On Thu, 1 Jul 2010 21:54:19 +0100 James Morris <james@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm working on a new MIDI app which shares some features with a > sequencer, but in other ways is more like an arpeggiator, but also > somewhat different to both. > > It's like a sequencer in that the user will be able to create rhythmic > patterns which lack pitch and velocity data, and almost like an > arpeggiator in that it will automatically generate the pitch and > velocity data from an algorithm - and unlike either a sequencer or > arpegiattor, it uses a 2d window-placement like algorithm to generate > pitch/velocity (mapping these to x/y). > > Basically, I am after opinions from a potential users on the following: > > 1) a basic 'timebase master' implementation which lacks tempo maps, > signature changes, etc, just enough to fire the app up and play around > with ideas (currently it does this). > > 2) no timebase master at all, (just like arpage), you must have some > other sequencer running. > > 3) a full feature time base master with tempo/meter changes etc. > > The case for 1 is just as it says, ease of use for playing around > with, and only for playing around with. > > The user would be expected to run a fully featured sequencer/daw for > features such as tempo and meter changes. > > Would having 1) just confuse users? (but if they're confused by that...) > > The case against 3 is other apps like ardour, rosegarden, already do > this, and probably better than I can get my app to. > > Cheers, > James. Sounds interesting. I would describe it as an 'Intelligent Arpeggiator'. Options 1 + 2 look most interesting. As you suggest, 1 for fiddling about with ideas, 2 for actually producing a finished, linked work. -- Will J Godfrey http://www.musically.me.uk Say you have a poem and I have a tune. Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
