implement your own "Guitar Pro" ASP.NET C#

Question

0.00/5 (No votes)

See more:

Hello to everyone...

I would like to implement my own "guitar pro" or simmilar project in asp.net c#
(please see the link for those who dont know this program "http://www.guitar-pro.com/en/index.php[^])

I dont know from where i can start and what controls and other elements i should use, so i am asking for your help and your advise.

Thank you in advance,
Argyris

Posted 26-Jun-12 12:31pm

argyrolo

Add a Solution

Comments

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 26-Jun-12 18:35pm

Why?
--SA

R. Giskard Reventlov 26-Jun-12 18:47pm

Do you not think you're being a tad over ambitious? Shouldn't you start with 'hello world' and work your way up from that?

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 27-Jun-12 11:03am

To be fair, I would rather first assume that OP is almost ready for the work of such scale and complexity, and, if not, she or he could go back to learning basics.
--SA

R. Giskard Reventlov 27-Jun-12 11:16am

Never assume anything: you know that people often ask wholly inappropriate questions here.

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 29-Jun-12 19:06pm

You are right, I'm talking about different principle, in the field of practical communication.
You have and educated guess (in this case, about OP's background) and some estimate of the accuracy of this guess. Now, to write some post, you should have some assumption (in practice, it is unavoidable; you just know about the possibility of some error): as your guess has some margin, you can 1) assume OP knows the matter at the lever closer to the upper level of your guessed margin (knows a bit more); or 2) assume OP knows the matter at the lever closer to the low level of your guessed margin (knows a bit less).

Again, assumption is always needed as an initial step in the dialog. The only problem is which one to chose: assume OP knows a little more? or a little less?

After many discussions and trials, I tend to use the tactic: at first step, assume OP knows a bit more. Why?

1) you waste less time for explanations which may or may not be redundant; 2) if some explanations are not redundant but missing, OP has a chance to ask a follow-up question anyway; 3) if OP don't understand and does not ask a follow-up question, this person has counter-productive behavior, so you waste less time and less sorry for lost time, less sorry for "lost" person; 4) on first step, you show more respect to OP; if OP does not deserve this respect, it's OK; but if you show less respect than one deserves, this is your fault; 5) if all the selection of a right option plays around "a little more" and "a little less", you give OP a chance to feel it and learn a bit more by the time of next post; this way, you give such person a chance to avoid exposing some minor ignorance more then it is really required, save some time and make dialog more productive.

This way, small adjustment in "assumption" makes positive difference, little by little. Don't you think it makes sense?

--SA

R. Giskard Reventlov 29-Jun-12 22:07pm

Seriously, dude?

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov 29-Jun-12 22:51pm

Believe or not -- yes. :-)
--SA

1 solution

Add a Solution

Add your solution here

Treat my content as plain text, not as HTML

Preview 0

…

Existing Members

Sign in to your account

...or Join us

Download, Vote, Comment, Publish.

Your Email
Password
Forgot your password?

Your Email
This email is in use. Do you need your password?
Optional Password

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Please subscribe me to the CodeProject newsletters

When answering a question please:

Read the question carefully.
Understand that English isn't everyone's first language so be lenient of bad spelling and grammar.
If a question is poorly phrased then either ask for clarification, ignore it, or edit the question and fix the problem. Insults are not welcome.
Don't tell someone to read the manual. Chances are they have and don't get it. Provide an answer or move on to the next question.

Let's work to help developers, not make them feel stupid.

This content, along with any associated source code and files, is licensed under The Code Project Open License (CPOL)

Sergey Alexandrovich Kryukov · Answer 1 · 2012-06-26T12:55:00

Well, I pretty much know but… it's so much work, and some open-source and multi-platform software is available; TuxGuitar is pretty good, for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TuxGuitar[^], http://www.tuxguitar.com.ar/[^]). So, I don't know why would you do it if you have not enough experience.

You could think about some software development is you had absolutely original or innovative ideas. I believe there is an unlimited field for inventions, but repeating GuitarPro… why?

I have developed some experimental stuff, but it was really interesting to me. Besides, I think the role of such tools is somewhat exaggerated. Well, they are good if you want to exchange compositions or to digitize opuses previously available only on paper. Many people try to learn music using such tools in hope to make it more effective, but in practice it does not pay off so well. You see, you waste so much time on input of notation, the time you could spend more effectively. Take learning playing guitar, which is quite a difficult thing, if you want to produce a little better impression then a march cat. :-)
At first, you need to do some seemingly boring calculations, so a pen and paper help a lot. But as you do it, you learn musical relationships between sequences and chords, essential, not mechanically remembered chord structures, and trying to find application of a guitar neck, you learn the note layout on the neck. And you learn to pick melodies and harmony by year, can pay attention to the manner of phrasing. If you use something which shows you something like graphical tabs with position of fingers, you miss all that; it provokes you to fall into mechanical remembering and mechanical reproduction of musical motion. Many people learned how to reproduce known sequences to several songs and got stuck there. Still, stuff like GuitarPro or TuxGuitar could be useful, but not often.

—SA