Wow – what an excellent discussion! I do appreciate your creative input, as well as your considerations from all regards – musically and programmatically.
From a conceptual view I have, bronswerk’s statement makes a great point:
I think the innovation here is to make good sounding stuff easily accessible to people like me , who do not think in scales and chords. I do happen to think in numbers, but that’s not the point here.
No matter the representation (numbers or chords), we want to know what to do about a bunch of notes we have playing, given a bunch of notes we receive (via MIDI). bronswerk puts it very crisply:
Basically, we have so far two possible solutions (from what I understand):
a) force the material to the "0-4-7" grid ("Hold" issues to be worked out later).
b) extrapolate some scale from "0-4-7" and then force to that scale.
Do I miss out on any other important aspect?
Personally, I tend to prefer a) for a few simple reasons:
– you are always in control, no constraints by pre-conceptions
– immediate cause-effect relationship – no magic happening in the box
– free way for many usability aspects (like Lars’ two way mode).
Some background info: the Octopus logic defines scales as a base + an interval pattern. Hence the two things you can change about scales: base, and the interval pattern, which is really the note composition when you "Select" the notes in and out.Btw. the scale buttons Min Maj etc. are just macros for intervals.
Finally, one point I picked up from the discussion with zinoff is that "re-flagging" a note as base in the same scale, which has no effect because there is no change to the note grid, should be re-built as "selecting a new base should also carry the interval pattern over". I have it running here and it is fun!
Post edited by: gseher, at: 2008/04/13 02:26