Like probably most of Usiners, I only use 20% of the functionalities of Usine...
The separation between Compositional / Live tools start to be up to date now. Usine is designed for people, whoose compose and then after, play the composition on stage! So Usine should have both approaches.
Usine is not fixed, and with your suggestions I improve the soft everyday.
Maybe, now it's time to start another thread in the suggestion area, something like:
"What a perfect piano-roll should be?"
Statistics: Posted by senso — 07 Sep 2007, 08:41
]]>
Statistics: Posted by disturb — 07 Sep 2007, 02:33
]]>
Statistics: Posted by Vincent — 07 Sep 2007, 02:10
]]>
I stated that the current modules are a bit lacking as they are, but that the software has an incredible potential in this area ; and i'm wondering if this is something that is going to be an important focus in the development scheme at some point, or ifUsine will remain a live focused application.
In my opinion the market is seriously lacking something like this (let's call it a very flexible midi sequencing environment) and there is a niche to be filled.
Usine just has all the qualities needed for this : modularity (deep without feeling bloated), solid sequencing possibilities, internal bussing etc which could make for an outstanding environment.
I do believe that a lo of people rely on things like max msp when they want to experiment in that field, but end up wishing this would integrate into a solution aimed at making music, rather than implementing code.
cheers
Statistics: Posted by disturb — 06 Sep 2007, 23:11
]]>
Well, this post is interesting enough to be translated in English!
I can see many guys groaning there!
Well, to be short, since I think that Senso will give answers, I'll say that yes, Usine is definitely made for live.
I don't use it for compositional works but when composition is finished and when I'm ready to play it on stage.
It's true that a huge part of the composition could use Usine's features, like pianoroll, meaning that you have to compose in and with Usine.
It also depend on how you compose! I'm sure that Olivier Sens does not compose like you or me...
Statistics: Posted by Vincent — 06 Sep 2007, 20:20
]]>
To anyone who doesn't speak french, in this thread i basically asked Senso about his position on developping and improving Usine from a midi sequencing/composition point of view.
I stated that the current modules are a bit lacking as they are, but that the software has an incredible potential in this area ; and i'm wondering if this is something that is going to be an important focus in the development scheme at some point, or ifUsine will remain a live focused application.
Je suis tres attire par Usine, mais j'ai un peu peur de finir par me heurter a la difference qui existe entre les attentes et besoins d'un musicien live, differentes de ceux de quelqu'un qui utilise le software pour la composition meme (principalement midi).
Faisant parti de la seconde categorie, je me demandais quelle est votre position quant a l'amelioration et le developpement de la partie midi/compo d'usine ?
Par exemple, une des choses a laquelle je porte le plus d'attention dans un hote vst est le piano roll, qui dans usine ne semble pas etre primordial du tout...
La raison pour laquelle je pose cette question est que si de tels modules venaient a retenir une plus grande attention dans le developpement, des choses fantastiques pourraient etre realisees je pense, mais je ne suis pas sur que cela fasse partie de votre vision du soft.
Il pourrait etre tres interessant par exemple d'avoir une sorte de matrice destinee au sequencing, sur le principe du piano roll, maisavec des caratceristiques editables et modulaires ; comme avoir une list en input pour n'afficher que certaines notes avec un texte associe, ou definir le type de message qu'envoie chaque 'note', ne pas le limiter a des notes/CC/PC en ayant une input pour chaque 'ligne' par exemple.
J'aimerais beacoup pouvoir customiser ce genre de chose, et ainsi definir une veritable interface personnalisee en terme de sequencing.
Dans l'etat actuel, avec tous les systemes de liste etc, il est par exemple possible de realiser la structure d'un sequencer d'accords qui s'adapterait a une gamme et une tonique etc, mais le feedback visuel est un peu limite il me semble pour que cela soit vraiment pratique.
Bref je divague un peu, mais je suis relllement curieux de connaitre votre position a ce sujet.
Quoi qu'il en soit, encore toutes mes felicitations.
Statistics: Posted by disturb — 05 Sep 2007, 15:06
]]>