The VOTA library itself and the UTILITY are very nice creations. Many thanks to Nick and Nuno.
I tried a little differnt approach today and got intersting results. I took my seqencer program
(FINALE) and created 2 Piano staves. The first one on MIDI channel 1 and the second one on MIDI
I loaded WC ah-oo-ee-eh-... from the original Womens Choir V.2.gig into GS Port1 CH1 and the Nonpitch-Consonants in CH2.
I had about 10 minutes to figure out the word GLOOORIA. It\'s not perfect but an acceptable approach.
Finally what I\'m aiming for is to INTEGRATE VOTA into a notation program so Lyrics could be written under each staff and it would translate it to words. I\'m dreaming of a \"plug in\" in which the lyric line under the choral staff is \"MIDI sensitive\" and can send out the needed changes to create the words.
In another experiment I tried out 4x2 piano staves and only vowel-key switching. But I used a canonic theme (Fugue type) and used the same vowel change pattern over each voice (soprano, alto, tenor, bass)that means the voices starting in sequence and while the soprano sings an \"aah\" the \"alto\" sings a \"uuh\" etc. It came out pretty nice.
It would be great for the beginning if the notation program could only change the vowels at first. But this would allow canonic music to happen and open a whole new dimension in vocal composition.
I also sent all major NOTATION SOFTWARE companies an e-mail with a suggestion to create a MIDI SENSITIVE LYRIC LINE PLUG IN in their programs. Best would be, if it could be configured by the the user and some configuration files would be exchangable.
This effort is in no means to by-pass NUNO\'s big development. Maybe Nuno you are able yourself to come up with such a project or work in liaison with FINALE, SIBELIUS, OUVERTURE etc.
I just try to think with something I really can compose choir scores. That would be my dream.
Maestro, I\'m sure I can\'t be of more help than this but SERIOUSLY, you need to get yourself a sequencer! Look at that notation!? What\'s the point of using a notation program when you end up with scores looking unreadable like that!? I must say it took a while for me to understand those bass clef 8ths and 16ths were actually keyswitches! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] I was thinking \"MAN this guy has got it all wrong! Since when did a SATB arrangement look like that?\" Hehe but I realize now that _I_ was wrong. Anyway, I seriously think you should get yourself a sequencer. Use it to realize your music, and then write it into a notation program when it\'s time to get it performed. Notation software houses will never digest your idea. They aren\'t interested in your user group at all. Most people who use notation programs (including me) , use them to make scores and parts for a real choir or orchestra. I always use some old crappy GM sounds when I\'m writing these scores in Sibelius.
Anyway, you need a sequencer! [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img] (Forgive me if you already have one!)
Thanks for your input Thomas. I should have made it more clear. Above notation is an experiment and what you see, is only to build the word GLORIA. Only the top staff represents a
melody. The two 8-low basses are for key switching. Staff # 3 from above selects the non pitched consonants through note values.
Above notation is made with FINALE. A new notation program with a MIDI SENSITIVE TEXT line would make the lower 3 staves unneccessary.
You have to work with VOTA and understand it\'s architecture to follow the example.
We will see how the \"notation industry\" reacts. You might be totally right with your assumtion.
\"Notation software houses will never digest your idea. They aren\'t interested in your user group at all. Most people who use notation programs (including me) , use them to make scores and parts for a real choir or orchestra. I always use some old crappy GM sounds when I\'m writing these scores in Sibelius.
Anyway, you need a sequencer! (Forgive me if you already have one!)\"
Sorry Thomas, but you are wrong on several points here. First of all, a large percentage of Sibelius and Finale users use the programs for composition and to get a MIDI recording of their music. In many cases the potential for getting a real ensemble recording of the music is unrealistic, and the computer version is the final product.
And so it follows that notation companies ARE interested in appealing to people who are concerned with the playback (beyond a standard general MIDI performance). This is a huge portion of their market, certainly larger than the professional engraver market.
As far as making plugins for this, I suggest you talk to someone like Nuno. The plugin documentation for Finale is extensive, and from it you will be able to gather whether or not this is even possible. The Sibelius documentation is comparatively lacking, but it still might be possible to figure out if it can be done or not.
I don\'t have VOTA. How do you select different syllables/articulations in a given instrument? In other words, what type of MIDI data is being modified by the syllables in Nuno\'s application? Or is it set up completely different from a typical library?
Okay, I don\'t think a plugin which puts MIDI messages in the score is the right way to do this. The best idea sounds like to just export the lyrics from Finale or Sibelius directly into a Nuno\'s utility. It\'s already sounding like the utility may be modified so that it one day recognizes words.
Keep in mind what plugins do in Sibelius and Finale... they don\'t make new things possible, they provide shortcuts to doing what is already possible. To do this type of thing manually in Finale (and it would be even tougher to do manually in Sibelius), you would have to put in MIDI messages on every note to change the patch, mod wheel settings, and send pitch signals for key switching. You would also probably have to create extra hidden notes at every pitch in instances where more than one change is needed per note. This could create problems when working on the score. And then if you go back and change the words, you\'d have to run the plugin again. The plugin would have to eliminate existing MIDI messages and then input new ones, but it would have to be particular about this (it couldn\'t get rid of ALL MIDI messages). Again you have to find out what data plugins are given access to.
By comparison, it would be relatively easy to just export the lyrics into a utility like Nuno\'s. This wouldn\'t take any longer than running a plugin for putting the data directly into the score, and it would cause less trouble. Just use a utility like MIDI Yoke to take the output of Finale into Nuno\'s utility and go from there.
Here\'s a basic overview of how VotA\'s patches are set up (if that\'s what you\'re asking):
You have eight separate \"vowel\" patches for Ah, Oo, Ee, Oh, Eh, Ih, Uh and Mm (imagine them as completely different instruments like trumpet, trombone, tuba, etc... you load them individually). Mod wheel gives you expression control. If I recall correctly there are keyswitches for natural and faster attacks.
There are also two consonant patches, pitched and non-pitched. Each individual pitched consonant is accessed via keyswitches, with the mod wheel providing new consonant sounds. Non-pitched consonants just run up the keyboard (from \"b\" to \"z\", I\'m guessing... don\'t have it in front of me). There are keyswitches for different versions of the same non-pitched consonant (harder, softer, etc.), and the mod wheel controls attack.
If you use the VotaUtility you would need only the first staff (with the melody). This is the first goal of the utility. Regarding extrating text from lyrics, and send it out, maybe only by plug-ins...
If someone is interested in doing a plugin for this, i can help...
\"It\'s already sounding like the utility may be modified so that it one day recognizes words.\"
I don\'t have the utility or VOTA but it sounds like the utility program simply needs to be re-writen to support a display name and an internal vota representation. 2 tables of data, when a user enters a new phrase in the vota dictionary, they are asked to enter the \"readable\" version and then the VOTA interpreted version. And when the end user wants to enter a word, they simply enter the \"readable\" version, which internally sends the VOTA result. Easy eh? sure... [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]