Casio CZ/ VZ/ FZ - Pro Series

On Oct 14, 2016, at 6:42 PM, smw-mail@... [CZsynth] wrote:

> YOU WROTE:
> 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.

Anybody has right to write whatever they want and feel as a proper  
part of continuing academic discussion. Me as well as you.

But anyway your "maybe" reason for mentioning all this are rather  
enigmatic to me. If I remember well, nobody mentioned such things  
before, or argued with you about facts you have written...

> In one of your posts you broke apart my comments and placed replies  
> in the middle of thoughts.

Is this prohibited in discussions?

> 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.

Thanks for the English lesson, it's not my native tongue, so I do  
mistakes.

> 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.

Yes, OK. I don't see any problem, as well as need for such deep  
grammatical or phraseological analyses. This yahoo group is about CZ  
synthesizers.

>
> OHHHHH. I get it!  Maybe because I contradicted you and you couldn't  
> accept that.

Maybe.

> I said 31.25 kbaud was not required for MIDI. I said it wasn't.  I  
> showed how it wasn't,

Yes, I agreed and added some examples when MIDI used higher transfer  
speed. Re-read please what I wrote.

> 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.

Look, I"m simple man, and don"t understand all this linguistic stuff  
you showed here. If you wanted to show how stupid I am, you managed.  
Congratulations.

> 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.

Very good ideas in above four sentences.
>
> 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.

Nobody here mentioned anything like this if I remember well. So why  
you mention it here?

But OK. Just FYI:

I'm the last person who would underestimate MIDI or complain about it.  
I use mainly MIDI, having connected more multiport MIDI interfaces (in  
total over 900 MIDI channels) and around 60 MIDI hardware instruments  
in my studio. Besides I have published two books on MIDI (nothing to  
say about other publications and hundreds of expert articles in music  
magazines), and my old nickname in my country was Dr. MIDI.
>
> 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.

Are they not? I didn't know.

And now I have to look in my biggest English dictionary to study more  
what "challenging me" means exactly.

And let's stop this fruitless discussion. Everybody has sometimes hard  
day.

Best regards.

Daniel Forro