Implementation of a notation-editor like the one found in the Amiga
version of OctaMED Soundstudio would be very useful sometimes.
Think about it guys 
Like this idea a lot! may be an idea if this could somehow be incorperated into the pianoroll i.e. you could switch to notation editor background with a grand staff. May not be useful for all types of instrument composition but could definitely used effectively for piano comp etc. (would also be nice to see scores of certain tracked sequences)
Another thought it would also be great if you could print out (notation editor) scores from tunes composed in renoise aswell.
I think that 99% of tracker users are tracker users because they don’t want to see scores at all.
most of tracker users can barely bear with a pianoroll…
sorry, I think that ReNoise needs a lot of features more than a notation editor
word! Please beware of notation!
It Alien: I agree that renoise does need more features as a priority over a notation editor but that does not mean to say that there is no benefit for renoise to adopt one. The strong point of a notation editor is that it allows users with a musical theory background to quickly visualise what they are doing in a tracking environment. This means they gain the benefits of tracking while at the same time using a notation that is universal.
Just because some people may not like to use a piano roll (which by the way I am included here!) doesn`t mean that it should not be made as good as possible. If a notation editor was included in the piano roll I would definitely be more likely to use it as it would become a more powerful tool (all given that this addition would not take up a disproportionally large programming time of the developers).
I agree that tracking is the number 1 priority but I can only see it as a general benefit in the long run if renoise becomes a better all round music application also.
some points against notation editor:
some of these could not be true, as I’m not exactly a notation master 
-
this would be quite an hard feature to implement
-
a score can’t reproduce a lot of tracking parameters, as for example:
- volume/pan
- glissando speed
- automations
- vibrato depth and speed
- cutoff/resonance/width
-
a score has a limited note range to display at a time so, unless you would want to continuosly change the root key, it is quite obsolete for modern electronic music, which is (unfortunately) tracker’s main target
-
a score, at least a readable one, has much less resolution than ReNoise (which will also increase it in the future). I bet that most of ReNoise songs would just appear as a big mess when translated to notation.
In general, I think that scores are good for playing, not for composing, expecially when your music is not intended for human reproduction.
In the end, I think that the result of embedding a notation editor into ReNoise would not worth the effort, as it would also give just a raw idea of how the song is, and can’t be used for a great part of ReNoise’s parameters editing
Just to go through the points, in reverse order (you will see why at the end!)
-
The increased resolution in renoise would be of benefit to a notation editor as polyrhytms easily written in musical score would be able to be handled. Accepted that alot of instances in renoise would appear messy but I am only seeing this addition as an extra tool to help in some instances rather than a general interface for composing a whole piece of music (unless the whole piece was better composed that way).
-
The grand staff covers 3 octaves (almost exactly) and can be extended with the use of ledger lines. This is more than enough in general for standard piano parts (where I see the advantages of this feature) and a lot of others (although obviously there are exceptions aswell)
-
Some automation could be assigned particular values by the user i.e. allegro given a BPM by the user the same as for largo etc. Admittedly it would be impractical to paste automation curves all over the score but they could be kept as they are in the pattern editor and automation windows, with the option of showing some kind of symbols on the score. Again the notation editor as I would see it would be an add on to fit into the general idea of the tracker and not a replacement for things that can be done better elsewhere.
-
Fair enough!
no need for unneccesary programming time consuming when other (more important IMO) features call!
I can definitely see the advantage personally, of having this translation between tracker and score aswell as the from tracker to digital recording (even better all in one prog). However if effort is that great as I have said before other features should have greater priority. (excuse repetition!)
- this would be quite an hard feature to implement
Yes. At least if it should be of any use…
- a score can’t reproduce a lot of tracking parameters, as for example:
You can’t edit automation in the sampleeditor, or notes in the envelope window. Therefore we should drop them. Sorry, this makes no sense to me.
- a score has a limited note range to display at a time so, unless you
would want to continuosly change the root key, it is quite obsolete for
modern electronic music, which is (unfortunately) tracker’s main target
Seriously, do you really think “modern electronic music” is more complex
than the huge orchestral works written through the last centuries?
It’s not a problem to show several octaves within a single staff, and with
a two-staff system (bass/treble) that is increased by quite a bit…
- a score, at least a readable one, has much less resolution than ReNoise
(which will also increase it in the future). I bet that most of ReNoise songs
would just appear as a big mess when translated to notation.
True, and a problem with most semi-good notation editors.
But for most rythms in “modern electronic music”, that’s not a problem.
The challenge there is to make the notation editor recognize triplets and swing patterns in the rythms (and that doesn’t sound like an easy task to me…)
In general, I think that scores are good for playing, not for composing,
expecially when your music is not intended for human reproduction.
I don’t agree. And I don’t see how you can claim this without knowing
more about scores than you do… A person skilled in scorereading and writing
can read a lot of information about the music from a score.
In the end, I think that the result of embedding a notation editor into
ReNoise would not worth the effort, as it would also give just a raw
idea of how the song is, and can’t be used for a great part of
ReNoise’s parameters editing
In the end, while I don’t agree with most of your arguments, I agree that
the work amount is too much larger than the gain (for now at least), and there are many features much more important.
(Although I would like to see a good notation editor (or viewer) in Renoise myself).
About being able to print a score of your tracked music, 1.3 will have MIDI export, which can then be imported in a scorewriting program, polished and printed from there.
well, there is one major advantage with this I see :
if you happen to step up to conservative musicians (from a conversatorium or any other music school, also including any other musicians who learned music the “oldfashioned” way) and ask them if they might want to play with/for you, there is often this problem of explaining them things. I think those people really like to have a notesheet infront of them which shows atleast the basic chords and stuff. So there would be a very specific use for that.
(Did you know for example that Basement Jaxx have a track on their new album which features some royal orchestra string section ? the point is, they paid someone to arrange the strings and write notesheets for those people, because thats the language they understand. he kinda was the translator between the MIDI-World of BJ and the score-world of these string-people.)
looza:
as already said by Martinal
(I’ve omitted this because I thought it was obvious), ReNoise 1.3 will have .MID output, so if you need to share scores with people, you can spread the .MID version.
This is also valid for Ledger: if you need to edit a ReNoise file using a score, wait for ReNoise 1.3 and use an external .MID editor
This is obviously not the best solution, but this is what we all already do for most of sample editing, as ReNoise doesn’t have a complex enough sample editor.
Maybe I should have put the incoming .MID exporting as point 5
Martinal:
sorry, as I’ve said, I’m not an expert of scores, so as you see I’ve written some bullcensored but I’m glad to see that the overall sense of my points is shared by everyone
It Alien: On this point was aware of this as I said before would be great to have all in one program but as also said before not 100% priority.
Looza: look forward to hearing new jaxx album, they did some interesting stuff on the last 2 (“Same old Show”: try and count the timing,((if ur havin trouble listen to the beep!))… (dont want to fly off topic so ill stop now!)
i don’t like this idea with scores. currently music use more drums and filters than it was in"the last centuries"… scores is not even a step backward, scores is a step to nowhere. maybe scores is a standart for someone, but i don’t give a damn. my standart is tracker view and i don’t want to learn any other one just to show how smart i am. also i don’t want to “help” any one to make renoise “all in one”. sorry, it’s imho, no need to dispute about it, because i don’t give a damn for opposite opinion.
it-alien : oh, I did miss that MID export thing.
so dont make that notation window, I dont care anymore
ledger : I have that album for a few days now (internet rules), its very good.
they have a few great style elements, like mixing electronic with real drums and generally having quite a few punk-elements arrangement wise,
the only thing which sucks abit is their excessive use of bleep-synth-lines. In every song there are some simple bleep-sound-melodies repeating over and over. but other than that its great.
oh come on. I dont think notation is from the dark ages. I just cant read or write it. and dont give me crap like “i.e. a being with some degree of sensitivity, not a machine”, I know too much “real” musicians who think that making music using computers is not making music, because the computer does everything, but on the other hand are totally lost if you dont give them something to play, because they have no creativity of themselves and cant play anything out of their mind. they are like workers, not artists.
all I say is that I dont need that notation window. if enough people pop up demanding it, it might be in renoise one day, but I doubt it.
and the last word from me : why use a system which is meant for “people with some degree of sensitivity” for a program which is making music “the machine way” ? I dont think you can make renoise have sensitivity or feelings, which is indeed needed for reading and performing notations.
(btw, what happened to fuzzy logic ? popped into my mind some time ago again. it was the big hype some years back and now I never hear anything about it).
First of all, this wasn’t directed at you looza, even if you were the last to post.
Second of all, you need to give me a f****ing break. It’s the person controlling, using, sculpting everything that should posess sensitivity. A machine, in the sense that I was referring to one, does EXACTLY what it’s commanded to do. A (developed), sensuous creature like a human being can interpret something, and it can do so with a leverage or degree of fault or deviation that is astounding. A person can react like no present day machine can.
You are obviously not familiar with the ‘real’ musicians I am.
I know, just as you do, that there is an abundance of musicians and ‘artists’ who can’t play with genuine, unmasked emotion, and/or lack the ability, talent, creativity, etc to play something else.
The fact you have to reconcile with is that ANYONE can and will be a musician, artist, etc. ANYONE can and will suggest that something isn’t worth as much as something else, for whatever reason is apparent to them, no matter how misconceived it actually is.
The ones who use machines, including those who use it to the extent of having it compose for them, have been known to criticise the ‘establishment’ for being too rigid for instance. That is ludicrous and simply not true, for the reasons stated above (that a person will interpret the same things differently from someone else).
Musicians/artists who enjoy wallowing in their own ignorance, are just as prevalent, if not more so, amongst those who proclaim not to be ignorant. Like you, who obviously have a gripe against musicians that play others’ work as opposed to ‘artists’ who ‘create’.
I agree that it can be (most often is) harder to create something from your mind, than to perform it from a page or from memory, but so long as a person can interpret (to any length, only bridled by his/her attributes), and thereby express something totally unique, no comparison should be made, because it is unfair, and needless.
It’s only function is to keep some kind of psychotic order in our chaotic minds, that can’t/won’t accept that all things are equal, and it has alot to do with prejudice stemming from a fear of loosing oneself. The same prejudice that created wars, enslavement, famine when there needen’t be any, etc.
A person who creates an identity, either as a musician or as a person, based on who he/she has a distaste for, is not a musician/person, but a poser. A person enwrenched in the matters of surface. Look at the goths. 99% posers, because they are expelling certain things and ‘embracing’ others. I’ve just revealed one of my own preconceptions… But I have this preconception not just about that community, but about communities overall. It’s a sad, miserable thing to be held captive by a crowd.
Back to music, what do you think composition is and has been? Do you think every person in the past, present and future that has either created or notated music had the ability to play it? All of it, like a machine could?
No musician/artist with half a brain, not even a session player (who might be the best/most able/expressive musician you’ll ever know), would ever say that someone who composes like we do, by sequencing, suffer from a lack of any trait I’ve mentioned above, before hearing the composition itself, unless the music was made (in part) by someone/something else. Just as a guitarist (even a classically minded one) models his/her tone, so does a synthesist. The more you do, the more responsible you are, and the more recognition you deserve, if you deserve any at all. This applies to aspects of life.
If you’re not familiar with the unsurpassed creativity of some of the ‘real’ musicians, even from the machineless age, you could reap alot of ideas by seeking them out. I’m not judging you if you haven’t. Not as a person, nor as a musician. There is alot I need to hear/experience/learn, and I am no more than any other, even the worst.
(I’m not sure what I’ve written, if it’s coherent or not. It’s just to expell some stuff. 
)
edit by It-Alien:
removed guest post and assigned it to the actual author
any ordinary instrument does exactly the things you tell it to.
I mean, it takes quite some time to master the technique of playing guitar good aswell as it takes time to master the technique of making good music using a pc.
I think the point is that you need to know the techniques when you want to get your ideas out of your head, alot of guitarists may have tom waits guitarlicks in their head but are never able to play them technically, and its the same with PC musicians.
okay, sorry, I need to explain something here : german language lacks the difference between the two words “performer” and “artist” (as in composer and similar). in german, they are all “artists”, which leads to the crazy effect that I can meet guitarplayers which are not able to come up with anything at all and only can play notes someone writes down for them, but at the same time think they are “better artists” as me, because they “can play something with their hands” (or some other stupid reason).
I have experienced this for the past years now and I grew so sick of it that I often overreact on any hints of that.
same here.
Heh, reminds me of a program called “Quartet” which came out for the Atari ST. It was like a tracker, but with musical notation and staves.
very entertaining thread…
but_
if I play ie. an A-minor scale or a chord-progression on my guitar, with pitch bends/mutes/tempo changes etc., recorded it(read sampled it) and then triggered it in Renoise as C-4… wouldn’t the notation in that case just say … C4 ?
(or am I missing something?)
just asking…
correct