search

jamulussoftware / jamulus

Jamulus enables musicians to perform real-time jam sessions over the internet.
https://jamulus.io
Other
997 stars 222 forks source link

[Feature] More Vocal options for Choir down the intstrument profile in My profile #772

Closed ann0see closed 3 years ago

ann0see commented 3 years ago

Originally written by @Sollenberg72

Moved from website repo: https://github.com/jamulussoftware/jamuluswebsite/issues/150

Describe the solution you'd like In a choir you have more different vocal options than in traditional barbershops (Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Bass). We have two options for Alto and Soprano = Alto 1 and Alto 2 and Soprano 1 and Soprano 2. This helps us to create groups in Jamulus and use the panorama button so that we can create the same feeling as in the room You stand in reality.

Describe alternatives you've considered We want more choices under the menu for instruments for us who use Jamulus for our choir rehearsals. Today there is singing in the form of Soprano, Alto, Tenor and Bass. We need to divide Alto and Soprano respectively into Sopranos 1 and 2 and Alto 1 and 2, as there are divided parts in a choir.

Additional context Vocal (soprano) Vocal (soprano 1) Vocal (soprano 2) Vocal (alto) Vocal (alto 1) Vocal (alto 2)

I think soprano and alto without division need to remain for those who do not divide soprano and alto parts into 1 and 2 respectively

ann0see commented 3 years ago

Originally written by @gene96817

For complete support of a classical chorus, this should be extended for Tenor1, Tenor2, Bass1, and Bass2.

pljones commented 3 years ago

The general guidance for choirs, from what I've seen, is for each participant to prefix their name with their voice range, so S1-name, A2-name, etc. That then allows the mixer to be sorted by name, making it easy to use the grouping feature.

ann0see commented 3 years ago

Why should we maintain a never ending list of instruments, musicians,...? It is already too long in my opinion (and finding the right one becomes increasingly difficult). Couldn't we just allow the user to input custom text (for his instrument) and add an option for him to load a bulk list of instruments & pictures?

Then we could remove a lot of not widely used instruments but allow the user to load them from a list (published e.g. online) if he wants more instruments. If a user has set an instrument your client doesn't know, it should show the name and propose to load/set an icon you either download from the web or set from your hard disk.

corrados commented 3 years ago

Couldn't we just allow the user to input custom text

This instruments are transmitted in the protocol with an index. So it is not possible to use a free text.

I agree with pljones. If you want to distinguish the vocal groups further, you should do it using the name. If you are on Facebook, I can recommend the following group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/jamuluschoralcommunity. There is a lot of information given how to deal with a lot of users connected to a Jamulus server.

gene96817 commented 3 years ago

In general, I agree with ann0see. To manage the list size, some generic types are needed to catch the less common variations (example: wind, brass, percussion). In the case of voice types, going from X (eg. Alto) to X1 and X2 is not comprehensive because some compositions might have a third or more part. This problem mostly occurs with large ensembles.

pljones commented 3 years ago

In the case of voice types, going from X (eg. Alto) to X1 and X2 is not comprehensive because some compositions might have a third or more part.

The idea is expandable. You just take the number at the end and add one to it to get the new number.

gene96817 commented 3 years ago

Of course the enumeration is expandable. I thought ann0see was concerned that the list is getting too long. There is wisdom to avoid making the list longer and longer.

ann0see commented 3 years ago

ann0see was concerned that the list is getting too long

Yes, I am

pljones commented 3 years ago

Of course the enumeration is expandable. I thought ann0see was concerned that the list is getting too long. There is wisdom to avoid making the list longer and longer.

The suggestion is not to change code.

The suggestion is to use the existing features of the software.

gene96817 commented 3 years ago

@pljones I am not following you. Do you mean users should prepend their names with a voice-part prefix? I don't think this is what you mean. Do you mean users can add their own voice-part to the list? This is how I think you mean no change to the code is needed. Is this case is this interoperable between user communities. For interoperability, the code's internal enumeration needs to be universally unique. I suspect I am now far from your intent.

pljones commented 3 years ago

I don't think this is what you mean.

Why don't you think so? It's explicitly what I said.

Do you mean users can add their own voice-part to the list?

No. Why do you think I might have meant that? There's no such facility. I wouldn't suggest using a facility that doesn't exist when explaining that no change is needed.

For interoperability, the code's internal enumeration needs to be universally unique. I suspect I am now far from your intent.

"Interoperability"? I don't follow. Seeing what part a singer is singing isn't about interoperability. It's about labelling. The user's name is a label. The client can sort by name. So you can group all your sopranos, altos, tenors, horn and key players together really, really easily. Depending how your group wants it (no one else's choice needs to be affected here), you organise the best way to have your participants set their label.

It's the most flexible approach, it's totally expandable and easy to understand.

gene96817 commented 3 years ago

@pljones Thanks for the reply. We aren't communicating. There are things you are saying that doesn't make sense to me. That is because I don't completely know what are "existing features" you specifically mean. It doesn't matter.

corrados commented 3 years ago

Why should we maintain a never ending list of instruments, musicians,...?

What do you mean by "musicians"? We are talking about the instrument type, right?

It is already too long in my opinion (and finding the right one becomes increasingly difficult).

The instruments have already assigned a type internally. So it would be relatively easy to introduce a sub-group to the instrument list in the GUI which makes it much easier to select the correct instrument.

gene96817 commented 3 years ago

Introducing a sub-group sounds like a great idea. There is not much impact if it is just an ephemeral label for the session. (eg. Violin-1, Violin-2, Vocal Alto-1, Vocal-Alto 2, etc.).

corrados commented 3 years ago

BTW, the text background of the instruments in the combo box are already color coded by the type of instrument: grafik So, e.g., if you search for a string instrument, you can only look at the light blue entries.

corrados commented 3 years ago

As pljones already mentioned in his post (https://github.com/corrados/jamulus/issues/772#issuecomment-740213960), the preferred way of doing this is to add a prefix to the user name. So I would like to close this Issue now. Any objections?

ann0see commented 3 years ago

Ok. To unclutter the issues list, I think we can close this as wontfix