I spent a little of time with this program and readily admit that it is a nice piece of programming. But, let's not start to do too much comparing ... we're not in competition AND the programs, IMHO, have quite different goals and uses. Nothing in this message is intended to knock or flame other programs ... and if anyone starts doing that here I'll be the first to ask the moderator to delete the posts.
I think when I started to write MMA I would have been quite happy with results like impro-visor is creating. MMA does much more, and less. If you start to play with the various options in MMA like volume control, instrument articulation, etc. you'll quickly see a lot of power under the hood. Of course, this comes with a price: complexity.
I really don't find the lack of a GUI in MMA to be a problem. If it is for you then don't use it, or write one and share it with the community (typical open-source arrogance on my part).
Lessons? Yeah ... but, in my own defense, I never really thought that MMA would work at all. It started out as a test to see if I could create MIDI files in Python. Unfortunately, it grew beyond this minor goal. Along the way I should have started over ... but, that is history. Here's a few if I were to rewrite MMA or do a MMA2:
- much stricter rules in the library files. I'd probably only permit a single set of grooves to be defined in a file. See the library naming thread on this forum.
- MMA is pretty much freeform ... and better syntax would make it better. I fear it is too late for that.
- perhaps a complete split between the library and the user song files in format.
For now, I do think we need to solidify the basic engine (I do keep finding bugs!) and the library name thing does need resolution. I really do hope some folks can make suggestions on this ... I'm really quite confused on it.
Some GUI tools to create sequences/grooves would be handy. It is much easier to see (for example) a bass pattern presented graphically than as a series of numbers.
I look at programs like BiaB and impro-visor and always end up scratching my head a bit. Why, I have to ask, is there such a focus on melody? After all, isn't that my job as a musician? The only reason I use a program like MMA is that I need practice playing (melody!) AND I don't have kind, understand, consistent musicians at my beck and call at any hour of the day or night. Elton John has a bit of a rant going about the internet killing creativity and that playing with real people is so much better ... he's right ... but music in a box is better than no music at all! Mind you, a lot of things in this world cause me to scratch .... but that is a different thread!
I wonder if folks are really using much of MMA? Or do they just enter a set of chords with a groove name at the top of the file? That is if they don't just use one of the supplied song files ... or, being a bit negative, use the program at all? Seriously, I know that Kara uses MMA and I certainly use it just about every day. So, that's 2 happy users
