#midi and B&P
28 messages in this thread
I use B&P with a lot of music downloaded from midi BBs, written by other
computers on other programs. Most play fine and allow me to change voices
etc. easily. Some, when I play them, apparently send midi data to my
Proteus totally messing it up and requiring that I reload data into it with
an editor (I can imagine how bad it would be if I did not HAVE an editor!)
Could someone tell me how, when looking at one of these songs, to find this
midi data and change it or how to identify which forms I should stay away
from? Some have the first track empty, some have everything compressed on
one track, most, as I said, will play OK. Is there a place on B&P to
examine this .mid data to either change or avoid a particular song? Many
thanks.
– via Whap!
Dear Barbara,
It sounds to me as though there is some System Exclusive data being dumped
at the beginning of these downloaded files. If that is the case, then we
have a solution. Tony Vece, a B&P users has written, using Rules for
Tools, a more sophisticated version of MuFFy. We are in the process of
arranging to distribute it with all versions of Bars&Pipes and Bars&Pipes
Professional.
Melissa
Thanks. That sounds like it might solve the problem. Is it likely that
this
sysex data is dumped when the song is LOADED or only when I try to play it?
– via Whap!
Thanks. That sounds like it might solve the problem. Is it likely that
this sysex data is dumped when the song is LOADED or only when I try to
play it?
– via Whap!
Most likely the SysEx data is being dumped the first time you play.
Melissa
Melissa, Any chance the new MuFFy could be uploaded to CIS The Current
MuFFy causes real problems for us when working with MIDI files from other
platforms. Sounds like the new version will solve it! Does it Include
tempos? Regards,ds P.S. A feature request for the librarian:
Please allow the serial driver to be selected
I'll upload the new MuFFy as soon as the ink is dry on the contract for it.
Melissa
Barbara,
If you're able to, you should upgrade to B&P Professional. It has an event
list editor that will display MIDI data numerically and allow you to change
it. If you can't upgrade, then while using the original B&P, you should
display continous controller data and program change data in the sequence
editor window. You can then edit the data. If you don't know how, you can
just delete the tracks or change their channel numbers so they don't
adversely affect your Proteus. Also, be aware that if you want separate
tracks, then you should download MIDI files in MIDI File Format #1 only.
Format #0 files have all the tracks compressed onto one track.
I hope this helps.
Dom Fontana
Thanks. I have the B&P Professional but have not learned it well yet. I
will try the event list editor…perhaps I can learn the midi format better
with it. In format #0, all of these tracks compressed into one obviously
play with just one voice? Can I unmerge them with B&P?
– via Whap!
Barbara,
Unfortunately you can't unmerge them with either B&P or B&P Pro. I have
been after Todor Fay, the program's author, for some time now to add an
unmerge feature to the program. I'm hoping he adds it in the next release
v. 1.1, due out by Christmas. Leave a message for Melissa from Blue Ribbon
and tell her you want an unmerge feature.
Good luck.
Dom Fontana
Dear Dominick, Dear Barbara, Unfortunately, there is no way to create an
unmerge option for Bars&Pipes and Bars&Pipes Pro. A lot of the power in
B&P Pro comes from its PipeLine concept and the philosophy that, once a
note enters a pipe, it sheds extraneous MIDI addressing which is no longer
neccessary because the pipelines guide the flow of the music. Were we to
keep the sixteen channel information in the pipes, it would be a source of
confusion because, once again, the routing of music would be invisible.
Although you could see the pipe connections, you wouldn't know what notes
are playing on what channels. Instead, we remove the channel at the input
and attach it again only at the output. This makes it very easy to assign
a particular track to a particular instrument and MIDI channel, there's no
need to reassign sixteen channels for every track. I think you can see how
convoluted and confusing the program would be if we allowed multiple
channels hidden within the pipes. Suddenly, our very visual interface
would be telling only a part of the story. Which brings me back to the
original problem: Merging and unmerging tracks. I agree, it would be very
useful to be able to merge two tracks, edit them as one, then unmerge. I
see two problems. First, what is the criteria for unmerging notes that were
entered after the merge? What if several tracks are merged? How does it
decide to break the track apart? Secondly, and unfortunately, there is no
place within the note to store the information about where it was before it
was merged. So, even if we came up with a user interface design that
worked, the underlying technology simply won't support. Because of B&P's
modular design, we can't go changing the note data structures or all
existing Tools and Accessories will cease to be compatible.
Here's an idea. What if we had an option to display a seperate Track in
the background behind the notes of the track currently being edited? This
would provide the ability to work on you music relative to the sequence in
another Track, but it would keep them distinctly seperate. This is a
solution that is doable. Not
Wouldn't it be possible for B&P to put a 'tag' on the MIDI data entering a
merged sequence so that you could later identify which track it came from,
and unmerge it? The data wouldn't need to be MIDI authorized, since it
would never appear to any MIDI equipment, just identifiable by B&P. ie:
TRACK
1 —-> \ / —–>
2 —-> \\ // —–>
3 —-> \\\ /// —–>
4 ——- (merged processing) ——-
The data from 1 would be preceeded by some exclusive data indicating that
it was originally from track 1. When it exited the merged track that data
would be stripped. Just a thought. Too time/space consuming? Confusing?
–jp–seattle–
With unlimited tracks, and the ability to put tools anywhere you need them,
why would you need this capability?? I am afraid I don't understand the
application.
In my work I just keep all ( and I mean all ) of the tracks. I do almost no
processing on data coming in, I prefer non-destructive editing. If I really
like an edit, I will ocassionally run the track though the tools and into
another track.
..Bill 😉
Bill, I'm certainly not an expert MIDI or B&P user, but the fact that you
can have unlimited tracks is essentially WHY I can see a use for this
feature.
Say I have 24 tracks. Tracks 17-24 are all part of a 'chorus' effect.
There are certain things I'd like to process for these tracks as a group,
rather than individually. (dynamics, phrasing, etc) Without 'merge' I'd
have to create the same effect for each of the eight tracks. If I later
wanted to edit/change things, I'd need to change all eight. On the other
hand, if it were possible to temporarily 'merge' these tracks, I could
apply the same effects to all eight in one command. Editing it later would
be a snap, since I'd only have to change one thing.
The key was that the individual track data should retain it's identity when
leaving the 'merge', and go it's own way. When in the 'merged' track it
shouldn't lose it's identity.
This meets your definition of keeping the track data seperate, since it's
only very temporary that it goes into a 'merge' and then comes out again.
Just makes it easier to apply global effects to a group of tracks. Purely
and editing convenience.
–jp–seattle–
hmmmmm…
the way that I handle that is usually to create my own tool and plae it in
each track's pipeline. This way I have to edit the effect only once! Seems
to me there is a way to copy tools from track to track, but I am not in
front of the AMIGA at the moment, so I can't say for sure ( I could be
halucinating!)
Other than that It would appear that you can't get there from here. You
could merge the tracks, but then you can send on only one MIDI channel, so
that won't work for your purposes.
I remember seeing the same approach in another Amiga Sequencer ( MIDI Magic
) he had only 16 tracks, and stripped the channel nibble from the incoming
data. This saved a lot of space in memory, and gave him some flexibility in
programming. I felt it was a serious limitation then, but with B&Ps
unlimited tracks I have not found the same problem.
There are always trade-offs! If the editing becomes a real problem you
could always transfer the sequences to KCS and use their Master Editor. I
used to use that quite heavily, but recently I have found that my modus
operandi has been falling into line with the B&P philosophy, so I don't run
the other stuff very often!
Hope this helps!
Bill
Dear ????,
The Blue Ribbon message wasn't signed, so I assume it wasn't from Melissa.
I think you're missing the point. Merging and unmerging tracks isn't just
used so you can merge tracks, edit them together, and then unmerge them.
For example, many times you'll start with your drums on separate tracks.
After you tweak all drum tracks, you might want to merge them and delete
the separate tracks. At some point in the future you might want to unmerge
them, edit one separate track, and then merge them again.
Also, in many instances, including Barbara's case, many good song files
are in MIDI File Format #0, which has all the tracks merged into one track.
An unmerge feature would allow one to unmerge MMF #0 files for editing.
Merging is also useful when you have 30 or 40 separate tracks, in order to
make track management easier, and to be able to view all tracks in one
window without scrolling. Unmerge is therefore desirable as a sort of Undo
feature, if you want to separate your tracks again.
As you mentioned, another purpose of merging is to display various tracks
together in the sequence editor. Just being able to display one track over
another is not the same thing.
Finally, I am not able to answer your technical query as to how B&P and
B&P Pro can accomplish unmerging. Since most sequencers allow unmerging, I
guess most users just want the feature and figure they'd leave the method
of implementing it to the programmer.
Most programs allow you to unmerge using channel information. Since you
explained it's not possible to do this with B&P and B&P Pro, maybe you
could create a merge feature that puts some sort of flag on each track as
its merged. These flags could then be used to unmerge each track. If you
could implement this, then it would be even better than unmerging by
channel, since the user could unmerge each track individually even if they
were on the same channel, such as is usually the case with drum tracks.
Please keep us posted on your progress of adding an unmerge feature to B&P
and B&P Pro.
Thanks.
Dom Fontana
Dear Dominck and Other,
That message was from Todor. I was signed originally, but was
automatically truncated by CompuServe.
As all of you know, we have always tried to live up to the expectations of
our customers. I, myself, can very much see the need for a merge feature.
But being quite familiar with Bars&Pipes' architecture, I can also
understand the issues involved.
We've heard your requests and will do our best to accomodate them. Thanks
for your input.
Melissa
I am curious as to why, with B&P, you need an unmerge feature. Could you
describe your application please?
..Bill 😉
Bill,
After a merging a number of tracks down to one track, I'd like to unmerge
them when the need arose, to edit the tracks separately, and them merge
them down to one track again.
Dom Fontana
Dom,
Given the track capability of B&P, is there some reason that just keeping
the tracks separate and then using pipes to merge them at play time is
ruled out? If you needed to merge them for a particular purpose, such as
printing, you could always do that to another track. For B&P to do what you
ask internally, it would have to pretty much do the same thing. (Or, am I
missing something here?)
David
David,
No, I don't think you're missing anything. The merge/unmerge capability is
mostly for convenience and organization. I don't think the issue here is
whether an unmerge feature is desirable. I think most people would agree
that if you merge tracks, you would like to be able to also unmerge them. I
think what you're saying is that you don't see the need for merging tracks
in the first place, so an unmerge isn't necessary. Or, if I do merge
tracks, I could also keep the original tracks separate if I ever need to go
back to them.
As a matter of fact, I sometimes use the latter method now, but it's
cumbersome. I think you know how much I like B&P Pro. An unmerge feature is
not crucial to the use or enjoyment of the program. It simply would have
been a nice added feature. I didn't realize the difficulty of implementing
it.
With an unmerge, I could merge certain tracks, while not having to keep
the originals on separate tracks. This applies mostly to drum tracks, which
I have assigned to all channel 10. The sheer fact that B&P Pro allows for
unlimited tracks is exactly why I'd like an unmerge feature. Sometimes my
drums alone take up 15-20 tracks, more than can be displayed in the
Sequencer window. I would like to merge these together so I'd be able to
see the drums as one track, plus all my other tracks in one window. Of
course I can still do this, while keeping the original drums separate, but
an unmerge feature would allow me to get rid of the original drum tracks,
thereby making it easier, neater, and more organized.
Again, unmerge would be nice to have, but the absence of it is not
crucial.
Dom Fontana
OK, so I am slow…
why merge them at all?? With B&P you can keep them seperate till doomsday!
Editing them becomes a little more complex, but you could always make a
merge copy and work with that. If it doesn't work out you still have the
original tracks!
I guess part of this has to do with the age old issue of programs forcing
certain wok styles vs. people learning how to use a system to it's
advantage!
None-the-less, I have yet to have the occassion arise where I needed
merge/unmerge in B&P.
..Bill 😉
Bill,
Please see my reply to David Art, concerning merge/unmerge in B&P Pro.
Dom Fontana
Mind If I Merge with this discussion, <G>.
Bill, If I were harmonizing a 5 part line (like a sax section in a big
band) with each part on a seperate MIDI channel & using two or three MIDI
modules the merge/unmerge option would make scoring much easier. Seeing all
parts on a single track is the equivalent of using score paper to finalize
all parts before final copy.
Howard
I agree, and you can do that with B&P, and I do that all the time! I also
keep the individual tracks too! That way I get the best of both worlds.
..Bill 😉
Personally I prefer KCS over all other sequencers because of its enourmous
versatility in merging, unmerging, and overall editing capabilities in the
main program or with its PVG or Master Editor modules. I use
merge/unmerging between its Track and Open modes for drum part splits and
quantisation work.
I like B&P Pro for its versatility in its MIDI in/out filtering, and its
many AI scale/chord tools. In that respect, I especially look forward to
getting SuperJAM, as I already use a similar program, called
Band-in-a-Box, on my PC/AT clone.
SuperJAM! is far more than another Band-in-a-Box. But don't take my word
for it. In a few weeks, you can judge for yourself.
Melissa
Barbara, a simple hardware fix is to disable sysex on the proteus before
playing an "unknown" MIDI file. If you look at the event list of the file,
SYSEX data will usually show up at the beginning of the file. You could
then select it and delete it. A final alternative is to "Filter" sysex out
at the MIDI out at the end of the B&P Pipeline.