Yes, that is more or less it (I haven't actually tried using a
fractional p1, though it is explicitly stated in the manual that the
fractional parts can be used to give additional tags to identify tied
notes). As you say, this would all have to be handled in the instrument
- unless the 'next-p' and 'prev-p' fields which I use for legato control
can be adapted to look for the next or previous pfields ~for a given p1~
rather than just the line in the score. Ideally, I would like a
mechanism for 'static' variables ~local~ to an instrument, which
supported multiple polyphonic instances of the instrument (what I call
'managing it's own polyphony'), perhaps up to some compiled limit.
Perhaps 'next-p' and 'prev-p' really need to be opcodes as well as score
directives. Either way, though, it is a bit of a hack, as you are having
to code explicitly for polyphony within an instrument. If the
instruments could be just a little more 'object-like', you could apply a
polyphonic legato score to ~any~ instrument, and get the expected
behaviour.

Something for the Csound Conference, perhasp?



Richard Dobson 



Kirsh Family wrote:
> 
> Lest anyone be frightened away from using negative p3 values, I just
> wanted to point out that the statement quoted below is not quite
> correct.  Or that at least it's open to some interpretation.  In fact,
> it is possible to have multiple instances (usually, but not necessarily,
> notes of different pitches) of the same instrument held simultaneously
> via negative p3 values.  This is accomplished by adding a decimal part
> to the instrument number.  E.g., to hold three copies of instrument 10
> in a simple chord:
> 
> i10.1    0    -1    7.00
> i10.2    0    -1    7.04
> i10.3    0    -1    7.07
> 
> Subsequent i-statements can refer to the same sounding note instances,
> and if the instrument definition is done properly, the new p-fields can
> be used to alter the character of the notes in progress.  For example,
> to bend the previous chord up an octave and release it:
> 
> i10.1    1    1    8.00
> i10.2    1    1    8.04
> i10.3    1    1    8.07
> 
> The instrument definition has to take this into account, however,
> especially if clicks are to be avoided.  To be fair, it's likely that
> Richard Dobson knows all this and just meant that the decimal instrument
> number notation couldn't be used in conjunction with real-time MIDI
> (which was the context of the discussion), in which case the instrument
> would be monophonic while a note was held, as he states.  (At least, I
> think that's right.)
> 
> David Kirsh
> 
> Richard Dobson wrote:
> >
> > A negative p3 does not only make the note hold indefinitely, it makes it
> > monophonic - ...

-- 
Test your DAW with my Soundcard Attrition Page!
http://wkweb5.cableinet.co.uk/rwd (LU: 6th July 1999)