Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSS Music Composer Gaining Attention

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the sounds-like-fun dept.

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."

24 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. And now with link by tcdk · · Score: 4, Informative

    The actual project:

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

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

    --
    TC - My Photos..
    1. Re:And now with link by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    2. Re:And now with link by Fordiman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hey, know anyone good with Mono and Linux audio? You could have him/her work with them, then you wouldn't need wine.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:And now with link by aybiss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hi, I'm the developer. Can I ask what hardware you're running? VC runs pretty nice on my 3800+ X2, but I'm not sure what sort of hardware it *won't* work on. Well, I do know it doesn't work on a Celery 650 with 64 megs of RAM running ME, but that isn't really surprising. :-D

      --
      It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
  2. Backups by Short+Circuit · · Score: 5, Funny
    FTFA:

    This guarantees that in the future it will *always* be possible for *anyone* to pick up from some point in VC development and continue it or to make their own flavour of it. The GPL also guarantees that VC will always be available for free, even if I or someone else decides to make a commercial derivative later on.

    The day the source code to Buzz got lost was a very sad day and there was absolutely nothing anyone could do. We'd just had an updated version of Buzz released and suddenly everyone realised there would *never* be another one. By publishing not just the application but also all of the files that go together to make it, I'm making sure this can't happen to my little corner of the scene again. "Real men don't use backups, they post their stuff on a public ftp server and let the rest of the world make copies." - Linus Torvalds
    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  3. I need a copy of that... by Short+Circuit · · Score: 3, Funny
    FTFA:

    I relieve my stress by working on other things such as my duplicate picture finder (for all those hundreds of thousands of pictures of... stuff... that I have)... I need a copy of that. No, not that, that.
    --
    tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
  4. Don't forget ModPlug by MindKata · · Score: 5, Informative

    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/

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by polyp2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That truly is bullshit!

      Why yes Trackers lend themselves to sample based music which is great for games - especially where storage or processing power might be at a minimum.

      I have written many pieces of music using tracker software that you would be hard-pushed to tell what sequencer I used.
      In addition trackers heritage actually lies in the old "Steptime" hardware sequencers used by the likes of Kraftwerk and other electro luminaries - modern trackers are way more advanced though these days!

      So before you make comments like that make sure you know your history, In many ways we owe their heritage to many of the sequencers we have today.

      Nick ...

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    2. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by Fordiman · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    3. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by shawb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think you're looking for ProTools. It does pretty much what you say. It is, however, quite expensive and needs specialized hardware to be used to the full extent. Hence the Pro part of the name. I don't know if it natively works on a note by note basis, I think conceptually it's more of a software based multi-track recorder. It does, however, have plug-ins that allow for such thing as locking pitch/etc. You know, all the effects used on pop-divas to make them actually sound bearable.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    4. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by RailGunner · · Score: 3, Informative

      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

    5. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by shish · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you're going to reply to a question with a command line command, at least make sure it's the right one... (you want "apt-get install rosegarden")

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    6. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by soliptic · · Score: 4, Informative
      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 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. 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.
    7. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by soliptic · · Score: 2, Informative

      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 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).
    8. Re:Don't forget ModPlug by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  5. Ruling the World by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, I'm a Linux user (geek, dork, whatever), but bias aside, there's a lot to said for Open Source and Free software. Right now many of the tools may not be as good as commercial counterparts (though many are better). But the powerful thing about OSS is that it tends to get better. Sometimes improvements are slow and dependent upon a particular developer, but more often there's rapid change. The music software right may not have all the needed features of a pro or semi-pro package, but it may be just "good enough" for a lot of folks. In a few months it becomes "good enough" for a few more. At some point it crosses a threshold where it's not only good enough but something of a standard.

    Take OpenOffice for example. MS Office power users will miss some features, but the vast majority of students and home users can now use it for all their tasks.

  6. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 3, Funny

    He made it OSS? Why, that's music to me ears!

    --
    Have you read my journal today?
  7. Some User Feedback... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.)

  8. For Buzz-lovers (not alcoholics, but musicians)... by Agram · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...there is also a cross-platform Buzz-port titled Aldrin which is actually comparable if not more mature than this software. It has already a majority of Buzz objects ported over and has gained some momentum among the Buzz community. And yes, it does run on Linux...

  9. nice project but this is nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    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/) 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/ or http://trac.zeitherrschaft.org/buzzrmx/ or http://www.buzztard.org/)
    Check for example the music of http://www.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/, http://lmms.sourceforge.net/, http://beast.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!

  10. Mono by Chemicalscum · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone got his running on Linux using Mono yet?

  11. Re:Attention can be a bad thing by LordOfTheNoobs · · Score: 2, Funny

    Gentlemen, we must find a way to plug the analog instrument hole. 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. Any fair-licensed author-play instruments detecting the play of copyrighted works will immediately call home to beat those pirates and keep sales cost low!

    --
    They're there affecting their effect.
  12. a better one: rosegarden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    check THIS out:

    http://www.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/

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

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

  13. Re:That's not music composition by David+Greene · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Thank you! I switched to Lilypond several months ago and never looked back. It is so much more flexible than Finale and its ilk due to the fact that it isn't constrained by a graphical representation. I also find that writing music in text is a lot faster than point-and-click or even recording and going back to adjust all of the quantizing problems.

    I love the ability to use music variables to hold repeating sequences. I love the programmability (even better with the new streams model). It's extremely easy to write parts for each instrument and mix-and-match them into different scores. I find that, for example, some people in choirs like to see the full SATB parts in a traditional two-staff layout, others prefer a four-staff layout while some prefer just to see their own part. The pianist really wants to see the SATB put on a standard two-staff piano score. No problem with lilypond, I can tailor the presentation to each individual choir member if I wish.

    And it makes beautiful engravings, too!

    In my opinion, Lilypond completely outclasses commercial and proprietary music scoring software.

    --