Re: [tuning] Digest Number 1572

Hi John,

It's something historical, kind of like the Intel chip and so many
other messes created from backward compatibility conflicting with
consistent architecture. I wish they had simply reserved one of the
128 programs for the "drum kit voice"; after all, program change on
the MIDI percussion channel is meaningless as things stand, a real waste
of flexible space. But, I already have the ugly code to work around
the problem. And we're stuck with it till further notice.

Yes, that makes a lot of sense, it would work as well as a program change
for "drum kit voice", and could be sent on any channel without
changing the channel - that would make things easier.
I have a lot of lines of type:
if(i!=NON_MELODIC_PERCUSSION_CHANNEL)
...
etc.

> What I have in mind is to use a continuous foot controller exactly as
> the pitch wheel is now used: to add (or subtract) cents of offset to
> every pitch class of whatever tuning is chosen by the other means. I
> visualize my left foot on organ pitch pedals, one or two octaves worth,
> and my right foot on the continuous controller.

Interpret a controller as a pitch bend - that would be easy to do in the
code, a few lines to do the actual work, some thought needed for interface.

> >That's a nice idea. So composer could for example write a piece in,
> >say, 7-tet, and you can adaptively tune it to make the 3/2s more mellow
> >(and perhaps target 11/9s too?) if desired. Do I understand this right?

> Yes.

That sounds incredibly useful to be able to do! (If you want to experiment,
could be nice to hear how my 7-tet trio sounds re-tuned).

Robert

[Robert wrote:]
>I have a lot of lines of type:
>if(i!=NON_MELODIC_PERCUSSION_CHANNEL)

Yeah, I hear ya. My lines tend to be:

if(iChan == GM_PERCUS_CHAN) {

I have that line all over the place, 'cause it affects channel splitting
and everything else. Those notes more or less "don't exist" from the
standpoint of tuning a piece, but must of course be faithfully copied
thru to the output.

(I also put my opening curly brace on the 'if' or 'for' line, which
seems to drive some C programmers bonkers. I figure, why waste a line?)

[Robert:]
>(If you want to experiment, could be nice to hear how my 7-tet trio
>sounds re-tuned).

Remind me again of where that piece is?

JdL

Hi John,

> Yeah, I hear ya. My lines tend to be:

> if(iChan == GM_PERCUS_CHAN) {

> I have that line all over the place, 'cause it affects channel splitting
> and everything else. Those notes more or less "don't exist" from the
> standpoint of tuning a piece, but must of course be faithfully copied
> thru to the output.

> (I also put my opening curly brace on the 'if' or 'for' line, which
> seems to drive some C programmers bonkers. I figure, why waste a line?)

I'm one of those! Thing is that I'm used to looking at braces and expecting
them to align:
{
{
{
}
}
}
and if one has them on the if or for line, one can't see that pattern.
Though one _can_ compare the } with the level of indent, which I suppose
is what you do, but I'm just not used to reading c code that way -
so I'm one of those that finds it confusing - funny what a difference
habit makes :-).

Remind me again of where that piece is?

http://members.tripod.com/~robertinventor/tunes/tunes.htm#7_equal_trio

Robert