[GTALUG] Seeking help with a unique Linux project?

Mon Jan 4 14:46:41 UTC 2016

Hi again  Blaise,
This one is really fun from a creative standpoint.
You wrote,

>> For music notation there are a couple, ABC Notation  is included
>> in Debian, which I understand is a really simple tool.  there are
>> some more complete doors though,
>
> I wouldn't discount ABC notation as being too simple. I haven't used it yet, but
> it's been on my radar for a while. It could be very useful for entry and
> editing, because you can do that all in plain text, and then convert to MIDI or
> typeset with Lilypond.

This is the nifty thing about creating here. do I want to create the music 
in  midi files first then turn them into notation, or the other way 
around?  decisions, decisions.

>
> I had the sense there are a wide variety of tools like this for turning ABC into
> something else. You can think of it like a sort of "source code" for your music
> -- you can write in in ABC, but then "compile" or convert it to other forms when
> you're finished.
>
> I wouldn't rule ABC out for being too simple. It seems very powerful. I'd be
> more concerned if it's too cryptic, i.e. are you comfortable managing music
> notation with this syntax?
>

and that seems to be the challenge  some musicians I know express about the 
abc notation platform, the syntax is  perhaps too simplistic.
I wonder myself what it does  that Lillypond does not truth be told.
And again there is that creative question, which comes first the notation, 
or the music?
Peter's creative philosophy outlined in the program below is yet another 
variation.
>
>> Like muscript, for example :-)
>>    http://www.pjb.com.au/muscript/index.html
>> with its associated midi2muscript utility:
>>    http://www.pjb.com.au/midi/midi2muscript.html
>> Which lets you shift a midi file into notation..or so I
>> understand.
>
> Cool, I hadn't heard of that. In comparing Muscript to ABC Notation, I'd be
> curious if Muscript has the same wide support for its standard notation.
>
> ABC has tons of software avaiable around it:
> http://abcnotation.com/software#linux
>

Yet another more philosophical question I dare say largely tied to how one 
defines   their computer experiences.
I am a member of the Debian-users  discussion group  here,
lists.debian.org
It is where I heard about abc notation, and got an invitation to join 
their own  discussion group.
However Peter who wrote the other program  is directly involved in support 
and assistance.
Who is best able to fortify the user experience, the individual directly 
involved in writing the software, or others who have built tools around 
the software?
Speaking only for myself, I do not equate music making with writing 
software code, if that makes sense.
Since I am personally less worried at this stage about how the computer 
elements enter act than I am how easily I can translate music I have 
played first into printed form for other musicians to play, I suspect a 
tool that starts with midi translates into notation, then lets me do 
cleanup in something like lillypond before printing may feel more 
natural...for me.

> e.g. abcMIDI: http://abc.sourceforge.net/abcMIDI/
> Or abc2ly, which comes with LilyPond
tools abound to be sure yes.

>
> My sense is that ABC has a more mature ecosystem, with broader support, but
> that's just the first I'm encountering Muscript, so I could be wrong!

I can only speak to how the program gets discussed.  I have personally not 
found  productive  interaction on list.
I have for example learned more here, and from the main Debian discussion 
list than I have reading posts on the ABC Notation one, but again that is 
me.
I prefer asking the most primary source about things if i can.

  >
>
>> Then there are the tools for  monitoring and audio work,
>> For Audio recording and processing by way of example,  there is
>> Joel's Nama:
>> https://freeshell.de/~bolangi/nama/
>
> Very cool.

Joel is a fine example of primary source.  He was one of the first to 
encourage me in creating the two separate machines I am aiming for using
   ssh telnet to reach the Linux one treating it like a command line based 
server.  Letting me start in relatively known territory since I ssh 
TELNET into Freebsd and Ubuntu shell services many times a day.
  Allot of those updating Linux programs naturally think like 
programmers, and I am not one of those.

.
>
> Never heard of it or used it before, but, yes, it's in the Debian repos:
> https://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=ecasound
>
> And it looks like it can interface with the JACK audio server, which you may
> need for other pro audio software:
> http://ecasound.seul.org/ecasound/Documentation/examples.html#rtjack
Oh yes,  Joel's program is indeed a part of Debian.  The Debian users list 
is where I   heard about the option, and met him directly.

>
>> For MIDI there is Midish:
>> http://www.midish.org
>>
>
> Cool! Looks like it's ALSA MIDI, but can interface with JACK MIDI using the
> available bridge:
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/pipermail/linux-audio-user/2010-October/073533.html

This is also in the Debian repos.
Exactly, there are already allot of  command line tools, some tied to 
traditional midi usage, some with bridges to new avenues like Jack.
To be honest t it is sort of a Linux drawback.  there are so many items on 
the menu, one can get overwhelmed if that makes sense.

>
>> search worthy via Google.
>
> Yes, another reason IMHO to have an audio distro -- they'll package the latest
> LADSPA and LV2 plugins. I get mine mostly from the KXStudio repositories.

Only further supporting your  wise idea to build a strong Debian floor 
first and add the kxstudio and low latency kernels on top.

>
>
>> As for your Jack question, the answer is no.  In fact I am not
>> even sure what that program does, but I am not as of yet using
>> Linux directly on any computer of my own.
>
> Ah, I see. Yeah, most GNU/Linux distributions use PulseAudio (/ ALSA) for sound
> these days, but most pro audio applications use JACK. JACK is a low latency
> audio server. You don't need it for all audio applications, but the more serious
> ones tend to require it. This is another thing that an audio distribution might
> help with -- though, if you're running JACK from the command line, might require
> some manual work to get the right settings anyways.
>
What does jack give you in any case?  By which I mean, what can you create 
musically  with it that could not be done before in your professional 
opinion?
I will visit the pages below of course, but I am wondering how it makes a 
real world difference?

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JACK_Audio_Connection_Kit
> http://jackaudio.org/

I care far
>> more about the machine's ability to let me make music
>> at the professional level then I do about my using speech on the
>> computer itself.  Since a server should, or can be a part of a
>> properly configured Linux  installation though, I believe I can
>> still do my work  even if the kernel does not support speech for
>> me.
>>
>
> A question I forgot to add about the SSH option: Where will the speakers be?
>
> If you're using SSH to access your music machine, and your speakers are
> connected to your music machine, and it's all still in the same room as you, I
> could see that working.
>
> Just making sure you're not expecting audio to be output through the other
> computer that you're using as an SSH client!
>

Oh how funny!
no, that would be quite impossible unnecessary and counter productive.
The speakers will be connected to the Linux music machine, its what the 
m-audio card is for.  The midi keyboard will be connected to this music 
computer as well.
the ssh telnet client is not in Linux, or windows either for that matter, 
smiles.

Now off to answer in part my own question about jack.
Kare

> ---