Rosegarden or not Rosegarden

Hi happy Ardour users,

What sequencer do you use to rec your MIDI tracks in our favorite DAW, when you have record/edit they ?

Rosegarden is favorite because of the, in my point of view, excellent score and notation features. I started to play with Midi since about 9 month and my background is mostly classical music. Therefore I write the songs purely with the notation editor before generating any sound. My sound generator is a Yamaha Motif Rack XS. I never played with VSTs up to now. This could change in the future.

@thorgal: can you expand on the grid/scale issue for me?

Paul, it’s a matter of tempo mapping when you have progressive variations, say like a linear decrease from 150 BPM to 70 BPM over e.g. a 10 sec duration. I don’t see how the ardour tempo grid (bars, beats, etc) can handle such a time variation. Or did I miss this feature in the recent versions ?? :slight_smile: In RG, you can set two different BPM points in time and join them linearly (it’s called tempo ramping). I use it a lot for my MIDI drumming. But it does not map well in ardour so I cannot rely on bars and beats. That’s probably due to the nature of the data (MIDI vs audio).

I use rosegarden. But I started using openoctave, a fork of rosegarden focusing on the matrix editor only. Rosegarden tends to develop too much around scores and notation to my taste (I don’t read notes so all the notation and lilypond stuff is beyond me). On the other hand, openoctave is focusing on precisely what I use rosegarden for, so it’s interesting to see. However, it’s a fork of RG that depends on KDE3/Qt3. And I use KDE 4.3/Qt4 so I hope OO will evolve away from the older libs.

In general my use of rosegarden is very limited: 2 MIDI tracks maximum, connected to some external drum VSTis (dssi-vst). I use RG (and now OO) because of tempo ramping up and down, which ardour does not provide (elastic time for audio not yet implemented). The latter point is a bit of a minus because I cannot rely on the tempo based grid in ardour. My songs have quite some variations in tempo and ardour’s way of displaying the beats / BPM grid is too rigid (same scale between two BPM values). So I use ardour without relying on the tempo grid most of the time.

Rosegarden is one of my favourites. I use it mainly as MIDI sequencer for my KORG synthesizer. It is a relatively lightweight software and allows me a fine tuning of the MIDI data to send to the external synth.
When I have to use software synths, especially VST or ZynAddSubFX, I prefer Linux MultiMedia Studio, even if is really CPU hungry (even for a 64 bit dual core processor like mine) and somewhat unstable.
Moreover, I own a copy of Ableton Live Lite that was bundled with my M-Audio MIDI controller (runs fine with Wine): obviously I use it extensively, even if, being a lite edition, is not capable as the full one.

Yesterday I compiled and tried the development version of Rosegarden, and this topic came back to my mind.

I would suggest to try it, the main new features (as long as I have been able to test in a day) is the Qt4 port (from 3) and the full VSTi support, no matter if you are running the 32 bit or (like me) the 64 bit version.

Waiting for Ardour3 to see the light, I would give the “new” Rosegarden a chance.

Thorgal, have you tried klick and [1]
You could reproduce your bar and tempo changes in Rosegarden
as tempo maps in text mode. Then write the map to ardour.
You will see tempo changes and, if wanted, location markers showing
the structure of the song.

I have only tried as a test, not actually making music,
so I can’t state nothing, but I think it could fit your needs.
And if not, it is a good start point for tweaking codes, isnt it :wink:

There is a tempo map example in the click manual
to begin with. Note that you have to avoid any volume
change for success with klick2ardour.

It would be nice if Rosegarden could import / export
klick tempo maps!

[1] See discussion here:

That’s good I think that Rosegarden is a pretty descent midi environment. I mostly use it for Notation for which it is OK but not great. The thing that it is really missing from my point of view is per track automation. (other than the fact that the score editor could be a lot better).

If I was just doing matrix/piano roll style editing I would probably go for something lighter.

1 Like