On 3/4/12, J. Liles wrote:
> I personally don't think that the way notes are encoded is the primary
apparently you're forgetting or have not been a part of the many
debates with the music technology community about how to define "a
note". personally i'm happy with what you wrote, but i know several
people who have made cogent arguments that defining notes in terms of
frequencies completely misses one of the most musical semantics.
> The way OSC is used, and in libmapper in particular, is to say things
as as receiver of OSC, i'd be entirely happy with such a standard. the
problem for users is that it leaves the mappings unspecified, and
although there are some clever solutions for this (several of them),
from a user's perspective it always adds an extra layer of complexity.
contrast with MIDI, where almost all the messages that most people
will generate have a defined meaning even from the sender's
perspective (though sure, the receiver can still map it to something
else if it wants to).
Linux-audio-dev mailing list