OSS Music Composer Gaining Attention

An anonymous reader writes "Following in the footsteps of Psycle, VioLet Composer is a completely GPLed music composer for Windows that has slowly but surely been gaining attention. In an interview at Laptoprockers the author covers not only the program itself but the his reasoning behind choosing to open the source using the GPL."

And now with link

[tcdk]

The actual project:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/buzz-like [sourceforge.net]

The screen shots looks kind of nice, but I don't know enough about making music to be able to evaluate it's worth.

Don't forget ModPlug

[MindKata]

Its great there are some good OSS music editors. I've not heard of VioLet Composer until now, but I'll check it out.

One great OSS music editor I've used is ModPlug.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/modplug/ [sourceforge.net]

Re:And now with link

[X0563511]

Er, the friggin thing lets you wire the "rack" and the "rack" devices are actual programs that you can enter and edit!

You call that a lack of features?

Basically a not as pretty version of "Reason" where you make your own devices. Plus some other things that are nice.

Re:Don't forget ModPlug

[Fordiman]

Hm. Naming problem. Colloquially they're called 'module trackers' or 'midi/music sequencers', but essentially they're both the same thing: a program that places hardware/user-defined notes in user-designed spots in songs. To the talented, they are a good as a room full of fine musical instruments. To the less talented, they're much like a cat with a tether attached to its tail, labeled 'swing me'.

There are also 'sound editors', like Sound Forge, that allow you to mess with the raw sound data, and Cakewalk and Audacity, which are excellent 'multitrack recorders' with SF-like functionality built in (Cakewalk's a MUCH better program, but as for Audacity, 'free' is a good selling point).

None of these could be considered 'music editors', which to me implies something that can take in raw PCM data and let you select out and remove, add, and modify notes. No such program exists to my knowledge.

Some User Feedback...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

Some free end-user feedback for you guys ('cause I know you're reading). I'm running this under Windows 2003.

On the config dialog:
  - Why don't you read the default sound card selection off of the "Control Panel"? (Audio panel)
  - What's up with the "(fix bad sound)" labels? (Audio panel)
  - Why do I only have "Desktop" or "MyDocs" as choices for "Recording Directory". (I'd like "D:\Music".) (Audio panel)
  - Don't put the "HELP" button in red text. It's 2007 - if people need help, they'll know to look for a help button or just as likely, hit the web. (Same thing for the doc; if you think you have to write the text in red to get people to understand it, it's probably because the doc wasn't that clear in black.)

Next screen:
    - What's up with the "Learn about stuff!" titlebar?
    - No, it's not true that "You've Upgraded!". I just installed the software for the first time.
    - Why is the "show next startup" box checked by default? I don't know any other software program that shows me the release notes with each launch. (Especially when I'm supposed to be relaunching the program several times to check audio settings.)

The actual program:
    - Don't bug me with the "Violet needs testers and developers" prompt. WTF do you think I'm doing?
    - OK, I loaded a sample. Where's the "play sample" button? (Also, why not tie the sample to the "keyboard" at this point so I can see which pitch I want to play the sample at.)
    - Why don't you start with at least one track in a new pattern?

Looks like a good start. I'll try to write something in it over the weekend. (I should also tell you that my favorite tracker is something called "OctaMed" so you know where I'm coming from.)

nice project but this is nothing new...

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes violet Composer so special? There is already a lot of free or even open source software, that allows hobby musicians to have (nearly) as many possibilities as professional musicians.

Jeskola Buzz has been around for a while (it is free but unfortunately not open source... well, the developer lost the source anyway). There is a very vivid community around it (see for example http://www.buzzmusic.de/ [buzzmusic.de]) and many people have already created a lot of nice music with it. Now there are even efforts make open alternatives to buzz (see http://trac.zeitherrschaft.org/aldrin/ [zeitherrschaft.org] or http://trac.zeitherrschaft.org/buzzrmx/ [zeitherrschaft.org] or http://www.buzztard.org/ [buzztard.org])
Check for example the music of http://www.paniq.org/ [paniq.org]. Most of this is made with buzz or aldrin.

Appart from the buzz scene, a lot of other virtual studio software and other audio tools have been created. Especially for Linux. See http://wired.epitech.net/ [epitech.net], http://lmms.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net], http://beast.gtk.org/ [gtk.org]

So, as the Violet Composer surely is a nice project, there is already enough stuff out there for low-budget computer geeks to unleash their musical creativity!

Re:Don't forget ModPlug

[RailGunner]

Since you have some experience, could you please recommend an F/OSS MIDI sequencer? I'd like to do some work on my Yamaha Clavinova, but I'm having a hard time finding a decent sequencer that works under Kubuntu (Edgy) and/or XP.

apt-get rosegarden

Re:Don't forget ModPlug

[soliptic]

This is not entirely on point. Since it's a rare day on slashdot where I actually halfway know what I'm talking about, I can't resist pitching in :)

Hm. Naming problem. Colloquially they're called 'module trackers' or 'midi/music sequencers', but essentially they're both the same thing: a program that places hardware/user-defined notes in user-designed spots in songs.

Although at the most simplified level I suppose this is correct, they're not really the same thing at the level beyond that. Trackers are step-time. Commonly, each step equates to sixteenth notes (four steps per beat of the bar). Modern trackers may allow you to choose greater resolution, but in the past (and by "past" I'm talking turn of the century here, which was when I used them, not decades ago!) it was pretty common to simply work at double-bpm if you needed more resolution. On the other hand, midi sequencers... well... clearly I can't claim they're continuous, as that's obviously a theoretical impossibility in a digital system. But they don't come across as step like. Resolution-wise, even at the same sort of period ('99), Cubase had an internal MIDI resolution of 15360 [harmony-central.com] PPQN (pulses per quarter note). Most decent DAWs these days (Pro tools, Nuendo) will allow you to spot events to sample accuracy (ie, if you're working at cd quality, you've got a resolution of 44,100 per second) or locked to various types of timecode (for, eg, film scoring). Against, while it's possible modern trackers incorporate this (I haven't really used them for a few years), I would certainly say that older trackers (FT2, IT2, Modplug-as-I-knew-it, Buzz) do not allow you to put your notes on spots as defined by (eg) SMPTE timecode. Also, the "note" in a trackers was traditionally triggering a sample loaded directly within the tracker software, whereas the notes in a midi sequencer drive hardware, or a software sampler/synth/instrument (the most common format being VSTi). Admittedly, these days many/most trackers can output midi and use software instruments too, so I admit the definition is pretty thoroughly blurred. Still, it helps to realise the different backgrounds they've come from, because whilst it's blurred, you still can't really see them as identical.

To the talented, they are a good as a room full of fine musical instruments. To the less talented, they're much like a cat with a tether attached to its tail, labeled 'swing me'.

True!

There are also 'sound editors', like Sound Forge, that allow you to mess with the raw sound data, and Cakewalk and Audacity, which are excellent 'multitrack recorders' with SF-like functionality built in (Cakewalk's a MUCH better program, but as for Audacity, 'free' is a good selling point).

Cakewalk these days is known as Sonar. But even with the old Cakewalk branded versions, considering it a multitrack soundforge would be doing it a bit of a disservice. Like Cubase and Logic, it's essentially a hybrid DAW/Midi sequencer.

None of these could be considered 'music editors', which to me implies something that can take in raw PCM data and let you select out and remove, add, and modify notes. No such program exists to my knowledge.

Well, no, not really, because it's barely possible for computers to pull apart PCM data in that way... In fact as little as five years ago I'd have said impossible, but we are getting there. The closest there currently is would be melodyne [celemony.com]. I haven't used it (because it's bloody expensive!) but reviews I've read suggest you can pretty much treat audio as midi - ie, select and alter individual notes from an audio file. Even then, it will struggle or outright fail if the source material is (eg) heavily effected with delays/reverbs/etc. And while it's ok for monophonic audio, you're not going to be able to (say) change the flute line from the midst of an orchestral recording.

Re:Don't forget ModPlug

[soliptic]

Is this why in 20 years I have never seen a tracker used on a commercial session? Alternatively this could be because bedroom studio techno-heads don't hire studios?

Well, it's the latter really. Plenty of commercially released and successful dance music (<pet-peeve> no, not all dance music is "techno", any more than all music made by bands with guitars is, say, "punk" </pet-peeve>) has been made with trackers - including many considered classics in their respective styles.

But you don't see them in "proper" hired studios, for the simple reason that they'd be rubbish at it. Why go to the expense of hiring a studio? It's not to program beats, which you can do quite happily at home... OK, whilst it would clearly be simplifying to say this is the only reason to get a real studio, it's probably fair to say the most compelling reason is to record vocals or instruments. After all - all those classic hardware EQs, compressors, reverbs and effects can be reproduced with software these days (especially now that convolution [soundonsound.com] technology is making such strides) - but you can't download a well-designed acoustic environment ;-)

And if you're recording long takes of audio from a vocalist or instrumentalist... you don't use a tracker. Because by and large they don't / can't do that all, and even if they can, they'll do it badly, compared to something designed for the task (ie, a DAW).

a better one: rosegarden

[Anonymous Coward]

check THIS out:

http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/ [rosegardenmusic.com]

and paired with audacity for chopping and converting samples you would have everything you need to make your own music:

http://audacity.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]

A nice drum machine:
http://www.hydrogen-music.org/ [hydrogen-music.org]

use ardour to mix it all!
http://ardour.org/ [ardour.org]

Re:Attention can be a bad thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Only pre-approved instruments with prerecorded and approved music will be sold. With our new patented `like-playing' technology, customers can feel like they're actually playing,

So that's why MTV bought Guitar Hero. It all becomes clear, now.

Re:Don't forget ModPlug

[eno2001]

I've worked with ProTools and I even with the specialized hardware, there is no "easy button" that allows you to make hit music from crap musicians. You still have to have talented composers, musicians and vocalists as well as a decent audio engineer/producer who has musical skill to make it all work together. Pitch locking isn't just some simple effect you run to straighten out someone's off key vocals. If they can't carry a tune, pitch locking isn't going to help in the least. So, hate it if you must, but "pop divas" have to have a good amount of vocal ability to make things work. And the audio engineer needs to know enough about the music to make the right decisions when applying pitch locking/tracking. In the end ProTools, while the defacto standard, is not the "easy button". If you had a talented and technically able audio engineer, he could put the effort in with a Linux box and Ardour and get identical results with a little extra work.

Re:Some User Feedback...

[aybiss]

Thanks for the feedback, although I wish you'd posted it at sourceforge. ;-)

Why don't you read the default sound card selection off of the "Control Panel"

That's not a bad point. It's just that when you're using ASIO things like that aren't available.

What's up with the "(fix bad sound)" labels? (Audio panel)

Well, it's basically that surround and 3D sound output have yet to be tested, and when you ask for more channels than are available you can sometimes get a working audio chain that spits static.

Why do I only have "Desktop" or "MyDocs" as choices for "Recording Directory"

Because I haven't figured out how to make a file requester part of my generalised preferences system yet. :-)

Don't put the "HELP" button in red text.

Noted, but it is just a matter of opinion. The whole reason I wanted to get on slashdot was so I could find out how people feel about these things - don't forget I've been working in the dark here for almost two years. :-)

What's up with the "Learn about stuff!"

Since you just downloaded VC for the first time, you are a prime candidate to be learning about stuff. Otherwise why are you here? :-p

No, it's not true that "You've Upgraded!". I just installed the software for the first time.

Isn't that an upgrade? :-D Sorry but you're being pedantic now.

Why is the "show next startup" box checked by default?

If you'd launched it more than once you'd know. ;-)

Don't bug me with the "Violet needs testers and developers" prompt. WTF do you think I'm doing?

So far, about infinity percent more than the 15,000 people who've downloaded VC to date. Sorry that it bugs you, but again you can't have played with it for long since it goes away after the first time play is pressed on each run. Again, clearly not a message aimed at someone like yourself.

OK, I loaded a sample. Where's the "play sample" button?

You've got no idea what adding that will entail. :-o OK, so I've been avoiding what seems like a pretty obvious feature, but there are plenty more that need the attention and won't take a month to implement.

Why don't you start with at least one track in a new pattern?

Because tracks are by definition optional elements, and because so far there's no way for the machine developer to indicate what is a 'default' track and what isn't. Thanks for the suggestion though.

Hope this didn't come across as brusque, I've got a lot more feedback than usual to deal with today. :-) Thanks, have a nice day.

Re:C#

[aybiss]

I can assure you I've got nothing to do with MS, in fact I hate everything about them *except* C# and their free development environments. To be clear though, the only thing that doesn't work in C# under Linux is Windows.Forms, MS's windowing library, which only an idiot would expect to find a Linux version of. I mean, they're evil and all that, but to give away the core of your OS as part of a free and open language specification would be commercial suicide, and they're not stupid.

If you are serious about this, point me in the direction of a Linux GUI developer with a bunch of spare time on their hands. ;-)