[gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8 Events - gesture start/end

I would be interested to hear the opinion of others who have implemented
synchronization, tempo maps, and what not on this matter.

"Beat marker and tempo data" is too vague. If the tempo data consists of
instantaneous tempi bridged by a few linear ramps, I think the requirement
is not sufficient to the cases. 

If the tempo data is a functional representation (splines or Paul Davis
type splines) with a few segments, that's better, but still not as accurate
as access to stored sequence data, and introduces its own complexities.

If there are many segments, there is no gain over giving the plugin access
to all stored sequence data.

GMPI has no particular reason to exist if it's not rather superior to the
existing software.

Original Message:
-----------------
From: Steve Harris S.W.Harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 22:36:59 +0000
To: gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gmpi] Re: Reqs 3.8 Events - gesture start/end


On Wed, Dec 24, 2003 at 01:17:36 -0500, gogins@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> "Just sufficient" depends on purpose. It also depends on the elegance of
> the interface. Protocols found insufficient: MIDI, VST. Protocols long in
> use yet still not found insufficient: SQL92, TCP/IP, XML. A simple
> interface with a high degree of data abstraction is what we need. This is
> not inconsistent with efficiency.

I'm, not sure that I'd describe VST and MIDI as insufficient - I'm not
particualrly fond of either but they can both cover 99% of the cases well
enough. They do the job.
 
> Again, I feel I started this discussion down the wrong path by complaining
> about inadequate implementation assumptions instead of incomplete musical
> use cases and vague requirements. 

Yes, OK, the usecases are valid, however I think that (for practicality)
we should say that some usecases are just outside the scope of GMPI (not
that these are).

Personally I'd like to see a /good/ 99% solution - covering the vast
majority of cases well, and making the rest harder, but possible.
 
> How do you propose satisfying the use cases I have mentioned: plugins that
> generate accompaniments for recorded sequences with "feel", plugins that
> process and generate streams of events in synchronization with the host,
> and controllers that are bound to specific notes of specific voices?

To me it seems like those just require a decent beat marker + tempo data
implentnation - I dont think any of those couldn't be implemented with
that.

It doesnt require any low-level access to the hosts data structures, just
a sufficient representation in the GMPI API. I dont think they even
require generating or altering tempo map data, do they?

- Steve

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .



----------------------------------------------------------------------
Generalized Music Plugin Interface (GMPI) public discussion list
Participation in this list is contingent upon your abiding by the
following rules:  Please stay on topic.  You are responsible for your own
words.  Please respect your fellow subscribers.  Please do not
redistribute anyone else's words without their permission.

Archive: http://www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe

Other related posts: