Re: Staff Names: some comments

[Richard Shann]

On Sat, 2022-12-03 at 10:49 +0000, Joe Wilkinson wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/12/2022 19:42, Richard Shann wrote:
> > On Fri, 2022-12-02 at 19:29 +0000, Joe Wilkinson wrote:
> > >   Hi Richard: It looks as if the individual instruments should be
> > > easy
> > > to add (sort of, as my midi is not VERY tone-accurate).
> > yes, I would expect so - but I don't at all recall what is
> > involved.
> > When I looked I saw that each instrument was a .denemo file so I'm
> > guessing that what you write below is gleaned by looking at
> > examples???
> Yes, in denemo.share.denemo.templates (from where I extracted table
> data).

That is you looked at the XML of the .denemo files?

> I'm sure there is a reason for it but there seems a lot of redundant
> and 
> repeated info in these files,
yes, the original coding didn't leave out values that were the default
(such as 4/4), later coding did tend to do that.
>  as if each could be used to set up a New 
> denemo file,
well, they *are* valid Denemo scores, it's just a cheapskate way of
storing template information, instead of creating a new format which
would not need to store non-template information.
>  but presumably in an existing file most would be overridden 
> by existing values, e.g key or time signature
> >   The staff-range lo & hi are presumably what is used to register
[...]
> > belonging to it (in the GM soundfont, which is what is being used).
> Only true if it has been preset. Else you get a drop down with a
> blank 
> value on it and can then choose the midi sound, presumably
> irrespective 
> of the Instrument that you had it previously set to.
not sure - setting up the instrument name from a script will not
examine which soundfont is loaded - there is no scripted interface to
the soundfont - so it may start off blank...

> > >   But are the rest of the items significant; has figures and has [...]
> > 
> I'll have some further investigation and try creating a few
> templates.

Great!

Richard