GPO Mod wheel and NC Controller %7c96%7c Menu option

Hi All,
I have been reading the postings and feeling for you guys, and seeing Sherry mentioned my name in her latest despatch, I thought I would add to what has been said both to Fred and his family situation, and also re the experiences with GPO.

When the Garritan bulkbuy offer came up in Nov, I wrote on the forum that people needed to be aware that buying the software would not give instant success. In fact, like your experiences, I have found GPO virtually impossible to drive and get the required sound, and so it just sits there unused. I often wonder how the people who did the demos on the Garritan site obtained such a great result, because I found it nearly impossible even to get one instrument sounding like I wanted it to.

I think the answer lies partly in a better interface to GPO, so it overcomes the 'funnies' in the way GPO and other similiar software (like the organ software I use) use (and ignore) the midi standards. Sure enough you can make the system work if you are a genius and have lots of time, but for us mere mortals who have a variety of interests in life, it is all just too hard.

My central criticism of these packages, is that the interfaces to these packages that currently exist are not 'musician interfaces'. They are technical interfaces - which work - but they are not the way musicians do things !!!

The beauty of Composer is that it thinks like a musician, and that is why I like it. I would add my voice to all the others hoping that 'superman' Mark will save the day and provide us with a 'musicans' interface that overcomes the technical requirements of these products.

Cheers ... Clyde

Hi MG,

Thank you for your support. I will be sure to tell Patsy how much you enjoyed her art works. She loves to use vivid color and will be pleased that you have noticed and appreciated that.

About GPO, I know it will take a lot of work and time to get anywhere with the kind of effects that would satisfy me. I know for sure I will never accomplish the superb sounds and effects that others have achieved. I don't have enough years left for that. I also don't have enough cash for the kind of keyboard or synth that is required to reach the ultimate. I have a $300 Yamaha keyboard that I thought was wonderful. I just can't put several thousand into an elite system and, even if I did, I don't have the technical skills to understand what to do with it anyway. I think I should continue to do things the way I always have, and add some better sounds little by little to make some improvements along the way. Such as using the GPO Steinway piano for "Solitude". I need to think about creeping instead of running.

Cheers,
Fred

Hi Clyde,

Everything you said is "right on".

My central criticism of these packages, is that the interfaces to these packages that currently exist are not 'musician interfaces'. They are technical interfaces - which work - but they are not the way musicians do things !!!

AMEN!!!!!

Cheers,
Fred

Hello John, Fred, Herbert, Bernie, MG, and Sherry,

Where's Mark been during all this discussion about GPO?

I've been listening; and Sherry also today gave me a very good digest about all of the GPO-related issues brought up in this thread.

I can report to you that a huge amount of work has already been done here to directly or indirectly support GPO, but has not been released yet. In fact, I did a lot of this work more than a year ago, but have not released it yet, because I wanted to package most of the GPO support in one release rather than dribble it out. Why?

Well, right now you all are blaming GPO for how difficult it is to use. That's not really fair to GPO. It offers great instrument sounds, with a lot of control, at a very reasonable price. GPO should not be blamed for the fact its interface is highly technical, with nasty MIDI controllers and such. That would be like blaming MIDI for being complicated at the level of bits and bytes. It's the job of software to make underlying technology easy to use. GPO itself doesn't attempt to offer such software with a "musical interface". That should be the notation program's or MIDI sequencer's job. That should be Composer's job! After all, Composer is both a notation editor and MIDI sequencer.

I could have dribbled out partial solutions to make GPO easier to use for Composer users. But as soon as I started doing that, Composer itself would have become the brunt of criticism about how difficult GPO is to use. That would have indeed been fair, to criticize Composer for not making GPO easy to use. But, no other notation app makes GPO easy to use either. In fact, Composer already makes GPO easier to use than probably any other notation app. This will be good marketing for Composer, to release the good GPO support all at once. I apologize that you very few folk who have struggled with GPO haven't been able to enjoy, up to now, the GPO support features that are actually already implemented.

It won't be long before some new Composer features for GPO will come out with quite a bang. Most of these GPO support features will all come out at the same time. There will be a quantum leap in how much easier it will be to get good sound out of GPO in Notation Composer.

At this time, I'm not disclosing details about what these GPO support features in Composer will be, nor the schedule for the release. If you go back and read this entire huge thread that you have all participated in, the detailed issues you have brought up only offer a glimpse at the larger scale GPO support problem that new features in Composer will solve.

Cheers
-- Mark

Hi Mark,

Aha! I knew you had a shirt with a big red "S" on it hanging in your closet.

I had to struggle trying to convey my problems and frustrations with GPO and JaBB. It is difficult doing that without "dissing" somebody. Obviously, GPO has some pretty awesome capabilities and is offered at a very affordable price for that kind of program. I owe Gary a sincere apology for what, I am sure, appears to be an attack on his product. In truth, it is not. I fully understand that to achieve those kinds of results demands a high degree of technicality. My complaint is not that the programs are so highly technical or complex, but with the fact that the manual is insufficient for the average "dummy" ( like me ).

Composer was difficult for me too, in the beginning. The difference is this: If I needed to find out how to do anything ( anything at all ) all it took was to read your manual. There is not a thing that Composer is capable of that is not fully explained in the User's Guide. I may have had to read some things more than once, but that was because of my own limitations. Not only that, but ask a question on this forum and you get an answer... just about all of which are fully understandable. That's one of the advantages Composer has over all the rest.

The good news is that you are working on things that will help make it all easier. I understand and agree with your decision to bring out the improvements all at once, rather than in dribbles. It's also obvious that since you have been working on it for over a year that 'it ain't all that easy'. I can wait. Knowing you are going to make it all better is good enough for me. I certainly thank you for all the hard work you are putting into this and I am sure many others will be thanking you as well!

I know that Gary sometimes reads this forum. I hope he does not think of me as " some kind of fruitcake ". I really do apologize, Gary, for what appears to be a shot at GPO itself. The software is awesome and I thank you for it. My problems using it are my own shortcomings.

Thank you, again, Mark.

Cheers,
Fred

Hello Fred,

If Gary gets wind of this conversation, I don't think he'll have a problem with complaints that GPO itself offers MIDI controllers as its user interface, and not the actual graphical user interface, which is the job of the notation or MIDI sequencing program.

Why does GPO use the Mod Wheel for volume level? That's so that the user at the MIDI keyboard can, with a fairly high degree of dexterity, control the nuances of the volume curve of individual notes, in real-time, as he's recording, with the joy-stick on his MIDI keyboard. It's actually a lot of fun to control the volume level with the joy-stick, and generally much more useful than controlling modulation, the originally intended role of the joy-stick.

Cheers
-- Mark

Hi All,

Having made my complaints about GPO, I ought to say a few things in defense, for as Mark indicated above
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

GPO itself offers MIDI controllers as its user interface, and not the actual graphical user interface, which is the job of the notation or MIDI sequencing program. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

(a) Other similiar products to GPO suffer from the same non-musical interface. The idea of using (or abusing) the midi standard makes some sense as a means of communicating between musical instruments (in this case software musical instruments).

(b) Most software system comes in 'layers', with different people or systems being expert at a particular layer. In this current situation, GPO (along with many other packages) provide 'expert' sounds. But it is only one of the layers in the overall system. The layer that is missing (and Mark indicated he is working on) is the 'top' layer - the musicians interface.

(c) My reading of the glossy book that comes with GPO seems to indicate that the interface to GPO from other notation programs is at a very similiar level. Mark, who I am sure knows better than most of us, makes the comment above:
<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

In fact, Composer already makes GPO easier to use than probably any other notation app<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

I have worked for years as a computer systems designer/programmer in a manfacturing environment, and as it was the early days of computing (1970-2000) we were often on the leading edge of technology ('bleeding' edge as it was affectionately called). I think we are at that stage with GPO and similiar products. And we are doing a little 'bleeding' at present, but in a few years time (and with Composer hopefully leading the way) we will wonder what all the fuss was about.

What is exciting about being on the leading edge of technology is that we maybe able to influence the future, and experiment, 'throw in our twopennce worth' and help in the shaping of the musical interface. This forum provides, and Mark encourages our feedback, a way for us to do that in a non-threatening, respectful way, recognising that on occasions we will get it wrong, but hopefully enjoying the adventure together.

Cheers ... Clyde

Hi

I think, it must be understandable, that there is disappointment. We had not been told that GPO and Composer do not quite line up. There should be no finger pointing or are apologies required. This would not be productive. I also think that everybody in this is most sincere. It will not do any harm if G G reads these posts.

Midi was originally used for live performances. It has never been a rigid standard. What we are doing now is to produce music with a PC only. It needs to work in a new way.

The graphical display and adjustment of midi controllers over the notation, is for me and I think for many users, a most attractive feature in Composer. Velocity is singled out for special treatment. I can only guess what goes on in the background in respect to absolute and relative values for velocity. It works well. Along come GPO and JABB, not respecting our ways. Perhaps there should be another option, permitting all midi controllers to be adjusted as velocity is. I prefer a system, where all controllers can be assigned all editing methods available. Composer would come with a midi template, a GPO template and other frequently used templates, to make live easy. Users could set up their own templates.

Sherry, I hope I have answered your request for clarification.

I will be watching now this space, to experience the “big bang”, when Mark releases all new features.

Best wishes,

Herbert

Hello Herbert,

<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

The graphical display and adjustment of midi controllers over the notation, is for me and I think for many users, a most attractive feature in Composer. Velocity is singled out for special treatment. I can only guess what goes on in the background in respect to absolute and relative values for velocity. It works well. Along come GPO and JABB, not respecting our ways. Perhaps there should be another option, permitting all midi controllers to be adjusted as velocity is.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>At first glance, this seems to be a good recommendation. However, there's a basic difference between note velocities and controller data. A note velocity is associated with a single note; whereas a controller applies to all notes currently sounding on the same channel. In order to apply separate controller values individually to each note, each note has to be on a separate channel.

Composer's velocity vectors and MIDI graphs say the same thing as the above paragraph: Velocity vectors are drawn individually for each note. Controller graphs are drawn across the entire staff of notes, assuming that that staff is assigned to one never changing channel. Note, that last assumption will no longer be true in the next major version of Composer that better supports GPO.

Cheers
-- Mark

Hi Mark,

What I was talking about was uniformity in methods for editing and in the display of graphs.

Velocity has a number, indicating the value where the action is. By pressing certain keys, the number increases or retards. This is an efficient way for setting the controller and the graph. This would be useful for all controllers.

My preferred method would be that on clicking and holding down the left mouse button above a point in a selected part of a graph, the value would rise and would be indicated near the point of focus. Clicking below the graph would do the opposite. Holding the mouse button down for a short time, would advance numbers slowly. Numbers would advance faster, as the mouse button is held down for a longer time. This could be used to move a strait line up or down. I know it can already be done in Composer by other means. But using the mouse, this could also be used to click on the left or right edge of the selection, to produce sloping lines, sloping either up or down, with values numerically indicated at either end of the selection. A further advance would be to have a selection of standard preset curved lines, including user created lines that can be placed into a selected area of any controller and pulled, pushed etc, to change its relative shape.

Can’t wait to see new and improved features of Composer.

Best wishes,

Herbert

Hi Herbert,

Just in case you have not yet found, your JABB may need to be updated. I never guessed that since I just got it on 12/25 that I would need an update from 2 years ago. It would have been nice if they had enclosed a note with the software that it has been sitting "on the shelf" for 2 years and needs the update. I found that out by downloading the pdf file explaining the udate and showing a picture of what it should look like. Thanks to Sherry's tip on that.
I still don't know if I need the update for GPO (2004). The pdf file for that update shows there are folders for "Wet" and "Dry" and the "Multi" folder shows about 30 selections. I have none of that, but I do have what they say are "new" instruments, such as "Full Strings" ( I have a "multi" folder but there are no instruments in it). So it is somewhat confusing. I'm concerned that if I download and install that 'update' in may end up as a "downdate". It sure would be a lot easier if they would only tell you what the h...l to do when you buy something!

Cheers,
Fred

Hi Fred,

Thank you for letting me know about the update situation. I did not know and will investigate.

Best wishes,

Herbert

Hello GPO and JABB users,

There was some reference in the above discussion to MIDI controller #131 (cc131), which is referred to on p22 of the JABB PDF documentation. That led to the question: shouldn't Composer included controller #131 in its list of controllers in the graph tool?

Well, I was surprised about the existence of controller #131, because MIDI controller numbers only go up to 127.

I found a couple helpful statement in the Garritan forum:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

CC# 131 exists as a virtual controller on some M-Audio keyboards... To assign aftertouch to a slider with an M-Audio keyboard, you assign (using the keyboard functions, not doing anything in your DAW of JABB) CC#131 to that slider - I think this is just an M-Audio CC reference that doesn't really mean anything other than telling the M-Audio keyboard to transmit aftertouch information if that particular slider is moved.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>So, this controller #131 really is an M-Audio keyboard invention that is outside view of Composer or any other MIDI sequencing program. If you have an M-Audio keyboard that supports "virtual controller" numbers above #131, then you can take advantage of that feature, and reassign the virtual controller to any real honest-to-goodness MIDI control that you want to in the range 0-127 (well, really, only some of them). If you use the virtual controller #131 on your M-Audio keyboard in this way, that's totally you're little dance with the keyboard that Composer (or any MIDI program) will be unaware. Said another way, don't bother asking Composer to add cc131 support, because there is no such thing as cc131, as far as Composer or any other MIDI program is concerned.

Composer can't duck out of trouble completely here, though. JABB (and probably GPO, I don't know) uses the aftertouch "voice message" in MIDI. Aftertouch isn't a MIDI controller, just like pitch bend isn't a MIDI controller, even though it seems like it is one. That's why you don't find aftertouch and pitch bend in Composer's list of controllers. However, there is a problem here in Composer. It supports pitch bend with a special graph tool, but it doesn't (as it should) support aftertouch with a special graph tool. It's high on my list to add this aftertouch graph tool. Actually, it's already mostly done.

One more thing: controller 64. Controller 64 is the Sustain Pedal. Composer has a separate tool for sustain pedals, but according to the MIDI specs, which say that the sustain pedal value is only on or off, Composer only supports graphing of these two values on and off. Also, Composer does not currently list controller 64 in the generic list of controllers. I will fix this. I'll add controller 64 in the list of generic controllers; and the controller 64 graph will support any values, not just on and off. This will make Garritan users happy/ier.

Cheers
-- Mark

Hello,

Here's an amendment to my post above, regarding controller 64 (sustain pedal), which is used for tongue and slur articulations in JABB (and I suspect also GPO, but I don't know that).

As best I can tell from the Garritan JABB documentation, JABB's use of controller 64 for tongue and slur articulations adheres to the MIDI spec that only on and off values are used, and nothing in between. So, I won't be changing Composer to support a range of values for controller 64 (sustain pedal).

If anyone finds that JABB or GPO really does want use use a full range of values for controller 64, and not just on/off values, then please let me know.

Cheers
-- Mark

Hi Fred,

I have just updated JABB and GPO.

This is my experience:
The update for JABB was simply a replacement of the library. Before, I had 9 items on the drop-down list of the load button of Kontak Player. Now I have 2 lines added: ”10 Lite” and “11 Place Holder”. Trying to update Kontakt Player of GPO had no effect. I assume, that I have had already the latest version. There appears to be an error in the version numbers of “1.18.003” in one case and “1.18.3”in the other case.

I Think, G G could improve on instructions for updating.

Best wishes,

Herbert

Hi Herbert,,
That's pretty much my experience, too with JABB. However, even thought I downloaded the update for GPO, I did not install the update. There were things showing in the update intruction file that were not showing the same way in my GPO. But I did have the instruments under the instruments tab, so I did not take the chance on installing it because I thought it might take me backwards instead. It is confusing.

BEst,
FRed

Hi All,



<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!><font size=1>quote:</font>

Fred said:
I still don't know if I need the update for GPO (2004). The pdf file for that update shows there are folders for "Wet" and "Dry" and the "Multi" folder shows about 30 selections. I have none of that, but I do have what they say are "new" instruments, such as "Full Strings" ( I have a "multi" folder but there are no instruments in it). <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>

(That quote is from back up this thread away).

I was talking to someone the other day who said they'd got Version (or is it called "release" 2) of gpo and said more or less exactly what you have said Fred. (No inst in wet and nothing in multis). So I don't know if that version is a full thing or some kind of update. Strange if the .pdf say it has those things and it hasn't (so rumour has it anyway). Anyone know what's happened in V2 GPO then?

Cheers,
-Johnsmi

Hi Fred,

Margaret and I are very pleased to hear the good news. We offer our best wishes for Patsy’s health to return and for many years of a good life to follow, for both of you.

Yes, you are right; this forum is a very special place, with many good people being the heart of it.

See you at Mark’s party, when he makes the big money.

Best wishes,

Herbert

Hi Herbert and Margaret,

Thank you both for your best wishes. Patsy and I are tremendously appreciative of the support from everyone.

quote: "See you at Mark’s party, when he makes the big money."
>> I think he already has, but every time he makes $1 he puts $1.50 back in to make it better for all of us!

Take care,
Fred