MIDI mapping

[BooT-SectoR-ViruZ]

sorry to bitch about this again, but i seriously need midi-mapping for live-use of ompt (assigning faders, modwheels and stuff to vst-params) or i will soon have to switch to another platform. AND I DON'T WANT THAT!!!

sorry again, but to me this is becoming an essential feature

any chance that it will at least be considered possible to implement in the "near" future?

:cry:

[Relabsoluness]

Frankly, I would be surprised to see the feature implemented in the "near" future(at least so that it would work as flawlessly as required by live usage), although you certainly give a good reason why it should be. Did I understand this correctly that the MIDI mapping would be analogous to using macros to control parameter with the difference that macros are replaced by MIDI messages, like assigning MIDI keyboard pitch bender to some finetune parameter in VST?

[BooT-SectoR-ViruZ]

Did I understand this correctly that the MIDI mapping would be analogous to using macros to control parameter with the difference that macros are replaced by MIDI messages, like assigning MIDI keyboard pitch bender to some finetune parameter in VST?

yupp... and i guess this would be a really neat feature

[Relabsoluness]

Since the midi-related matter seems to be under discussion, I got interested that how good control one can get simply been able to send mididata to plug compared to using macros to control parameters - any idea?

[BooT-SectoR-ViruZ]

i don't really get what you're trying to say...
the difference between what i'm proposing and macros simply is that macros can not be used/triggered in realtime.

macros are a neat feature... no doubt about it... but they are no use when it comes to playing live

[LPChip]

i don't really get what you're trying to say...
the difference between what i'm proposing and macros simply is that macros can not be used/triggered in realtime.

macros are a neat feature... no doubt about it... but they are no use when it comes to playing live

Oh come on... This is a tracker!!!

The entire purpose of a tracker is to code your song so it plays the same every time. It already has been enhanced for some form of live performance, but this suggestion (not that I'm against it) just turns this in somekind of instrument rather than a tracker.

Isn't there another tool you can use in addition to OpenMPT that allows you to do this? Cus clearly, you don't want to make a song in OpenMPT, you just want to play along, right?

[BooT-SectoR-ViruZ]

if there is a tool that can actually do this please tell me and i'll be totally satisfied  
and yeah, it's not about producing, it's for "playing along"
(although you could also use that funtion to record that midi-data as a macro)

[LPChip]

So basically you want to use a program to play a vst instrument , and control parameters on the fly right?

I think xlutop chainer can do that. It comes with a stand alone application that is very powerfull.

[Relabsoluness]

i don't really get what you're trying to say...

Then I'll try again - the previous post a was bit misleading anyway. So when Midi record is on, MPT receives Midi data, and it seems rather easy to pass this data to VST instruments(though I'm not sure is it completely 'valid' procedure to do), and thus VST can do something with the data. It seems that some VSTs indeed do something with that; I've already been able to control pan, volume, pitch etc. of a VST(tried with sfz) with midi keyboard. But on the other hand, I would guess all VSTs don't respond to all midi data, and there would be parameters that can't be controlled with Midi. So in a way the question was supposed to be that how many of the VST parameters can be controlled with Midi data(which naturally can depend e.g. on VST). If many of them can't be controlled,  I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to assign certain Midi data to control parameter x on VST y, and else, Midi-to-parameter mapping sounds somewhat redundant because Midi data is sufficient.

The entire purpose of a tracker is to code your song so it plays the same every time.

I disagree on that - I think tracker can have more application than just that one specific thing.

It already has been enhanced for some form of live performance, but this suggestion (not that I'm against it) just turns this in somekind of instrument rather than a tracker.

Why tracker couldn't be an instrument as well.

[Sam_Zen]

or i will soon have to switch to another platform.

I suppose you are joking here, because no need to add pressure along with a request.

I don't do MIDI since it started, and I can read the confirmation here, of the reasons why I didn't, in the discussion.
There never has been a straightforward compatibility in interpreting MIDI data, not now with the VSTs, also not then with the hardware.
However, MPT can handle VSTs, so it can do its stinking best to pass on the proper MIDI data, but in the end it depends on the VST plugin. So there always will be occasions where it will not work. And it's not the task of MPT to improve that imo.

The Live issue.
If it is indeed as LP says : 'BSZ just wants to play along', then it means that MPT is just used as a host for a plugin, not for tracking anymore. Here, an edge starts of how MPT should be used, I agree with LP about that.
Then it becomes not necessary to bother MPT with this, there are other programs that are specially made to perform as a VST host, with MIDI input, like Ableton, or the freeware Minihost.

Oh come on... This is a tracker!!!

Come on..! This sounds puristic, but I still track with just samples and entering codes, and if I'm not wrong, you use VSTs yourself, plus a MIDI keyboard to enter codes. From a purist view I can put question marks if this is still real tracking as well in the first place.

I think tracker can have more application than just that one specific thing.

Agreed. I do live playing with MPT too. But this is done with an already composed module.
Just because it's possible within the existing properties.
(And thanks to the nice adjustments being made regarding the transition point, even better now.)
The simple fact, that you can play a module back, and at the same time make some sound with the pc-keyboard by sample x,
makes it a live application at that moment.

I know it's a semantic discussion, but when I use MPT like that, I consider it indeed as 'playing my instrument'.
As usual, electronics have other laws than the classical world. Where each hor. line in the score has one instrument with one sound.
This is no longer the case. Most electronic devices being played, are able to produce more instruments at the same time.
Or playing one key can mean a whole sequence of notes, or a complete rhythmic pattern-loop.

I just finished the digital cleaning of a vinyl LP recording.
This was used in an electronic composition by Tristram Cary in 1971, for a live performance, using one EMS synth and two LPs.
According to a dice throw, certain tracks should be played of a certain side of the record.
So you could say, that in this case the pickup device becomes an instrument.

[LPChip]

Come on..! This sounds puristic, but I still track with just samples and entering codes, and if I'm not wrong, you use VSTs yourself, plus a MIDI keyboard to enter codes. From a purist view I can put question marks if this is still real tracking as well in the first place.  

I enter codes, use samples and indeed I use VST's and VSTi's. But all is being controlled directly from the patterns. I don't use my midi keyboard to play or enter notes in OpenMPT. I might've tried once, but it was not nearly as easy and good sounding than when I entered the notes myself, besides, I can write the pattern quicker by just entering the notes, than I can by playing along with my keyboard.

As for my statement: This is a tracker not an instrument, I want to prevent that people want to add so many features that are perhaps only indirectly related to tracking that OpenMPT becomes like a really big program full of different features that has become slow and unstable due to it.

In my opinion, every feature that is not part of the original concept is a feature that can slow down the program. Ofcource, OpenMPT already has a few features that are not part of the tracker concept, but they're very related to being a tracker, because you still use tracker techniques to make your patterns, its just the way of playing them back that has been changed.

Now with the addition of being able to send Midi data directly from the keyboard to the VST without OpenMPT messing with it, is something that looks unlogical because if you send that midi data from the keyboard, then let atleast be it possible to execute functions in OpenMPT with it, like turning knob 1 will change the pattern, pressing button 2 will play a pattern, etc...

[BooT-SectoR-ViruZ]

or i will soon have to switch to another platform.

I suppose you are joking here, because no need to add pressure along with a request.

who will feel pressured by that? i'll just be the one who's sad...  
man i love this program, but apart from being too lazy and too nostalgic to switch to something else i'm not joking (talking of long term). not meant to be an offence though

f it is indeed as LP says : 'BSZ just wants to play along', then it means that MPT is just used as a host for a plugin, not for tracking anymore. Here, an edge starts of how MPT should be used, I agree with LP about that.

wrong... my original track or some pattern will be playing and at the same time i want to play around with stuff like cutoff or something on VST(i) that already are in the track.

if it was just for a vst-host i could find numerous of those who support assigning faders and stuff on midi-controllers to specific vst-parameters

So basically you want to use a program to play a vst instrument

nope...

control parameters on the fly right?

yupp....

i didn't try xlutop chainer so far, but i guess what you're suggesting only works in the standalone version, so it's of no use to me

Agreed. I do live playing with MPT too. But this is done with an already composed module.
Just because it's possible within the existing properties.
(And thanks to the nice adjustments being made regarding the transition point, even better now.)
The simple fact, that you can play a module back, and at the same time make some sound with the pc-keyboard by sample x,
makes it a live application at that moment.

see... i just want the midi stuff in addition to that.
just because it's freaking uncomfortable to controll everything by mouse


@the instrument issue:
hey, i already can play notes on my midi-keyboard which are being sent to some vsti while my track is playing, so modplug already includes that "instrument host" thing... let's just make it more complete... that's what i'm asking

[Relabsoluness]

Nice - this one turned into a debate

This is a tracker not an instrument

Why those should be considered exclusive choices? Well, that question is pointless without knowing what you mean with the word 'instrument'. I would like to clarify that I've taken rather elementary point of view there. There are lots of differences between, say, piano and OpenMPT, but just like a pianist does something to a piano to get sounds out of it, people can use OpenMPT to get sound out of it(often it's less 'realtime' and involves composition but that's just a different way of 'playing the instrument') - I've just called that object between the 'player' and the sound as instrument. I guess we were refering to different things with the word

I want to prevent that people want to add so many features that are perhaps only indirectly related to tracking that OpenMPT becomes like a really big program full of different features that has become slow and unstable due to it

OpenMPT hardly becomes a really big program with its development speed And I just don't see why some simple, optional playback controls for harnessing the rich possibilities of controlling of mod playing live would somehow destroy the original idea of a tracker.

Ofcource, OpenMPT already has a few features that are not part of the tracker concept

Such as? Are VSTs part of tracker concept in the way you define it?

Now with the addition of being able to send Midi data directly from the keyboard to the VST without OpenMPT messing with it, is something that looks unlogical because if you send that midi data from the keyboard, then let atleast be it possible to execute functions in OpenMPT with it, like turning knob 1 will change the pattern, pressing button 2 will play a pattern, etc...

What was the unlogical part? I don't quite see the point in assigning MIDI controllers to control OpenMPT at least as long as there is ordinary keyboard available.

[Sam_Zen]

And a nice debate I must say. Clear points made.

I share the elementary point of view of Relabsoluness about 'instrument'. As a device to make a sound with.
If I toggle the play/pause button of a CD-player during a track, the player is my instrument then.

Yet there is a difference with the piano as instrument.
If the piano-player doesn't press a key, no sound. The same with other acoustic instruments. The physical effort.
If nobody blows air, or strike something, no sound. Electronic devices can make sound of their own, they already have the power.
I call those 'autophonic instruments'. An electric guitar with full feedback could be this category too.

And what's the "tracker concept" ? Or what's become of it?
If it's very strict : not even the (inside module) 'instrument' tag was there in the MOD format.
But I think a concept can stay the same, while at the same time developing and expanding further.

The choice of introducing VSTs is a right one, because they are plugins, so the main app doesn't get much bigger.
In this light, the introduction with the MIDI environment, was a bit more worrying to me.
I still fear too much influence in the tracker concept in the attempts to adapt to it.
Because I still consider it having unstable factors. Different soundbanks is obvious, but also the coding.
If I import a MID file in OMPT, big chance that the file is performed differently, than directly with a media-player.

[LPChip]

I wasn't referring to VST's. They are good additions. I was more referring to the mute on transition stuff. The things added for live playback.

But don't get me wrong, I am not against these functionalities.

And now that I've seen B-S-V's point of view, I agree that it can be nice to have this functionality, although it might be tricky to get it to work, which is ofcource a second issue.

The reason why I was talking about MPT as an instrument, is similar to why a VSTi is called a VST Instrument. MPT could become a host for plugins so it isn't used to track a song, but to solelly allow you to link up some VSTi's, put in a pattern with some rythm, and play along on your external midi keyboard. Now ofcource this is fine, but if we start to focus entirelly on making OpenMPT a program that will do such kind of features (everyone remember the piano roll feature that has been suggested before?) It are those kind of features that takes away the tracking principal.

But as long as it doesn't hurt the performance and it doesn't make the proram too complicated, its fine by me.

Although, I like to see that new functionality somehow improves the actual tracking because thats what most people would do.

So perhaps we can make it so that turning a know will trigger a Zxx command in the pattern area if record is set to on.