On Tuesday 11 July 2006 07:37, D. Michael 'Silvan' McIntyre wrote:
> I think I'm going to do these in a separate dialog, hanging off
> a "Defaults..." button (with an explanatory tooltip) that will be available
> from either a MIDI or DSSI IPB. We have too damn many widgets in these
> boxes already.
How about using a file paradigm for the instrument definition? Like a "Load"
button that would pop up a file dialog in the location where the instrument
definitions are in the filesystem?
> I was thinking track for this all along, but Chris's simple "Aren't these
> instrument parameters?" got gears in my head turning, and I did a 180.
> Yes, I think so.
I discussed the same thing some time ago, and got the same answer.
Still somehow I still have the feeling that this instrument is not the same as
the MIDI or DSSI one. I think we're talking about a concept. of higher level
> So color, clef, transposition, highest/lowest playable notes go into this
> new dialog for use at segment creation time. It makes sense. Especially
> when instruments can belong to segments individually. So a trumpet
> instrument is always device X channel Y color Z treble clef -2 etc., no
> matter where you assign that instrument.
The problem I ran into with this is, that in the notation view most of these
properties apply to a staff which again corresponds to a track. Is there a
use case for say, changing the transposition in the middle of a staff? There
clearly is for changing the MIDI patch.
This thinking only applies as long as the track <-> staff relation exists, is
that something that is changing?
> It seems a little fiddly in use, almost like there's begging to be some new
> totally separate layer where this stuff is defined. Something added to the
> studio, like Pedro was getting at, but please for the love of whatever you
> love, not in the horrible bank editor dialog!
Maybe a separate instrument editor dialog?
> But I think I'll vote for fiddly for now. Fiddly is a start, and I'm
> already biting off a lot more than any Spanish majoring tree hugging
> documentation writing truck driver ever ought to have. Code is for
> programmers, not truck drivers. I expect someone will have to walk behind
> me and wipe my butt on some of this too, but I feel fairly comfortable with
> all this, to my amazement. I'm not a programmer, but I fake it admirably,
> if I do say so myself.
> Now, let's make that new button do something.
Good luck! :)