Analogue-sequencer

Julian wrote:

> I like leds... 

Me too - very much so. But I also like to think of new features that 
give me greater power - and flexibility to go beyond what is currently 
possible; those "what if" moments that Colin loves so much <g>. Very 
often, because I am not a genius, I only start to imagine new features 
by extrapolating or warping something that exists already. If we waited 
until every idea had bloomed to its maximum potential, products would be 
forever in development and never see the light of day.

If you choose to give an instrument a fixed UI, this means any new 
features must be made to fit within the existing UI and this, 
eventually, limits expansion for consistency reasons (or things start to 
get complicated - something the fixed UI is designed to avoid).

There is a great argument for not throwing in every feature and that 
limitations serve to make you work towards finding your own voice with 
an instrument. I completely understand that point of view. Personally I 
endorse it more for synths, perhaps because there is a reasonable 
history behind them now and I personally know what I need/want to hand 
for performance and what I can live with in menus.

But for something a bit new and radical, I like instruments that grow 
with use, that extend themselves into new areas and eventually evolve 
into something that could never have sprung into life fully-formed. Thus 
the P3 became a much more powerful instrument over time and now does 
things we'd never have thought of on day 1. Imagine what a new sequencer 
might take from this whole process and how starting afresh could be 
really, really exciting... :)

Apologies; a long ramble of opinion from my addled brain,

-- 
Paul
---
"Effectus super absolutionem"
http://www.JointIntelligenceCommittee.com
http://www.myspace.com/jointintelligencecommittee



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.18.3/694 - Release Date: 20/02/2007