On 12/9/02 1:54 PM, "zerozillion.net" <sledgemoor@...> wrote:
> hi users and abusers!
>
> lately i tried to create some music without pc attached, the machinedrum as
> head of my set, controlling a sidstation, and an ensoniq esq-1. i played
> around for some hours... imho the midi machines could be improved a bit.
> building up a melody line is some kind of trial and error and it really
> takes a long time to get the final result i imagined (if i compare to a
> piano roll on pc for example).
>
> yes, i know, it's a drummachine, not a groovebox... but what for example
> speaks against that the 16 step keys could be misused for entering pitch
> data via a special key combination...?
>
> for me the md is so much of an all purpose machine, it would really be great
> to have better possibilities when controlling & sequencing external gear.
>
> ideas/opinions?
>
I pretty much took the plunge on the MD because of the MIDI machines,
strange as that might seem to some. Don't get this wrong, the percussive
synthesis options on the MD are mind-boggling but then again there is a lot
of very nice MIDI control features buried inside that are unique in hardware
step sequencers.
I think that there might be more "correct" way to look at the MIDI features.
if you want more general-purpose MIDI sequencing there are other places to
look, both hardware or software, both inexpensive and expensive. Step
sequencers are a little less easy to come-by, especially ones that can do
sixteen tracks of polyphony sequencing with complete step-by-step control
over up to 24 parameters (+-), all done in real-time while the sequence is
playing.
Part of the "disappointment" may be that you are not familiar with this
style of sequencing. The historical predecessor was the analog step
sequencer where each of the steps had some number of knobs (usually three)
each of which controlled some parameter like pitch, filter cutoff... you get
the idea. These were sequencers made as much to be played in real-time as
programmed. In other words it was/is quite common for someone to change the
knobs while the sequence is playing as part of the performance. This too is
part of the appeal of the MD's MIDI machines (and really the entire
instrument). Even if it is not for a performance, be it a live or studio
one, it still is an effect way to discover new music ideas and flesh them
out. For some it is a lot easier than grabbing say little colored
rectangles in a screen and dragging them to a new position.
Most of the other step sequencers now available, like for example those in
the E-Tribes series, do not offer the ease of grid-style programming of
rhythm, pitch, and some number of voicing parameters. This makes the MD's
implementation fairly unique.
This is not to say that I consider the MD implementation without flaws.
There are some glaring problems with the MIDI control that hopefully will
one day be fix or at least improved. But as a starting place it it already
ahead of most everything else out there, with the possible exception of the
beloved NOTRON which unfortunately is no longer available.
So I'd say give it another shot. Approach programming your melodies and
basslines as a more experimental "how it sounds" exercise, relying
exclusively on your ear and not your eyes. Work in pattern lengths of 16 or
less so that you have each step instantly at your fingertips. Don't be
afraid to use other "sequencing aids" after the MD output. For example
using the MD to drive the internal arpeggiator in a synth module. This is
not needed of course but the combination can be can be pretty cool.
My biggest wishes (applies to all of the MD sequencing features), besides
bug-fixes: independent track lengths and independent track clock dividers.
With those two additions this might be the killer HW step sequencer!
drk
www.delora.com/music
www.mp3.com/zdrk
drk.iuma.com