so I could be wrong!
I can only speak to how the program gets discussed. I have personally not found productive interaction on list. I have for example learned more here, and from the main Debian discussion list than I have reading posts on the ABC Notation one, but again that is me. I prefer asking the most primary source about things if i can.
Then there are the tools for monitoring and audio work, For Audio recording and processing by way of example, there is Joel's Nama: https://freeshell.de/~bolangi/nama/
Very cool.
Joel is a fine example of primary source. He was one of the first to encourage me in creating the two separate machines I am aiming for using ssh telnet to reach the Linux one treating it like a command line based server. Letting me start in relatively known territory since I ssh TELNET into Freebsd and Ubuntu shell services many times a day. Allot of those updating Linux programs naturally think like programmers, and I am not one of those. .
Never heard of it or used it before, but, yes, it's in the Debian repos: https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ecasound
And it looks like it can interface with the JACK audio server, which you may need for other pro audio software: http://ecasound.seul.org/ecasound/Documentation/examples.html#rtjack
Oh yes, Joel's program is indeed a part of Debian. The Debian users list is where I heard about the option, and met him directly.
For MIDI there is Midish: http://www.midish.org
Cool! Looks like it's ALSA MIDI, but can interface with JACK MIDI using the available bridge: http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2010-October/073533.h...
This is also in the Debian repos. Exactly, there are already allot of command line tools, some tied to traditional midi usage, some with bridges to new avenues like Jack. To be honest t it is sort of a Linux drawback. there are so many items on the menu, one can get overwhelmed if that makes sense.
search worthy via Google.
Yes, another reason IMHO to have an audio distro -- they'll package the latest LADSPA and LV2 plugins. I get mine mostly from the KXStudio repositories.
Only further supporting your wise idea to build a strong Debian floor first and add the kxstudio and low latency kernels on top.
As for your Jack question, the answer is no. In fact I am not even sure what that program does, but I am not as of yet using Linux directly on any computer of my own.
Ah, I see. Yeah, most GNU/Linux distributions use PulseAudio (/ ALSA) for sound these days, but most pro audio applications use JACK. JACK is a low latency audio server. You don't need it for all audio applications, but the more serious ones tend to require it. This is another thing that an audio distribution might help with -- though, if you're running JACK from the command line, might require some manual work to get the right settings anyways.
What does jack give you in any case? By which I mean, what can you create musically with it that could not be done before in your professional opinion? I will visit the pages below of course, but I am wondering how it makes a real world difference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JACK_Audio_Connection_Kit http://jackaudio.org/
I care far
more about the machine's ability to let me make music at the professional level then I do about my using speech on the computer itself. Since a server should, or can be a part of a properly configured Linux installation though, I believe I can still do my work even if the kernel does not support speech for me.
A question I forgot to add about the SSH option: Where will the speakers be?
If you're using SSH to access your music machine, and your speakers are connected to your music machine, and it's all still in the same room as you, I could see that working.
Just making sure you're not expecting audio to be output through the other computer that you're using as an SSH client!
Oh how funny! no, that would be quite impossible unnecessary and counter productive. The speakers will be connected to the Linux music machine, its what the m-audio card is for. The midi keyboard will be connected to this music computer as well. the ssh telnet client is not in Linux, or windows either for that matter, smiles. Now off to answer in part my own question about jack. Kare
---