Re: Thoughts on Midge (was: Re: [midi] Re: Articulate midi script)

[David Raleigh Arnold]

On Mon, 07 Sep 2009 11:15:21 +1000
Peter Chubb <address@hidden> wrote:

> >>>>> "Grammostola" == Grammostola Rosea <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Grammostola> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
> >>> 
> >> Again, why not get in touch with the developer(s) of midge? The
> >> syntax is completely different, but it is *text-based* and GNU.  It
> >> is dedicated to midi, not notation.  Why not find a way to use
> >> their work, at worst by means of a translation script?  Regards,
> >> daveA
> >> 
> 
> I had a look at midge.  The main thing it adds that Lilypond doesn't
> have, is much greater control over individual notes.  You can add
> bends (so presumably could implement a portamento or glissando,
> although it appears to be limited to 4 semitones, which is too small
> for most of the music I deal with); you can control attack and decay,
> and effects such as reverb. chorus and pan.
> 
> Musical stuff (articulations, ornaments, dynamics, tempo variations
> such as rit. or stringendo, etc., etc) has to be interpreted and
> written explicitly in expanded form into the midge source.
> 
> While midge could be used as an intermediate format for MIDI output, I
> can't see at present what it would gain for us --- the level of
> abstraction over a standard binary MIDI file is very small.

Thanks for taking the time.  One of the other text-based programs
might be better.  I have found midge to be an easy and quick way
to massage lilypond-generated midi files but I haven't used
it much.

I keep forgetting to bring up copyright.  Having copyright in
the header does not generate a notice in the midi file.  I have
edited the midi file directly but I really don't think that
should be necessary to put in a notice, do you?  Regards, daveA