Re: midi articulation

[Carl Sorensen]

On 3/25/16 12:22 PM, "Daniel Birns" <address@hidden> wrote:

>
>
>
>So my question is: When you use Aria Maestosa, do you have the problem I
>outlined? As far as QSynth and FluidSynth ‹ I was able to use brew to
>install QSynth, but not the other, and the build is kinda ridiculous for
>most people. I¹m a developer and the instructions
> are sketchy to me, at least on mac.
>
>
>The basic problem is that once you make edits in the score, you must redo
>all the work you¹ve done fine-tuning the sound in the midi player. You
>don¹t have the problem with Aria Maestosa?
>
>
>And without fine-tuning, my impression is that midi usually sounds pretty
>awful. 
>
>
>My perspective is as a Sibelius user. Hearing what you¹ve written has no
>equivalent in lilypond/midi players.
>
>
>When I first used Sibelius, I didn¹t understand why they cared so much
>about midi results. But I¹ve been able to get some quite listenable
>results with Sibelius. Here¹s an example:
>https://soundcloud.com/redwood54/brandenburg-2-andante
>
>
>In order to anything like this with lilypond, you¹d have to do a great
>deal of work, which you would not to lose, in the midi editor. And once
>you generate new midi files, you lose everything.


I think the point is, if you are really generating good midi (which
LilyPond doesn't do right now),  and if you have a good sound font (which
is widely claimed to be available for both Timidity and FluidSynth, but I
haven't personally checked it), you don't need to do any work in the midi
editor.  All the work you would do in the midi editor should be doable by
LilyPond.  So you shouldn't need to write a midi editor, you should just
need to write good midi output from LilyPond.

If a midi editor can create a midi file that sounds good on a decent midi
player, then the midi format supports everything that is needed, and we
can generate it from LilyPond.  Which is where I think your effort would
be best spent.

Thanks,

Carl