Is compo another sequencer (like Cubase)? What are the features that make compo a composition tool, rather than an arranger? Does not tools of the same kind exist ? Why is compo qualified as a language, rather than as a software or a system for instance? Isn't it mediaeval to use a language to describe music, rather than graphical objects, mutually pluggable? Isn't a language destined to computer enginers rather than to musicians? Does not the midi standard already responds to this matter of music encoding? Why is compo free? Why is compo's source open?     Is compo another sequencer (like Cubase)? No. compo is a fully qualified musical composition tool, allowing the construction of original musical structures, starting from nothing, and the handling and assembling of such musical structures in a natural way. A sequencer is generally rather an arranger, i.e. a tool working on the general form, and on the orchestration of a given material (already existing in the form of an audio recording, or improvised on a midi keyboard for instance). Return What are the features that make compo a composition tool, rather than an arranger? 1) An homogenous musical representation mode at any scale (from a few notes melodic cell level, to the entire work level, by a section level, an episode level, a movement level...); 2) The ability to reference a given musical structure at several places in the composition. A tune can be repeated at different moments (like a refrain) or move from a voice to another, without the necessity to cut and paste it. Hence, any modification applied to the original is immediately visible from each reference; 3) The representation of musical parameters (heights, durations, dynamics...) as ratios rather than absolute values (for instance, heights are seen as intervals rather than frequencies). Hence, a tune can be present at any tone while remaining equal to itself. That conforms both to traditional notations (not only the occidental one), and to the perceptive behaviour of the human ear, for the great majority of people not provided with an absolute ear. Return Does not tools of the same kind exist ? We do not know any having the same approach. Musical composition tools developped in a university or scientific research scope exist. Such tools, characterized by an actual maturity due to a long gestation period, and a use by a large community, have often a larger spectrum of use. But for this reason, they had to simplify (generalize) the musical notation parameters, at limit sometimes, by reducing them to acoustic features. The MIDI norm, widely adopted by the synthetizer, rhythm box, and musical computing software industry, often constitute the musical information underlying code in such tools. compo's approach, rather than being conflicting with the approach choosen by such tools, is complementary. Interfaces between compo and two of such tools (Open Music from IRCAM, and Common Music from CCRMA) have been developped, in order to allow compo to take benefit of the capacities owned by such tools, and for them to possibly benefit back of compo's original approach. Return Why is compo qualified as a language, rather than as a software or a system for instance? This term of language refers to computer languages with which it shares the main feature : the description (of music in the event) as a text, according to a grammar of its own, and constituting a program to be interpreted by the computer. Return Isn't it mediaeval to use a language to describe music, rather than graphical objects, mutually pluggable? Using a language is anything but mediaeval. Actually, we are convinced that it can be in some cases infinitely more productive than a graphical-like environment, manipulated by mouse. Imagine the transcribing of a reasonabely sized score, just by positionning and connecting graphical objects on a screen, it would be an extremely tedious work. In fact, the two approaches are complementary. The description with a language is an alternative to the piano keyboard (particularly for the non-pianists) to generate note structures as far as one can imagine them, while the graphism of the score brings a usable presentation of the results. Moreover, the examples proposed on this Web site are presented in their graphical version, using Open Music or Common Music. Developping a graphical interface is a rather complex task and there already exists some, so we have not developped one in the scope of compo. This is why we provide an extension for compo to Open Music or Common Music. Return Isn't a language destined to computer enginers rather than to musicians? This notion of language should not scare the non-computer-enginer user. In fact the compo language has been designed to be the more intuitive as possible, while reducing to the limit the text to be written, as to allow the describing of important musical works, without having the musician becaming a typist. Finally, a structure is roughly described as a list of notes, named by their traditional name, and possibly associated with parameters which specify the duration, the dynamics... There is a clear distinction between the way a musician uses compo and the way a computer-enginer does. The first should be able to progressively use the compo language without prerequisites (except musical ones). The second has an access to the system as a whole and is able to freely extent it and propose new services to the end-user. Return Does not the midi standard already responds to this matter of music encoding? The midi standard operates at a rather concrete level. It represents data relative to the instrument (keyboard) rather than to notes since it was first intended to handle synthetizers. The compo language operates at a higher level (more abstract) : the level of musical notes, not as they are transcribed on the score, but as they are supposed to figure in the musician mind, i.e. in his partition intérieure, as to borrow the title of the work by the french Jazz musician Jaxques SIRON. We pretend to provide the musician with a way to immediately transcribe musical ideas, as they appear to him, in a form allowing him to rearrange them later, in a natural way. Return Why is compo free? One can freely distribute an idea in an intent to give it a chance to develop itself and to be widely used (while being not necessary selfless). Examples : Linux, Open Music, Common Music, compo... Return Why is compo's source open? You can use a car while being not a mechanic. But nobody would try to forbid you to occasionally open its hood, simply by curiosity... Return