Talk:OpenMPT

Removed message
''For more information about ModPlug Tracker, go to ModPlug Central. If you follow the "Community" link, you can access the ModPlug Forums, where lots of nice people can help you with your doubts.''

I moved this here because I didn't think it should be on the page because it's not encyclopediaic information. &mdash; Braaropolis | Talk 04:26, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Capitalisation
The article says "ModPlug", the screenshot says "Modplug", and the official Web site says "MODPlug". Which is the correct form? 81.151.12.155 13:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The correct form is OpenMPT. 83.249.24.200 21:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the answer above is not really satisfactory, I'm going to elaborate a bit on this: Even Olivier Lapicque himself (creator of all the original ModPlug software) apparently couldn't decide on the correct capitalisation, so even within the original ModPlug tracker, you can find both "Modplug" and "ModPlug", and you can read about "MODPlug Central" in the documents that come with it. He himself didn't use the "MODPlug" spelling though, at least not in his programs - I suppose the text file about the website ("MODPlug Central") was written by MisterX (who was maintining the website) and not Olivier. Also, "MODPlug" is the capitalisation that's the least logical one, as it would imply that ModPlug software can only play MOD (ProTracker) files, in contrary to "Mod", which is short for "Modules". At least this is the common use of the two alternate capitalisations in the tracking scene: when people talk about MOD, they mean ProTracker files, and when talking about Mod, they mean modules in general. So now there's "Modplug" and "ModPlug" left, which is a tougher decision, of course, but most people (also in the development team) prefer "ModPlug" over "Modplug", and it seems to be the more popular capitalisation. So, although there's not "official" way to capitalise the word yet, I'd say the clear winner is "ModPlug". 93.195.45.101 (talk) 13:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Computer Music mag, Nov. 2010
AFAIK the November special about free music software has an article about OpenMPT and a copy of the program on DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.228.182 (talk) 14:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Impulse Tracker incompatibilities?
Does anyone have any documented information about the incompatibilities between Impulse Tracker 2.14 and MODPlug tracker? As an OHC participant I've been told numerous times that they exist, but beyond "oldschool" trackers telling me such I have not experienced the problems... though that may be due to the fact that I am not as familiar with .it format as I would like. 129.237.44.124 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a "compatibility export" option which should take care of any incompabilities with Impulse Tracker 2.14. 83.249.24.200 21:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of times *.it file created with version 8.88, but such version of impulse tracker never exist. [rnR] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.133.134.62 (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Why unnotable?
Modplug was one of the biggest players and plugins back in the day. How can it be unnotable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.76.1 (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have added a reference to Computer Music magazine where MPT is clearly listed as one of the top 5 trackers. Is this enough to make it notable? --195.212.29.92 (talk) 19:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. OpenMPT (or at least the ModPlug) name is known by most Amiga musicians who are used to either ProTracker, NoiseTracker, SoundTracker, MED, MusicLine or basically whatever they used to make music in the old days. Considering the amount of ProTracker clones and people involved in "tracking" OpenMPT is known as one of the trackers that are able to play back the old formats without / with very few issues. Unnotable ? I don't think so!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.189.142 (talk) 12:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The level of coverage on Wikipedia needs to mirror the level of coverage ModPlug has received in reliable, published sources. How substantial was the coverage in Computer Music? We need something more than a few sentences. If a subject hasn't received significant coverage, then it doesn't meet our notability threshold, no matter how popular it was; see WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Marasmusine I hold the opinion, like so many others, that Modplug should definitely stay mentioned on Wikipedia. Tracking has been a veritable cultural movement when it arose and has been one of the reasons why amateurs not affording hardware / expensive sequencers could and can make music without the use of studios. In the early days of the Internet mod-musicians were often behind starting net-labels (Tokyo Dawn Records, Monotonik, etc), some of whom later started releasing mp3:s and going to full way to CD or 12 inch.

I think it is one of the historical forerunner to the indie mp3-scene of today. Where does Modplug Tracker in specific fit into this? Well, as Modplug Tracker was the first Windows tracker it introduced a whole lot of people to tracking as a specific way of composing music, people who hadn't encountered it during the DOS / Amiga days. It represented in itself a huge jump forward and should be considered one of the "big" trackers; which is still is being developed.

Concerning coverage, since it has been a sort of underground phenomena, written testimonies (or a lack thereof) does not equal it's importance. Also worthy mentioning is that a strange relationship has existed between trackers / hobbyists and producers who could afford more expensive tools. Resulting in a historical antagonism where trackers efforts have been sort of diminished, even when tracker-musicians put out material published by labels pressing vinyl or CD. This can explain why there exists too little information out there from "mainstream sources". Some musical magazines back in the days tended to not take tracking seriously. It sort of belonged in the "computer nerd" camp, according to some. And of course a lot of computer enthusiasts were also trackers... Anyway: this antagonism seems almost gone today, thank goodness, and there now exist several affordable solutions to the hobbyists sitting alongside of the trackers as options for a person who wants to bring out his or hers inner musician.

I realize that this has been a long reply. I hope the Wikipedia keeps this article. It is not "just" another program among many programs. It has an important part in the history of electronic "folk music", if I dare say so. A whole lot of people started out writing music in trackers, and Modplug Tracker is one of the key players in the field even as of today. Some of us also prefer to stick with it.

Have a nice day: / Robert Halvarsson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.190.152 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed?
Why is there a in the ModPlug Player section? Just look at the source code, it does support compressed files. 96.20.119.156 (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could cite the help file, I suppose, I'll look into it. Article still needs ref from 3rd-party sources though. Marasmusine (talk) 00:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a link to the player's description which clearly states that the quoted formats are supported. If that's not enough for you, why don't you try it yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.251.106 (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

License
The text is mentioning the GPL while the infobox lists the BSD license. Which one is it? Both? Unfortunately I wasn't able to find any reliable information on the project homepage. -- octo 06:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octotron (talk • contribs)
 * The ModPlug Tracker SVN repository only lists the GPL. I'll remove the BSD license. Please revert if you have other information. -- octo 07:06, 16 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octotron (talk • contribs)
 * Yes, SVN still has the GPL license there but this is wrong. The license has been changed to BSD recently (can be found in the actual download packages) due to licensing problems. So, the code base was released under GPL, but the license has been changed to BSD with consent of all active and inactive developers (including Olivier Lapicque, who has released the code under GPL). 131.246.228.182 (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)