[gmpi] Re: 3.15 MIDI
- From: "Koen Tanghe" <koen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <gmpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 02:42:34 +0200
On Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:45 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Chris Grigg <xxxgmpi-public@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Also, if this is to be the logic that governs what's in and what's
> out, then GMPI must do both raw MIDI and the cool new GMPI stuff,
> since we know of one plug developer who wants to process raw MIDI.
> 8-)
This is a bit funny :-) You don't really think Michael is the only one who
needs the things he describes below for "his" kind of music, do you?
No, seriously: it's not *that* uncommon, really. I've been experimenting
with these things myself a bit (I'm not a composer at all though), and Mike
just said he has needed things beyond MIDI when he was in the "experimental
music community" some time ago...
Maybe this would allow some of the "CSound-style people" (sorry for the
term) to finally enter the more broader community/market of music production
if we take their needs into account?
Koen
>> Who said all music is humanly performed? Are you still living in the
>> twentieth century? Most music these days is assembled using software.
>> There is not and should not be a limit on number of voices. Haven't you
>> ever heard of granular synthesis? Are we supposed to outlaw this? Maybe
>> you should only use triads, no 7ths and certainly no flat ninths. Or
>> maybe you should stick to 4/4 time since that's good enough for 7/8 of
>> music. Is that OK with you?
>>
>> Obviously I do now use software since I long ago discovered MIDI was
>> inadequate. However, I would certainly prefer to be able to use a widely
>> accepted, commercially supported protocol. I currently work in the Csound
>> community where this kind of thing is perfectly routine, and everyone
>> already understands these issue; but it's a small community, with a small
>> output of music. I'd prefer to be part of a bigger community with more
>> resources and a larger output of music -- if I don't have to give up
>> capabilities.
>>
>> As I said before, I AM A COMPOSER AND I AM THE ONE WHO DECIDES WHAT IS
>> ADEQUATE. I do not decide this as a programmer -- which I also am -- but
>> as a musician. It is musicians who decide what is music.
>>
>> If two musicians disagree, then the only definition of music that is
>> valid is one that has room for both of them.
>>
>> You may not understand this, but by denying technical validity to my
>> musical requirements you are saying it's fine with you if my instruments
>> are crippled. If there's no technical ability to give me what I want,
>> that's OK; but we do have the ability, so it's not OK!
>>
>> It is not nice, it is not polite, and it will not work to deprecate
>> someone's work or tools because it is "not normal" or "unusual". I'm not
>> trying to cripple your tools, on the contrary I am actively working to
>> improve them, but you are trying to cripple mine for no technical reason,
>> which has the effect of marginalizing me. Get it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: //www.freelists.org/archives/gmpi
Email gmpi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx w/ subject "unsubscribe" to unsubscribe
Other related posts:
