I know about non-techsavy classical players, I wrote the click tracker for
them - http://puredata.info/Members/jmmmp/click-tracker.
of course you shouldn't send any cryptical commands to anyone who isn't
interested in getting them. But for example packaging inscore into the
same folder as your patch, and starting it (it's a separate application)
isn't that hard to manage in Pd, and not something that's hard to
organise. as long as the patch works on its own, the players don't really
care what's happening inside.
you're free to do what you want, I would myself not even venture into such
a project, because there are already several resources available that
might be more efficient on doing the same (or even a better) job.
Since there are already some projects going through in this area (e.g.
pwgl or inscore), wouldn't it make sense to try to integrate with these, or try to help them, instead
of reinventing the wheel?Perhaps, but consider this:
The performer I am working with is a percussionist, and excellent at sight-reading music. However, he's not by any stretch of the imagination
a programmer, and the idea of giving him command-line compilation issues
to deal with, or complex connectivity between packages, would kill the project
straight away. From me he needs to receive, via email, a PD patch that will just
work. If other libraries are "wrapped" into PD i.e. externals are made and
integrated into a future PD-extended, then these might provide some practical
options for me to work with classical musicians who aren't programmers (and the
majority of them are not). However, for the time being I am limited to that which
can be rendered by the current PD-extended straight out of the (in)box, without
any modifications to the computer it is running on.That is why I'm building a system that uses just GEM and a truetype
font, which can be made into a single package and distributed to the performer of my
piece. If I had institutional support perhaps I could envisage something more
complex to work, but I have been unlucky in that respect. I could either give
up, or try to find a practical solution that works both for me and for a
non-computer geek classically trained player. I choose the latter because I want to make
music.Best, Ed