07-02-2022, 11:28 AM
I've admittedly been a little dissatisfied with Online Sequencer recently – especially with regard to the fact that there's no sustain, and there's a limited range of instruments – so I tried software that had previously been recommended to me on these forums. Now, I'm someone who doesn't easily give up when faced with a technical challenge – one of my proudest achievements is having installed RStudio on Jammy Jellyfish when it had recently been released, before anyone had published a solution to this online – but I just couldn't get Ardour to work for me. Specifically, I couldn't install any instruments, and I know that I'd have the same problem with the other software recommended on these forums. Why must digital online workstations be so unfriendly towards even an intermediate Linux-user such as myself...?
...But a digital audio workstation isn't the only alternative to Online Sequencer. Maybe I didn't search thoroughly enough online before...? ...No, I don't believe that I missed anything that I didn't find the first time. I tried signal, and although it does have more instruments and sustain for them, I found its user interface more difficult to use – and the quality of music produced sounded worse – than Online Sequencer's. midi.city looks like it has about the same diversity of instruments as signal, also does sustain, and the quality of music sounds better than Online Sequencer's... But as its creator said, 'I don't intend to do a full-on "grid editor" like you see in all other DAW’s and am experimenting around that', so it looks practically useless for actually making musical compositions. If only it had a grid editor like Online Sequencer's, it would be perfect (or good enough for me, at least)...
I'd heard of keyboard macros before, and I've used Audacity before, so why don't I use a keyboard macro program to play music on midi.city, record what plays with Audacity and compose music with that? The first problem was getting Audacity to record desktop audio, as opposed to microphone audio; it was harder than it should've been, just because I confused the playback device with the recording device (in the preferences, it's in this order, so I assumed that it would be the same outside of it, although the icons clearly show that it's in the opposite order). The second problem was the keyboard macro program; I installed AutoKey and wrote a Python script that worked... But the timing of delays and key presses and releases was so inaccurate (due to latency with fluctuating levels of delay, I guess), my own timing was a lot more accurate, so it was effectively useless.
At least I can still use Audacity. As I've implied earlier, my primary concern is timing: if Online Sequencer cares about time signature, grid size and BMP, these things must be pretty important, right? So, I created a spreadsheet with BPMs of 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150 and 200 (labelled as Largo, Larghetto, Adagio, Andante, Moderato, Allegro, Presto and Prestissimo respectively: I did my research); time signatures of 2⁄2, 2⁄4, 3⁄4, 3⁄8, 4⁄4, 5⁄4, 6⁄4, 6⁄8, 9⁄8 and 12⁄8 (the most common time signatures, apparently); the length (in seconds) of a maxima, longa, breve, semibreve, minim, crotchet, quaver, semiquaver, demisemiquaver and hemidemisemiquaver; and bar length (also in seconds), which I can use to calculate the total seconds of length from x bars, useful for maintaining a consistent time signature and BMP (and helpful for transcribing my musical compositions in the future, if I want to do that later).
I composed my very first piece last week, and before then, I had absolutely no musical experience, so remember that if I've said anything musically silly, I'm still very much a beginner with regard to musical composition. Let me know if you think I should stick around here, since instead of using Online Sequencer, I'll now be using midi.city in combination with Audacity to compose music (and I suppose that I'll upload them onto my YouTube channel, since I haven't been using it for anything else). Otherwise, I suppose that this'll be my last forum post; it'll have been brief, but it'll have been a pleasure, and I dare say that I gained much musical experience over the past week, even if it had a lot more to do with musical software than musical composition...
...But a digital audio workstation isn't the only alternative to Online Sequencer. Maybe I didn't search thoroughly enough online before...? ...No, I don't believe that I missed anything that I didn't find the first time. I tried signal, and although it does have more instruments and sustain for them, I found its user interface more difficult to use – and the quality of music produced sounded worse – than Online Sequencer's. midi.city looks like it has about the same diversity of instruments as signal, also does sustain, and the quality of music sounds better than Online Sequencer's... But as its creator said, 'I don't intend to do a full-on "grid editor" like you see in all other DAW’s and am experimenting around that', so it looks practically useless for actually making musical compositions. If only it had a grid editor like Online Sequencer's, it would be perfect (or good enough for me, at least)...
I'd heard of keyboard macros before, and I've used Audacity before, so why don't I use a keyboard macro program to play music on midi.city, record what plays with Audacity and compose music with that? The first problem was getting Audacity to record desktop audio, as opposed to microphone audio; it was harder than it should've been, just because I confused the playback device with the recording device (in the preferences, it's in this order, so I assumed that it would be the same outside of it, although the icons clearly show that it's in the opposite order). The second problem was the keyboard macro program; I installed AutoKey and wrote a Python script that worked... But the timing of delays and key presses and releases was so inaccurate (due to latency with fluctuating levels of delay, I guess), my own timing was a lot more accurate, so it was effectively useless.
At least I can still use Audacity. As I've implied earlier, my primary concern is timing: if Online Sequencer cares about time signature, grid size and BMP, these things must be pretty important, right? So, I created a spreadsheet with BPMs of 40, 50, 60, 80, 100, 120, 150 and 200 (labelled as Largo, Larghetto, Adagio, Andante, Moderato, Allegro, Presto and Prestissimo respectively: I did my research); time signatures of 2⁄2, 2⁄4, 3⁄4, 3⁄8, 4⁄4, 5⁄4, 6⁄4, 6⁄8, 9⁄8 and 12⁄8 (the most common time signatures, apparently); the length (in seconds) of a maxima, longa, breve, semibreve, minim, crotchet, quaver, semiquaver, demisemiquaver and hemidemisemiquaver; and bar length (also in seconds), which I can use to calculate the total seconds of length from x bars, useful for maintaining a consistent time signature and BMP (and helpful for transcribing my musical compositions in the future, if I want to do that later).
I composed my very first piece last week, and before then, I had absolutely no musical experience, so remember that if I've said anything musically silly, I'm still very much a beginner with regard to musical composition. Let me know if you think I should stick around here, since instead of using Online Sequencer, I'll now be using midi.city in combination with Audacity to compose music (and I suppose that I'll upload them onto my YouTube channel, since I haven't been using it for anything else). Otherwise, I suppose that this'll be my last forum post; it'll have been brief, but it'll have been a pleasure, and I dare say that I gained much musical experience over the past week, even if it had a lot more to do with musical software than musical composition...
-
x1
-
-
x1
- pseudoname
-