Quote:
Originally Posted by emarsk
The grouping notation with parenthesis is wonderful would be perfectly integrated with the current syntax: your second example ( '3'421 ) could be written as (Abb)(Abbb)(bb)b .
|
Yes, it is a solution and it could easily extend the original syntax(although, again, adding my original idea is just an extension of the current syntax). It is verbose but offers flexibility.
One could extended it further by allowing nested parenthesis
I personally don't care about the syntax as long as it is relatively straightforward and rather quick at using. If I have to look up the syntax because I forgot something then it is too complex. If it takes me longer to type than it would using some other method then it is too slow to use.
What is more important is having the capabilities to do the original task. The only way to do this task currently is very complex considering how easy it would be to do with a little support by reaper.
For example, reaper treats 6/8 as simple when it is almost always used as compound. By having a more advanced BeatPattern then it could be noted in 6/8 compound = (1)()()(2)()() or (A)()()(b)()()
One could make a simple grammar for the string so be able to do nifty stuff... The main things I'd like to see are
1. Ability to express any divisions(at least up to 9) of a beat; per beat. (so different beats in a bar can have different divisions)
2. Be able to express accent or loudness of a beat.
3. Be able to express different beat and sub-beat sounds. (ideally more than 2 but at least 2)
4. The ability to save and recall the "Beat Pattern".
Reaper's metronome already does all this except 4 and 1, which only allows divisions of 2 and 3.
In fact, I think it would probably be much easier for reaper to just expose a dynamic library that it uses for the metronome, if it exists.
This separates the metronome capabilities from reaper. All reaper has to do is expose some simple functions to get times for the divisions of a bar(could allow for multiple bars, e.g., (1 1)( 1 )( 1 )(1 )|( 11 )(11 1)(11 1)( 111)).
Then if a dll exists in the plugin directory, like metronome.dll then reaper loads the library(already has the code so mainly just copying and pasting), and uses the metronome functionality supplied by the dll.
Depending on how reaper deals with scheduling the clicks for the metronome, it could a very easy problem taking a few hours of programming max(I'm sure reaper is designed for this sort of stuff as it already uses dlls doing this very same type of behavior but for far more complex tasks.
So, for a simple metronome.dll that exports a single function or two that simply returns either if a click should be played(passing the time) or a list of times when the click should be played.
data Metronome(double currentTime, int BarNumber, int loopCount)
{
//fill data
}
The dll, of course does all the work with the gui and beat pattern syntax, etc.
This is no different than how a vst works. While it might be a bit more work than just allowing for some extended syntax, it would decouple the metronome from reaper, as a I said, then people could code their own and share and all that glory.
Quote:
You could argue that beat subdivision (binary or ternary or anything else) is also rhythm, not meter. As I said, for me it's really useful (let's say essential), to be able to silence beats, because if I write a fast 15/16 rhythm, the 16th notes are too fast and too many to be useful as a metronome. So for my use case - and yours - "rhythm" is really part of "meter".
|
Meter is this "underlying" aspect of music. It is a rhythm in sorts, but is distinct. After all, we made a pretty different word for the concept for a reason. The "rhythm" of the meter is what I call meter. This is why we call clave a "meter" even though it can be expressed as a rhythm. You can play the clave rhythmically but you have to play it metrically for it to be "the clave". For example, if a guitarist played the clave rhythm at 32nd notes no one would say he is playing the clave meter. If you slowed him down and turned him in to a bass player so that the notes were happening at a "quarter note" pace then he is magically playing the clave meter. There is a difference between rhythm and meter and it has to do with this concept of "scale". It's hard to explain but to most post people they are so aware of specific meters that they are not aware of it actually flowing like they do rhythm.
If you don't believe that different meters exist, try your own experimentation with using different meters and see how they shape your feel of improvising over them. This is why even standard meters are different such as 2/4 and 4/4. For example 6/8 could be simple or compound... but it could also be more complex. Meter is more than just the the basic beat pattern but that the entire music is bound the real metric pattern, not rigidly on "average".
Another way to think about it is that it's like a women: Her skin is the "meter" and her clothes is "rhythm" the clothes can change, more against or with her motions, be added, or subtracted. But it must conform to the meter(in fact, it will automatically with any musician that is not a novice just as gravity and shape conform the cloth to the body).
Quote:
---
If you'd written "some people" I'd agree, but as it is, it seems to me to imply a general attitude from most people. But maybe my English is not good enough to catch the nuance.
Anyway, the exact scope is largely irrelevant: responding to an attack with an attack - even if rightful - is a matter of attitude and fuels the flames, giving others the desire (and, often, the opportunity) to further attack back, and so on.
Of course not. My sentence about ungratefulness was (obviously?) meant to be slightly provocative (in a positive way, hopefully).
|
So, really, as long as you keep trying to defend them on their behavior because of my behavior I will bitch and wine about it it... quite simply because they are wrong. It's nothing against you or them but I won't roll over so it can happen to the next guy so easily. When the timeline is raveled up and people can sequence events in any order they want, then sure... anything can be proven. But the timeline is well documented and it clearly shows me being attacked first. Maybe my response to EvilDragon was a bit too strong but some of it deserved because he was still being an ass for no reason at all. But I was then attacked again and it's clear as print until he changes it, that he said "I said it would take 5min "when I never said such a thing, what I said was
--"Depending on how it was originally coded it could actually take less than 5 mins"
which was responded with
--"Ah the ole, "it'll only take five minutes" story."
The fact is that these guys here can't read worth a shit nor can they seem to interpret semantics well.
So, his justification for attacking me is that I said "It'll only take 5 minutes" when I said it could take 5mins. Just conveniently leave out the could and everything is the same... why would I put the word in then?
It always sounds kinda pathetic when I here someone say "Am I the only one with facts around here?" but not all things can be interpreted in more than one way.