-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Chris, Wow. Thank you for the detailed reply. You answered all my questions! I think the untilamate answer for me would be, use both. I think I'll use RoseGarden to get the initial score in to the system and then use NoteEdit for the fine tuning (so to speak). I some respects I suppose Note Edit is kinda a graphical interface for musixtex. One point you forgot was that Rosegarden is easier to install. Since Note Edit is tied to the musixtex stuff there are a million dependances to be met. I even had to fix one of the directories in a source code file to get it to install at al and I still can't install the main code base. Happy listening, Thank you so much, Bearcat M. Sandor On Friday 13 June 2003 16:29, Chris Cannam wrote: > On Friday 13 Jun 2003 9:40 pm, Chris Cannam wrote: > > I wouldn't mind seeing a reply from > > one of the NoteEdit developers, as I've probably inadvertantly > > slandered them somewhere. > > Actually, reading it through again, I realise the opposite may be > true: I probably haven't done much of a job of explaining why anyone > would prefer to use Rosegarden. What a great salesman I am. Not > that it makes any difference, since they're both free. > > The principle about Rosegarden is that all of the non-notation stuff > is actually useful when working on notation as well, particularly if > you're doing composition rather than just transcribing scores. For > example, it does a good job of helping prepare reasonable MIDI > performances: it can estimate things like velocities from the score, > and can remember the performed times and durations of notes even > while tidying them up for score purposes. It includes a quantizer > dedicated to producing readable score, that admittedly still needs > work but still does pretty much as good a job from performance > timings as (say) Sibelius does (although Rosegarden really needs > tempo-tracking as well -- it's on my to-do list). You can use it > (with a soft synth or external synth and mixer) to render your > compositions down to audio tracks. It has configurable program/bank > patch maps for MIDI devices, including a number of popular devices as > standard. Flashy stuff like antialiasing for notes isn't just for > show, it makes it much easier to see and follow scores in smaller > sizes; and having a nice friendly GUI is also a genuinely useful > thing. > > There are also several areas where it has interesting potential rather > than immediate utility, but they maybe aren't of much interest here. > > And there are some real downsides (here I go again with my > non-salesman stuff). It sometimes behaves inconsistently or > unexpectedly for reasons connected to the fact that it's manipulating > sequenceable data behind the scenes -- i.e. things like tuplets and > grace notes are stored in playable form rather than displayable form, > and it takes some testing to get all the potential conversion cases > working correctly. Many of the natty features described above are > incomplete: for example the notation quantizer can guess slurs, > tenuto etc but it tends to do so in rather inappropriate places at > the moment. The lyric editor is weaker than NoteEdit's (forgot to > mention that last time). And of course perhaps what you want is an > editor you can enter whatever you like into, and that will do > whatever you tell it with it, instead of an editor that thinks it > knows what you're doing. > > And the Rosegarden developers talk too damn much. > > > Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+6snsya+RPo9ly58RAoNwAJ9xya2RFD3VBBqOjc3zwNvNJ7ZcBQCgjBhU R12T3d2WjIQXnAKcycjnLTc= =EMZx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
