Import a MIDI file

[W.Boeke]

Hi,

I tried to import a midi file into beast, but got no sound.
I mapped all channels to an existing synthesizer, and could
not find out what more should be done.

Import from midi files would be very valuable, because a lot
of free midi files can be downloaded from the internet. It
would be fun to orchestrate some of them in beast.

I have also a suggestion for the beast developers. Why don't
you stop working on the code and first write a decent user
manual? I know this is not a pleasant endeavour, but without
such a thing the app simply is not useable for a 'Jo User'
like me!

Regards,
Wouter Boeke
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Tim Janik]

On Sat, 26 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I tried to import a midi file into beast, but got no sound.
> I mapped all channels to an existing synthesizer, and could
> not find out what more should be done.

beast doesn't produce MIDI output yet.

> Import from midi files would be very valuable, because a lot
> of free midi files can be downloaded from the internet. It
> would be fun to orchestrate some of them in beast.

after you've imported MIDI notes into beast, you still need
to load instruments and assign those to the various MIDI tracks,
otherwise there's nothing to play for beast.

> I have also a suggestion for the beast developers. Why don't
> you stop working on the code and first write a decent user
> manual? I know this is not a pleasant endeavour, but without
> such a thing the app simply is not useable for a 'Jo User'
> like me!

well, we're currently working on extending the stock instrument
set, so we are able to assign instrumnets automatically to
MIDI songs at some point.

someone writing a manual/tutorial would be great, we don't
have spare resources for that though. but i'll extend on
that in another mail.

> Regards,
> Wouter Boeke

---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[W.Boeke]

Hi,

Tim Janik wrote:
 > On Sat, 26 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:
 > Hi,
 > >
 > > I tried to import a midi file into beast, but got no sound.
 > > I mapped all channels to an existing synthesizer, and could
 > > not find out what more should be done.

 > beast doesn't produce MIDI output yet.

Sorry, my question was about MIDI *input*.
I imported a MIDI file and got all the channels listed correctly
in the beast window. I then mapped each channel to an existing
synthesizer, however then the show stopped. What can I do further?

 > > Import from midi files would be very valuable, because a lot
 > > of free midi files can be downloaded from the internet. It
 > > would be fun to orchestrate some of them in beast.

 > after you've imported MIDI notes into beast, you still need
 > to load instruments and assign those to the various MIDI tracks,
 > otherwise there's nothing to play for beast.

Of course.

Kind regards,
Wouter Boeke
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Tim Janik]

On Mon, 28 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Tim Janik wrote:
> > On Sat, 26 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:
> > Hi,
> > >
> > > I tried to import a midi file into beast, but got no sound.
> > > I mapped all channels to an existing synthesizer, and could
> > > not find out what more should be done.
>
> > beast doesn't produce MIDI output yet.
>
> Sorry, my question was about MIDI *input*.

ok, i thought with "existing synthesizer" you meant an external
device, and that requires MIDI output.

> I imported a MIDI file and got all the channels listed correctly
> in the beast window. I then mapped each channel to an existing
> synthesizer, however then the show stopped. What can I do further?

hm, testing it out it seems you still need to assign the tracks
to at least the Master mixer bus for playback.

beast also has a script that is meant to be usable for this, however
it currently doesn't work for me.
Stefan, does Tools/Song/Assign-Tracks-... work for you? it doesn't
seem to work after a MIDI file import or a new project with a single
unconnected track here. can you reproduce that or do you need a bug
report about it?

> Kind regards,
> Wouter Boeke

---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Stefan Westerfeld]

   Hi!

On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:54:52AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:

> On Mon, 28 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:
> >I imported a MIDI file and got all the channels listed correctly
> >in the beast window. I then mapped each channel to an existing
> >synthesizer, however then the show stopped. What can I do further?
>
> hm, testing it out it seems you still need to assign the tracks
> to at least the Master mixer bus for playback.
>
> beast also has a script that is meant to be usable for this, however
> it currently doesn't work for me.
> Stefan, does Tools/Song/Assign-Tracks-... work for you? it doesn't
> seem to work after a MIDI file import or a new project with a single
> unconnected track here. can you reproduce that or do you need a bug
> report about it?

It works the way I designed it, that is, it only reassigns those tracks
that are connected to master, and no other bus. It does this because:

(a) You want to be able to run it repeatedly (for instance after adding
new tracks). Then, those tracks that already have their own mixer
channel should not be reassigned.

(b) Often, you have tracks that are only there for modulating other
tracks (see Party Monster) - these of course don't need their own mixer
channel. So the correct thing for the user is: remove the routing to
master, and then the script will not interfere with these "effect only"
channels any more. Basically it follows the rule: if you could not hear
it before, then you shouldn't hear it after running the script.

(c) If the user uses custom routing (i.e. send output to master and
another channel), then there is probably an intention behind this, so
the script will not touch this either.

So: just the midi import needs to be fixed, the script does the right
thing.

   Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, Hamburg/Germany, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Stefan Westerfeld]

   Hi!

On Sat, May 26, 2007 at 06:23:20PM +0200, W.Boeke wrote:
> I have also a suggestion for the beast developers. Why don't
> you stop working on the code and first write a decent user
> manual? I know this is not a pleasant endeavour, but without
> such a thing the app simply is not useable for a 'Jo User'
> like me!

Besides the stuff that Tim already mentioned why we don't write a manual
first, before continuing writing code, there is also something that is
frequently forgotten: in free software projects, often various people
work on different things, because they can, because they want to,
because they see a need for doing it, and so on. Somebody may be an
excellent translator for Japanese, but just because the Greek
translation is really bad, but required by lots of people, you cannot
just reassign him from the Japanese translation team to the Greek
translation team.

While in a company, you could at least try to do it (and say: if you
don't learn Greek, we'll just fire you), in free software projects it
may not work so well to reassign someone from one task to another. If
someone loves writing code, then he will probably be more happy
contributing code than documentation.

But you're right: there seems to be the need for better documentation,
and it would be great if someone would start working on that. For me
right now, the 0.7.2 release still is a more important thing to work on,
and the release will benefit all BEAST users. But I'll support
documentation writers as good as I can, without stopping to work on
coding.

BEAST may also not be as hard to learn as you may think at first. In
fact, I've seen several people learning to use the program in very
little time, as long as they asked questions on IRC, personally or
otherwise, whenever they occured.

Of course, mastering the subject of creating good music electronically
is a task that will take years to achive. But its not BEAST that is
guilty if you cannot produce decent music at first, in the same way that
you wouldn't blame the piano if a player cannot produce decent music, or
the word processor if somebody doesn't write good books.

   Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, Hamburg/Germany, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Tim Janik]

On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:

>   Hi!
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:54:52AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:
>>> I imported a MIDI file and got all the channels listed correctly
>>> in the beast window. I then mapped each channel to an existing
>>> synthesizer, however then the show stopped. What can I do further?
>>
>> hm, testing it out it seems you still need to assign the tracks
>> to at least the Master mixer bus for playback.
>>
>> beast also has a script that is meant to be usable for this, however
>> it currently doesn't work for me.
>> Stefan, does Tools/Song/Assign-Tracks-... work for you? it doesn't
>> seem to work after a MIDI file import or a new project with a single
>> unconnected track here. can you reproduce that or do you need a bug
>> report about it?

> It works the way I designed it, that is, it only reassigns those tracks
> that are connected to master, and no other bus. It does this because:

> So: just the midi import needs to be fixed, the script does the right
> thing.

i don't agree with that statement. granted, the midi import needs to be
fixed, but there are other ways to end up with an unconnected track.
in such a case, the script name is simply misleading when it says
"assign tracks to individual mixer busses". it should either be renamed
(according to your description, to: "assign _connected_ tracks to
individual mixer busses", but that triggers the question of where an
*unconnected* script variant is) or be fixed to reconnected
disconnected tracks as well. i'd say the latter is the obvious choice
and fail to see a good reason for the script to not connect currently
unconnected tracks.

>   Cu... Stefan

---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Stefan Westerfeld]

   Hi!

On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:25:20AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:

> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:54:52AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
> >> On Mon, 28 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:
> >>> I imported a MIDI file and got all the channels listed correctly
> >>> in the beast window. I then mapped each channel to an existing
> >>> synthesizer, however then the show stopped. What can I do further?
> >>
> >> hm, testing it out it seems you still need to assign the tracks
> >> to at least the Master mixer bus for playback.
> >>
> >> beast also has a script that is meant to be usable for this, however
> >> it currently doesn't work for me.
> >> Stefan, does Tools/Song/Assign-Tracks-... work for you? it doesn't
> >> seem to work after a MIDI file import or a new project with a single
> >> unconnected track here. can you reproduce that or do you need a bug
> >> report about it?
>
> > It works the way I designed it, that is, it only reassigns those tracks
> > that are connected to master, and no other bus. It does this because:
>
> > So: just the midi import needs to be fixed, the script does the right
> > thing.
>
> i don't agree with that statement. granted, the midi import needs to be
> fixed, but there are other ways to end up with an unconnected track.
> in such a case, the script name is simply misleading when it says
> "assign tracks to individual mixer busses". it should either be renamed
> (according to your description, to: "assign _connected_ tracks to
> individual mixer busses", but that triggers the question of where an
> *unconnected* script variant is) or be fixed to reconnected
> disconnected tracks as well. i'd say the latter is the obvious choice
> and fail to see a good reason for the script to not connect currently
> unconnected tracks.

I often use modulation-only tracks (assigned to the same midi channel),
like

Track-01   Master    [ Part1 ] [ Part 1 ] [ Part1 ] [ Part 1 ]
Track-02     -       [  Filtersweep Up  ] [ Filtersweep down ]

This allows me to sequence notes and controls individually, i.e. repeat
the same notes over and over again, while changing the frequency of the
filter within the instrument. Of course, I don't want that these
modulation only tracks "waste" a mixer channel, so I made the script
only reassign those tracks that are assigned to master.

You can see the effect in "Party Monster" - the synth bass modulation
track (which is such a modulation only track) gets ignored by the script
if you run it.


So as far as I can see there is a use case for the behaviour I
implemented, unless we find a way to express seperate modulation in
beast with the same elegance but in a different way than I do it right
now.

But I've personally never encountered a use case for reassigning
unconnected busses other than the midi importer, which could be
relatively easy solved by assigning all imported tracks to the master
bus, which is consistent to where manually created tracks get assigned
to.

   Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, Hamburg/Germany, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Tim Janik]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:

>   Hi!
>
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:25:20AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:54:52AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:
>>>>> I imported a MIDI file and got all the channels listed correctly
>>>>> in the beast window. I then mapped each channel to an existing
>>>>> synthesizer, however then the show stopped. What can I do further?
>>>>
>>>> hm, testing it out it seems you still need to assign the tracks
>>>> to at least the Master mixer bus for playback.
>>>>
>>>> beast also has a script that is meant to be usable for this, however
>>>> it currently doesn't work for me.
>>>> Stefan, does Tools/Song/Assign-Tracks-... work for you? it doesn't
>>>> seem to work after a MIDI file import or a new project with a single
>>>> unconnected track here. can you reproduce that or do you need a bug
>>>> report about it?
>>
>>> It works the way I designed it, that is, it only reassigns those tracks
>>> that are connected to master, and no other bus. It does this because:
>>
>>> So: just the midi import needs to be fixed, the script does the right
>>> thing.
>>
>> i don't agree with that statement. granted, the midi import needs to be
>> fixed, but there are other ways to end up with an unconnected track.
>> in such a case, the script name is simply misleading when it says
>> "assign tracks to individual mixer busses". it should either be renamed
>> (according to your description, to: "assign _connected_ tracks to
>> individual mixer busses", but that triggers the question of where an
>> *unconnected* script variant is) or be fixed to reconnected
>> disconnected tracks as well. i'd say the latter is the obvious choice
>> and fail to see a good reason for the script to not connect currently
>> unconnected tracks.
>
> I often use modulation-only tracks (assigned to the same midi channel),
> like
>
> Track-01   Master    [ Part1 ] [ Part 1 ] [ Part1 ] [ Part 1 ]
> Track-02     -       [  Filtersweep Up  ] [ Filtersweep down ]
>
> This allows me to sequence notes and controls individually, i.e. repeat
> the same notes over and over again, while changing the frequency of the
> filter within the instrument. Of course, I don't want that these
> modulation only tracks "waste" a mixer channel, so I made the script
> only reassign those tracks that are assigned to master.
>
> You can see the effect in "Party Monster" - the synth bass modulation
> track (which is such a modulation only track) gets ignored by the script
> if you run it.
>
>
> So as far as I can see there is a use case for the behaviour I
> implemented, unless we find a way to express seperate modulation in
> beast with the same elegance but in a different way than I do it right
> now.

fine, what about adding a checkbox to the script then that preserves
your use case behavior?
   [ ] Only assign tracks connected to 'Master' bus

> But I've personally never encountered a use case for reassigning
> unconnected busses other than the midi importer,

yes, i know. that's why i keep telling you that *others* are
encountering these cases. so the use case exists, even if it
isn't exhibited by your personal usage patterns.

> which could be
> relatively easy solved by assigning all imported tracks to the master
> bus, which is consistent to where manually created tracks get assigned
> to.
>
>   Cu... Stefan

---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Stefan Westerfeld]

   Hi!

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> >On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 03:25:20AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
> >>On Tue, 29 May 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> >>>On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 12:54:52AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
> >>>>On Mon, 28 May 2007, W.Boeke wrote:
> >>>>>I imported a MIDI file and got all the channels listed correctly
> >>>>>in the beast window. I then mapped each channel to an existing
> >>>>>synthesizer, however then the show stopped. What can I do further?
> >>>>
> >>>>hm, testing it out it seems you still need to assign the tracks
> >>>>to at least the Master mixer bus for playback.
> >>>>
> >>>>beast also has a script that is meant to be usable for this, however
> >>>>it currently doesn't work for me.
> >>>>Stefan, does Tools/Song/Assign-Tracks-... work for you? it doesn't
> >>>>seem to work after a MIDI file import or a new project with a single
> >>>>unconnected track here. can you reproduce that or do you need a bug
> >>>>report about it?
> >>
> >>>It works the way I designed it, that is, it only reassigns those tracks
> >>>that are connected to master, and no other bus. It does this because:
> >>
> >>>So: just the midi import needs to be fixed, the script does the right
> >>>thing.
> >>
> >>i don't agree with that statement. granted, the midi import needs to be
> >>fixed, but there are other ways to end up with an unconnected track.
> >>in such a case, the script name is simply misleading when it says
> >>"assign tracks to individual mixer busses". it should either be renamed
> >>(according to your description, to: "assign _connected_ tracks to
> >>individual mixer busses", but that triggers the question of where an
> >>*unconnected* script variant is) or be fixed to reconnected
> >>disconnected tracks as well. i'd say the latter is the obvious choice
> >>and fail to see a good reason for the script to not connect currently
> >>unconnected tracks.
> >
> >I often use modulation-only tracks (assigned to the same midi channel),
> >like
> >
> >Track-01   Master    [ Part1 ] [ Part 1 ] [ Part1 ] [ Part 1 ]
> >Track-02     -       [  Filtersweep Up  ] [ Filtersweep down ]
> >
> >This allows me to sequence notes and controls individually, i.e. repeat
> >the same notes over and over again, while changing the frequency of the
> >filter within the instrument. Of course, I don't want that these
> >modulation only tracks "waste" a mixer channel, so I made the script
> >only reassign those tracks that are assigned to master.
> >
> >You can see the effect in "Party Monster" - the synth bass modulation
> >track (which is such a modulation only track) gets ignored by the script
> >if you run it.
> >
> >
> >So as far as I can see there is a use case for the behaviour I
> >implemented, unless we find a way to express seperate modulation in
> >beast with the same elegance but in a different way than I do it right
> >now.
>
> fine, what about adding a checkbox to the script then that preserves
> your use case behavior?
>   [ ] Only assign tracks connected to 'Master' bus
>
> >But I've personally never encountered a use case for reassigning
> >unconnected busses other than the midi importer,
>
> yes, i know. that's why i keep telling you that *others* are
> encountering these cases. so the use case exists, even if it
> isn't exhibited by your personal usage patterns.

It would be great if you could share your insight into the goals,
motivations, workflow and usage patterns of these other users to a
degree that I can clearly understand that you are right.

I deliberately used the term "use case",

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_case

because I didn't only want to know that you want me to change the
script, but because I wanted to know precisely why anybody - not just
theoretically - but a real user in the real world - would benefit from
that change. I described my use case at the same level of detail above.

So saying: somebody needs it, trust me, is not enough.

   Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, Hamburg/Germany, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Tim Janik]

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:

>   Hi!
>
> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:

>>> So as far as I can see there is a use case for the behaviour I
>>> implemented, unless we find a way to express seperate modulation in
>>> beast with the same elegance but in a different way than I do it right
>>> now.
>>
>> fine, what about adding a checkbox to the script then that preserves
>> your use case behavior?
>>   [ ] Only assign tracks connected to 'Master' bus
>>
>>> But I've personally never encountered a use case for reassigning
>>> unconnected busses other than the midi importer,
>>
>> yes, i know. that's why i keep telling you that *others* are
>> encountering these cases. so the use case exists, even if it
>> isn't exhibited by your personal usage patterns.
>
> It would be great if you could share your insight into the goals,
> motivations, workflow and usage patterns of these other users to a
> degree that I can clearly understand that you are right.

1. start beast
2. activate Project/New Song
3. actiavte Tracks/Add multiple times
4. select Mixer/Inputs, remove tracks from Master-1 bus
5. do anything distracting you from the current track setup
    (go on holidays, come back 2 years later)
6. observer unconnected Tracks
7. select Tools/Song/Assign Tracks to individual Mixer busses

contrary to its labeling, the script from step 7. has no effect
on the unconnected tracks.

> So saying: somebody needs it, trust me, is not enough.

that is not what i said, thank you for misquoting.

however, i'm sorry for assuming that you're aware
of the functionality beast offers for step 4.

>   Cu... Stefan

---
ciaoTJ
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast

[Stefan Westerfeld]

   Hi!

On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 01:49:53PM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:

> On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Stefan Westerfeld wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 11:17:41AM +0200, Tim Janik wrote:
>
> >>> So as far as I can see there is a use case for the behaviour I
> >>> implemented, unless we find a way to express seperate modulation in
> >>> beast with the same elegance but in a different way than I do it right
> >>> now.
> >>
> >> fine, what about adding a checkbox to the script then that preserves
> >> your use case behavior?
> >>   [ ] Only assign tracks connected to 'Master' bus
> >>
> >>> But I've personally never encountered a use case for reassigning
> >>> unconnected busses other than the midi importer,
> >>
> >> yes, i know. that's why i keep telling you that *others* are
> >> encountering these cases. so the use case exists, even if it
> >> isn't exhibited by your personal usage patterns.
> >
> > It would be great if you could share your insight into the goals,
> > motivations, workflow and usage patterns of these other users to a
> > degree that I can clearly understand that you are right.
>
> 1. start beast
> 2. activate Project/New Song
> 3. actiavte Tracks/Add multiple times
> 4. select Mixer/Inputs, remove tracks from Master-1 bus
> 5. do anything distracting you from the current track setup
>     (go on holidays, come back 2 years later)
> 6. observer unconnected Tracks
> 7. select Tools/Song/Assign Tracks to individual Mixer busses
>
> contrary to its labeling, the script from step 7. has no effect
> on the unconnected tracks.

To keep the mailing list updated: Tim and I had a short face to face
discussion about the scope of the script. It turned out that I use the
script very often in daily work. In fact, I use it almost every time I
create a new track, so that each track gets its own mixer channel, so
its more of a workaround use case. As a consequence, it would be really
useful to make beast do the thing I need automatically. On the other
hand, midi importing seems to be the other most important use case.

If both are fixed in beast, then the script will probably not be too
important anymore in daily use - we eliminate most use cases that way.
One argument I had against adding a checkbox for toggling behaviour was,
that it will increase the number of clicks required (which is bad if you
need the script very often). This will no longer be an issue then. But
maybe it will turn out that nobody needs the script anyway after the
fixes, so we can remove it.

See also:

  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453794

> however, i'm sorry for assuming that you're aware
> of the functionality beast offers for step 4.

Step 4 is clear. Its more that I so far didn't construct use cases which
include that the user gets distracted and forget about what he did
before (step 5). But if people do have these issues, I am not generally
opposed to seeing appropriate functionality in beast.

   Cu... Stefan
--
Stefan Westerfeld, Hamburg/Germany, http://space.twc.de/~stefan
_______________________________________________
beast mailing list
beast@...
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/beast