Message
Why?
2016-10-14 by smw-mail@...
Yes, that all is true for sure, but why to mention it here?
I NOW REPLY:
Several reasons:
(1) There are some posters here who say things about MIDI and/or the Casio CZ/VZ that are not true and some unsuspecting people might come along and believe them.
(2) Because maybe there is (or will be) one person who will read it and be inspired to pursue it.
(3) Because maybe there is (or will be) one person who will read it and be inspired to ignore naysayers, etc.
Think about what you wrote. There is absolutely no good reason for you to have challenged what I posted with ". . . but why mention it here?" The answer should be obvious from the posts themselves and/or from the context of the previous discussions.
In one of your posts you broke apart my comments and placed replies in the middle of thoughts. In one of them, you commented on a statement that in my original was followed immediately by "However . . . ." In the English language "however" connects ideas in a very specific way. By breaking up my comment that way, you in essence took my comments out of context for the sole purpose of putting in your comment.
I light of this, I repeat: Think about what you wrote: ". . . but why mention it here?" There is no reason for you to have said challenge me for having clarified some issues.
OHHHHH. I get it! Maybe because I contradicted you and you couldn't accept that. I said 31.25 kbaud was not required for MIDI. I said it wasn't. I showed how it wasn't, so while you acknowledged what I said was "true for sure," you had to challenge me with ". . . but why mention it here?"
But wait, there are other reasons I mentioned it here. If you dare, re-read what I wrote about my 1980s experiments with channelizing midi data. I took a CZ-5000, ran the MIDI data through a Commodore 64 channelized it (i.e., processed the midi data) and sent it back to the CZ-5000.
While I mentioned that in combination with how midi technology has been updated in the past year or so, it also relates directly to what people could do with midi data coming from their CZs.
Finally, there is no need for anyone to commend on this. It is just an explanation of what I consider to be a useless challenge:". . . but why mention it here?" To reiterate: it should have been obvious from the posts themselves and/or from the context of previous discussions.
Addendum:
I fully recognize that some people will not understand any of what I have written here or in the previous posts. That's fine. My advice is to just ignore it and move on to something else. There is nothing more to be said that will add anything useful to this discussion.
But wait.
There is one more thing: People who said "MIDI is dead" a few years back because they were of the opinion that audio somehow supercede midi and that midi had no more usefulness were just plain wrong. History has proved that not me. (Well, I have proved it, too; but more importantly history has proved it wrong.
And in case its not obvious, Daniel, you totally missed the context of my mentioning that point previously--again, evidently for the sole purpose of challenging me with your midi and audio are two different things remark.
Congratulations.