Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Yow!  I failed to buy a D-50 for my birthday since I just couldn't
    justify $1895 for something that didn't produce or respond to release
    velocity (I could be wrong here) and didn't have a decent piano
    patch.  I would certainly buy one of these MT-32 things.
    
    One funny thing: You would think that they could skip the internal
    reverb in a module like this--recording you want a coherent reverb
    field with your other sound sources, and live you still need to have
    another reverb for your other sources.  At $595, I won't complain.
    
    	Eirikur
     
    

    
    	Re; MT-32  -  Sounds to me like I threw away $5k on my TX816!
    
    					I hate progress, Karl

Shane at Profound Sound said that he heard this at the NAMM show and wasn't
too impressed.  He said that the sounds out of this unit are not the same as
the D-50; not as fat or full - somewhat limited.  It does use LA Synthesis.

Dan

    Re .3
    
    Ok, it may not be exactly a D-50, but does Shane think the sound
    quality is ok for the $600 pricetag? How does the sound compare
    to the FB01? I've never played with an FB01, but I have heard nasty
    rumors about it being thin and noisy.
    
    I've needed a machine that can play simultaneous patches for some
    time now, so I was really interested in getting one of these new
    Roland pieces right off the truck. But if it sounds really lame,
    I might just settle for an FB01. Comments? Help?!
    
    Brian 
    

Re:-1
>Comments? Help?!

>    Ok, it may not be exactly a D-50, but does Shane think the sound
>    quality is ok for the $600 pricetag?
He listened to it at the NAMM show.  Apparently at the NAMM show dealers can
put in orders for equipment; He decided not to.  He played with it for only
a few minutes and felt the the sound he heard from it was not as fat or full
as the D-50.  This could be due to no chorus or reverb or who-knows-what.
Besides the judgement on the sound he heard he has no other opinion.  In the
NAMM show environment he couldn't give it a fair shake(All the noise from other
equipment being played with).  So don't take this as a review, just a first
impression.  He said when he gets one in he'll be able to give a better
opinion.  He expects them around the end of August.

>How does the sound compare to the FB01? I've never played with an FB01, but
>I have heard nasty rumors about it being thin and noisy.
To you, Shane's opinion even after hearing it shouldn't be a major factor
in your decision on which machine to purchase.  You'll have to test the
FB01, MT-32 and TX81Z next to each other and decide for yourself.  You be the
judge of whether it is too noisy and thin.

>I've needed a machine that can play simultaneous patches for some
>time now, so I was really interested in getting one of these new
>Roland pieces right off the truck.
Test drive it first.(The FB01 not the truck!)

BTW, watch out for the hype from dealers on Roland equipment.  I know Roland
equipment is super, I bought a D-50, but with Rolands price policy dealers
make a killing on the mark-up.

Dan

    I got a photocopy of the "spec sheet" from my local music store.
    Not much real data in it.  Very poorly translated from the Japanese.
    
    But, the important thing about it is that it doesn't say one single
    word about samples.  Nothing, nada.  Implying to me that it probably
    doesn't have them.  But the thing is so poorly worded that I'm not
    sure.
    
    It does mention 28 rhythm patterns for the percussion section. 
    Doesn't sound too useful unless there are unmentioned programmable
    patterns.
         
    	Eirikur
    
    

    Re. -1
    
    Sorry, I'm confused...
    
    The spec sheet does not mention the existence of (drum?) samples, yet
    the unit has 28 pre-programmed rhythm patterns? Does this imply the
    patterns use LA-synthesized percussion sounds? If so, has anyone heard
    the D-50 do percussion instruments, and do they sound good, or are
    they reminiscent of that old hi-quality "Dr. Rhythm" machine?? 
    
    Can the user define his own rhythm patterns on the MT-32, or is
    the box capable of only 28 pre-programmed ones? For that matter, why
    would the user want to define rhythm patterns on a box obviously
    designed to be connected to a sequencer?
    
    Lotsa questions, I know... Eirikur, perhaps you can type a brief
    synopsis of the unit's specs; I have not been able to locate any
    literature on the product. Thanx...
    
    Brian 
                     

    The MT-32 has no on board sequencer - so I bought an Alesis MMT-8.
    While in the music shop, We compared the MT-32 to The D-50. With
    a bit of added equalization to the MT-32 (we didn't try this in
    sterio), The two sounded almost Identical. I found out that the
    sound generation chips are the same, but, the MT-32 is missing some
    of the filter section that is in the D-50, as well as the on-board
    equlization. This explains some of the noise differences, as well
    as some of the missing midrange (we were able to add most of this quite
    easily with a 10 band graphic EQ unit). Not too bad when you think
    of it.
    
    The cymbols (Midi channel 10 - rythm section) ring too long for
    some of my established drum patterns (you can't hear a second slap
    to the crash cymbol if it is 1/16 note away, but, slapping the
    symbol & then an open hi-hat seems to work ok). I don't do this
    often, but, as usual, once is often enough to notice this limitation.
    The MT-32 has another cymbol as one of it's pre-set sounds, maybe
    If I crashed this (since it's a different note), right after the
    first cymbol, it would work ok.
    
    I found that anything above a MIDI sound level of 100 on the crash
    cymbol should not be thrown in unless it's desired to be very important
    (like a break, or the end of the song), since is saturates the output
    with lots of ringing (level of 64 works well for most everything
    else - note, the MIDI range is 0 - 127).
    
    I like the sounds of the drums when recorded in sterio - adds a
    real live feel to everything. I wish the rest of the instruments
    were set up in the same way (I guess that this is just more
    justification to buy a computer).
    
    						Jens

    The MT32 is a real nice unit. I am real pleased with the one I have.
    You are correct in asserting that you really need a computer to
    use it. Everything is programmable, but only through MIDI. Channels,
    volume, pan, reverb, tuning, 64 user patches, 32 partials, PD and
    PCM, It's pretty versatile. I wrote earlier that I was getting some
    MIDI noise, but this was caused by a cheap CZ thru connector. I
    got rid of the CZ and got a MKB200, and the noise is gone. ( Much
    better controller, BTW ). I've been feeding the stereo outs directly
    to my tape deck. I've got three COMMUSIC V submissions from the
    MT32, plus one I'm finishing, and maybe a couple more before release.
    
    						John.

    I like mine also. I've been discovering more how to use it than
    finding limitations. Now that I have a sequencer that is editable
    in a reasonable way (MMT-8 Versus a QX7), I'm making some good
    progress. Maybe we can swap some usable drum patterns, etc.
    I borrowed an OCTAPAD & I'm having a Jazz/Fusion drummer friend
    come over & sequence some fancy drum parts. I used to play drums
    (over 15 years ago), but I never was all that good at them. This
    should allow me to deal with them better. I plan on setting up
    a hundred patterns (or so) on the sequencer & save then off to disk.
    Hopefully, I'll have a library to work from. I'm not thinking too
    hard about COMMUSIC V at the moment, I'm really trying to find 
    big band sheet music that I can put into my sequencer & let the
    MT-32 (& CZ-101) have a good time with. When I went to try out the
    MT-32, my thoughts were relating to the types of music that it would
    let me do that were previously impossible for a duo (there's big
    bucks in styles of music other than R&R and Country). 
    
    							Jens 

    I more or less enter my drum sequences on the fly from the keyboard.
    I don't have to tell you how lousy the response is - I have to slow
    it down and quantize - invariably. I've been toying with the idea
    of reassigning all the drums to black keys ( which you can do with
    the MT32 ), because the black don't have to be pushed down so far.
    There is nothing more frustrating than drum rolls that skip because
    your fingers move faster than the keys. You lose all sense of feeling.
    Maybe I'll splurge and pick up one of those octapad thingies.
    
    						John.

    re .10 - yeah, I know the feeling.  Maybe I'll get some of my keyboard
    playing buddies (Karl and Tom ought to cover the map between them)
    to come over some time and play me a few dozen keyboard patterns
    so I can build up a library of them.  Then I can just build songs
    out of the pieces.  I mean, I'm not so good on keyboards, so why
    bother wasting the time to try to understand them.  Better yet,
    maybe I can buy some keyboard patterns from the back pages of Keyboard
    magazine.
    
    len (who wonders why it's not considered ridiculous to think about
    drumming this way).
    

RE .12 - Why not try it ! After all, this technique works for Stock 
Aitken Waterman, the Pet Shop Boys, Jean-Michael Jarre etc. :^)

BSF (But Seriously Folks), I too am an ex-drummer who cannot
'play' the MT-32 drums from a keyboard (love the idea of using just
the black keys - all I need now is an editor for my Atari ST !). I am
interested to know whether anyone has used the Boss MIDI pads ? These 
are like a single Octapad pad, with the advantage of being somewhat cheaper 
(though not much).

Does anyone have any experience of any trigger-to-MIDI converters to
allow drum playing from pre-MIDI percussion synths, transducers, saucepans
etc.?

Getting back to the MT-32, has anyone considered upgrading to the new
D-110 ? This is effectively a rackmount MT-32, with 6 seperate ouputs,
front panel programmability, RAM card storage of voices and supposedly
a better S/N ratio. Price here in the U.K. is about 540 pounds - the MT-32
is about 450, but I got mine for 400 :^)

I really can't decide whether to buy an MT-32 editor or to go for the 
upgrade - has anyone else been in a similar position (e.g. with an FB-01)?
Is it worth paying the extra just so that you can edit sounds without
having to save your sequence and load the editor ? I suppose this is part
of the price that you pay for having a computer-based sequencer rather than
dedicated hardware !

Ho hum, justhave to wait for Santa I suppose !

Derek.

    As far as entering drum patterns go, I really think that a drummer
    can benifit, especially in the area of various repeatable patterns
    (Len, your series on drumming was very good realitive to this).
    A live sounding drum roll, and fills make the music a bit less
    sterile also. I usually build songs starting with the drum pattern
    (playing against ticking noises just isn't than much fun) - I developed
    this approach on my Porta-Studio. A few thousand hours later, I
    still find it useful. I can manually enter generic drum patterns,
    such as those that are common on lots of current pop tunes, but,
    I'd like the added flexability that a real drummer can give me.
    
    While I will probably sound like a jerk (I expect some Flames),
    I feel that real drummers, and real bass guitar players will
    slowly dissappear from the music scene, as they are becoming easier
    to totally replace in a studio, and for some forms of live performance.
    
    Being that I jam occasionally with real drummers & bass players,
    but usually play against a drum machine (or sequenced drums), and
    a keyboard player who handles the Bass part (been doing this for
    the last 4 years), And I see others doing similar things, I would
    expect that developing a large library of drum patterns will be
    to my benefit in the long run. I doubt that I will go back to a
    4 piece band, because 2 people are so much easier to schedule for,
    and deal with. My MT-32, and sequencer are ways to maintain my goals,
    and still sound good. Each of us have a different perspective.
    
    I'd love to share things that would make others in COMMUSIC successful
    in thier efforts. Bass patterns and keyboard sequences will eventually
    get stored also (it's a workable concept, but not as universal as
    stored drum patterns). I got lots of 2.8" diskettes & I plan on
    filling them up with lots of goodies.
    
    As for the D-110. I haven't seen one in a shop yet, but, it seems
    to address most of the limitations of the MT-32, relative to a
    studio environment. Most of my work is live, so the added noise
    is really no worse than the hiss out of my vintage Twin Reverb.
    I plan to keep the Twin Reverb too.
    
    							Jens

>< Note 891.12 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >
>                        -< Insert Tongue A in Cheek B >-
>I'll get some of my keyboard playing buddies to come over some time 
>and play me a few dozen keyboard patterns so I can build up a library 
>of them.  Then I can just build songs out of the pieces. 
    
    Cute ! But, gee, len .. let's see if I understand your humorous
    point(s).. 
    
    first, it takes years of sweat, blisters and determination to build 
    the kind of chops a tasty drummer has. 

    second, good drum machine programming is not easily done, see point
    the first above. 
    
    third, calling in a real drummer to enter patterns (like Jens plans)
    is ludicrous, because the patterns will be inappropriate to the
    music, or, put another way, patterns out of context just won't work,
    see point the first above.
    
    Damned every way we turn, eh ? The logical conclusion of points
    one, two, and three, which I don't feel diverge from your feelings
    on drumming, is that non-drummers, even with drum machines, just
    CAN'T. Help me out here ! If I'm not a drummer, and I have a drum
    machine, unless I get a [real] drummer in to put in every hopefully
    tasty fill, the effort is doomed.
    
    Of course, to date, I've refrained from pointing out that the reverse
    is also true, that non-keyboardists heavily dependent on keyboard
    technology are also on shaky ground ! I guess I'm tired of the "real
    drummers" point of view.
    
    On Easter morning I recorded an improv into the Mac. I later played
    a cassette of this for several people, including two guitarists.
    They asked who the guitarist was.. it was ME, playing my KX88, pushing
    MIDI thru the Emax with a beautiful nylon-string guitar preset.
    
    I guess my point is that if you're good enough, and have thought
    a lot about an instrument that isn't 'yours', then what's the
    difference? You CAN fool all of the people all of the time. I REALLY
    play MIDIed flute and not keys at all !
    
    karl

    My only comment at this point relates to the band Def Leppard. The
    Drummer was in an accident and lost his left arm. After a few years,
    and a driving ambition on his part, he's back playing drums again.
    How does he do drum rolls? That's a good question. I saw them on
    MTV, and I saw him hit a pad (with a few wires connected to it)
    and magically, a drum roll came out. I suspect that this was
    pre-programmed in some manner. Sounded real good to me.
    
    As for Karls input on the universitality of drum patterns, he's
    right, in that some things will be inappropriate, or just plain
    wrong for some songs. Great, You fix those instances as you get
    to them. I figure that you got to start somewhere, and I have no
    excuse to accept mediocre quality when I can get better quality
    (after all, how many of you have traded down in your equipment,
    most of us try to get the best we can afford & keep adding more
    and better things when we can get them).
    
    Karls synthetic Sax on the Commusic IV tape was excellent. It's
    not because he accepted a simple solution, but worked on it until
    it was what he wanted. My goal with the MT-32 is along the same
    lines. I have a strong profit motive also, but, I need to be happy
    with what I'm doing (wasn't it Rick Nelson that said: If memories
    are all I sang, I'd rather drive a truck).
    
    							Jens

    Gee, I didn't get quite the "damned if do/don't" message...
    
    I thought len's comparison between getting a "real" drummer to
    program drums and a "real" keyboard player to program keyboard
    parts was kind of apt, and I thought Karl's example of his 
    sampled guitar fooling everyone (he did this to me with a different
    piece) only reinforced the point...
    
    You don't have to be a virtuoso whizblatist to program good whizblaten
    parts. You've gotta be sensitive to the idiosyncracies of the
    instrument your trying to emulate.
    
    Jen's may save some time getting a "real" drummer but I can no longer
    buy off on the fact that only a real whatever can program the parts
    'properly'...
    
    Edd

>    The logical conclusion of points one, two, and three, which I don't 
>    feel diverge from your feelings on drumming, is that non-drummers, 
>    even with drum machines, just CAN'T. Help me out here ! If I'm not 
>    a drummer, and I have a drum machine, unless I get a [real] drummer 
>    in to put in every hopefully tasty fill, the effort is doomed.
    
    I don't know if there are any absolutes, but my own experience
    more than just supports what Karl has said, it is a testimony
    to it.
    
    Drum parts take me about 20 times as much time as any other part
    and I'm never very happy with the outcome.  I'm getting better
    at it, but it almost seems like a waste of time.  I wish I could
    find a drummer who would just come in and "under my direction"
    (which translates to accepting a lot of kibbitzing from me)
    provide me with a close to final drum track which I then might
    "diddle" a bit.
    
    There is a certain sense of satisfaction I get doing it all myself,
    but when I think of how much more productive I could be overall...
    
    There just ain't nothin' like a real drummer, even when using a
    drum machine.
    
    	db
    

>40>40    < Note 891.15 by SALSA::MOELLER "conducting the Silicon Symphony" >
                                     -<  >-

>    
>    On Easter morning I recorded an improv into the Mac. I later played
>    a cassette of this for several people, including two guitarists.
>    They asked who the guitarist was.. it was ME, playing my KX88, pushing
>    MIDI thru the Emax with a beautiful nylon-string guitar preset.
>    
>    I guess my point is that if you're good enough, and have thought
>    a lot about an instrument that isn't 'yours', then what's the
>    difference? You CAN fool all of the people all of the time. I REALLY
>    play MIDIed flute and not keys at all !
>    
>    karl
>

This is not easy.
    As a teenager, I transcribed my "Star-Spangled Watergate" for 10-string
    guitar (a friend).  I forgot a few things.  One, he didn't have
    10 fingers over the fingerboard, just ten strings.  Two, You can't
    finger two notes at once on one string.  
    
    If we hypothesize that Midi workstations could make acoustic instrument
    alists obsolete, and wipe out AF of L CIO American Federation of
    musicians, that work backwards, you start to realize how much expertise
    each instrumentalist carries with them.
    A clarinetist has many different kinds of tone, elicited with varying
    lip-pressure, reeds, and so on, to play different parts of different
    music, and change the tone and attack and pitch and vibrato through
    every single note.  Midi can start to do this now, but only if the
    Midi player knows everything the clarinetist know about playing
    clarinet on Chicago jazz, Orleans jazz, French 20th century pieces
    e.g. by Debussy, Mozart (the first important clarinet user)
    Pierre Boulez, you name it.
    
    When you face a local 47  pick-up orchestra, you're looking at a
    room with ca. maybe 500 years collective experience in music,
    different instruments, different music, different ideas etc.
    
    No midi-nerd (certainly not a s/w professional with a midi hobby)
    can replace those people musically.
    However, they will replace those people economically, because tv/film/
    ad producuers will insist on the cost savings. 
    
    So instrumentalists are not button-pushers like midi-nerds.  Good
    instrumentalists are worth their weight in gold (what they paid
    for there education), becuase they don't just know what keys to
    push, they know MUSIC, when to slide, when not to, when to play
    sharp, when not to, when to sound brighter, when not to, when
    to play ahead of the beat, when to play behind it, when to stand
    out, when to blend in, when to help there section partners, when
    to go for coffee.
    Go ahead, try to get that knowledge out of Dr. T. I dare you.
    oh, time for coffee...
    Tom

    re most of the previous.
    
    My point seems to have been too subtle - everybody's jumping on
    things I didn't say, and certainly didn't mean to imply.
    
    Karl, your last paragraph of .15 says it all - if you understand
    the instrument and its idiom, it doesn't matter if you've mastered
    the instrument physically.  *That* is what I was saying, but in
    negative form.  I.e., if you *don't* understand the instrument,
    "libraries of patterns" are just that and no more.
    
    This has *nothing* to do with whether or not drummers are the only
    people who can program drum machines.  I don't care who programs
    anything as long as they do it well.  I have *never* said that drum
    machine programming is or should be solely the prerogative of drummers.
    I don't know where Karl got the idea I believe any such thing;
    why would I have invested the time and effort I did in my drumming
    tutorial if I felt that this was "secret" knowledge allowed only
    to drummers.  My intent was, is and always has been to teach other
    people about drums so they could do it themselves.  Over and over
    again, I have tried to explain what was going in on drumming, not
    arrogate to myself or other drummers sole proprietorship of drumming
    expertise.  Given all the information I've shared with the noting
    community, how could you possibly believe this, Karl?
    
    Now, on to what I *was* trying to say.
    
    You don't get good songs or idiomatic instrumental parts by having
    some proficient player come in and lay down some "representative
    patterns" for you.  Even if you intend to "modify" or "tweak" or
    "diddle" them into shape for some particular context, you can't
    do that unless you know what you're doing.  I find the concept of
    a "library" of drum patterns just as offensive as you keyboard
    players should find the concept of a library of "keyboard patterns".
    It's utterly the wrong way to think about the instrument.  It may
    be "efficient", but why is it ok to think about drums that way and
    not ok to think about guitar or keyboards that way?  Isn't anybody
    else concerned about songwriting and arranging being reduced to
    assembling parts cadged from a junkyard of song pieces?
    
    Yes, drum machine programming is pattern based, but drummers do not
    think (or play) in terms of sequences of patterns.  They think and
    play in terms of a flow that fits with the flow of the song.  They
    think and play in terms of things that drummers can do with their
    hands and feet and the instrument before them.

    How would you accomplished keyboard players like it if I set up
    a two bar chord pattern on my sequencer, let it repeat indefinitely,
    and "jammed" a drum part over it?  How about that as my next COMMUSIC
    submission?  Why is ok to do that with the drums but not with the
    keyboards?
        
    Does anybody understand what I'm trying to say?
    
    len.
     

>< Note 891.17 by JAWS::COTE "Did you set your MIDI clock ahead?" >

>Gee, I didn't get quite the "damned if do/don't" message...
    
>    I thought len's comparison between getting a "real" drummer to
>    program drums and a "real" keyboard player to program keyboard
>    parts was kind of apt...
    
    So did I. It's just that the bottom line is kinda gloomy.. unless
    you get a "real" ___________ to play the ______ in EVERY PIECE, 
    you're doomed to failure. And I don't LIKE to fail.. 
    
    I'm pointing out that it sounds to me like len wants us all to 
    either burn our drum machines, or enlist a "real" drummer/programmer 
    for every piece, or study drums for years just to approach realism 
    when programming. Did I miss one ? 
    
    len, len, the search for quality isn't easy, is it ? 
     
    best anyhow ! karl (p.s. 93�f. today)

    re .22 - I give up.  No that's not at all what I'm saying.  You're
    picking up on the wrong things.
    
    I give up.  I just can't make myself understood.
    
    len.
    

    Len, I was typing when YOU were typing.. .22 was NOT in response
    to .21, which I hadn't seen.
    
    Your analogy IS apt.. it would be AWFUL to jam lead drums over
    repeating looped keyboard patterns. I certainly agree ! However,
    I do see that Jens was doing what he could (asking a drummer over
    to do some programming) to fill in the gaps in his own musical
    background. So he deserves commending, in that sense. Your comments
    seemed negative to me- standard drum machine=no good, bring in
    outside help for 'patterns'=no good. So it's true that EDUCATION 
    is the answer, and I do indeed remember and appreciate your articles
    on drumming for non-drummers. And forgive me for putting words in 
    your mouth.
    
    re Tom's comments.. it was handy, having MIDI/sequencer technology
    to snipe at this time.. as I was just using the MAC to record, without
    the click, it may as well have been an analog tape recorder. And
    no-one said a MIDI-nerd could get musical sensitivity out of 'Dr.T'.
    Of course, perhaps I'm not a generic MIDI-nerd, having played piano
    since I was 9 years old.    

    I do believe I'm going to use 'Easter Morning' as one of my Commusic
    V submissions, and let the noting community decide on the 'can a
    keyboardist successfully emulate (that word again!) a ___________ist?'
    Having musicians ask me "who's the sax player/guitarist" is gratifying.
    
karl 

    < Note 891.21 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >
                        -< You're Not Listening To Me >-

>    How would you accomplished keyboard players like it if I set up
>    a two bar chord pattern on my sequencer, let it repeat indefinitely,
>    and "jammed" a drum part over it?  How about that as my next COMMUSIC
>    submission?  
>    len.
                  Sounds GREAT!!! Can I do the keyboard loop??????
    This is REALLY something I can get into!!!!!
    WOW~
    Listen to On D and jam over that! The original piano version
    repeats each bar 50 (fifty) times.  it takes 17 minutes that way.
    Tom

    Put it this way: 
    
      A real Xist playing an X will adapt to the current
      context, mood, and other non-notated musical environment.
    
      An X machine will obey only the notated parts of the environment.
      
    Simple example: tempo changes.  What do you do when a song really
    starts to "rock out"?  A human Xist will adapt, play louder, faster,
    etc.  A sequencer is going to be oblivious to this non-notated context.
         
    ---   
    
    Non-notated context includes doing little improvs here and there; many
    improvs start out as goofs that can be musically salvaged.  They break
    up a monotonous line on any instrument.  But to do the salvation, you
    require enough familiarity with the instrument (and with music in
    general) to see a way out without having to sit and think.  Live music
    is not chess; you cannot sit on your duff for an extended period of
    time. 
    	
    ---
    
    Personal (and recent!) finding: Live drummers are better because
    they make mistakes, mis-hits, hit-wrong-device, etc.  These mutations
    to the pattern usually occur when the drummer gets distracted or
    gets bored.  This is about the time the listener is getting bored
    too; so it's about time for the drum pattern to mutate.
    	
    Unlike gene mutations (or wrong-key on a keyboard) a typical drum
    mutation (rimshot instead of tom hit, cymbal pad instead of snare
    pad) does NOT immediately sound like a mistake.  The timing usually
    is correct, it's just a different timbre. _And_it_usually_sounds_good!_
          

    I think we could make a case that no one person could make the many
    thousands of decision per second made collectively by the members
    of a symphonic orchestra, and in off-line mode it would take
    more than (number_of_players)*(length_of_piece) for an individual
    to synthesize all that human individuality and richness on a MIDI
    system, which can't technically do it, anyway.
    Tom

    I suggest that we move this discussion over to note 493, as it really
    relates better (as a topic).
    								Jens

    I think I'll decline the " Oh, yes, there are so many subtle nuances
    that can't be captured in a sequencer " verbal strain. What I will
    say is this: It would be ridiculous to think of drumming as simply
    patterns. Rhythm has a harmony that is it's own. I have heard "keyboard
    loops" with drum jams. YES, it has happened! Fourth world:possible
    musics by ENO and some other guy ( who's name escapes me at the
    moment ) did exactly that, on the entire album.
    
    Drums are layered so low in music that they are easy to forget,
    and even easier to take for granted, yet ( depending on how much
    you follow structuralism ) are what present the piece as an 
    UNDIVIDED WHOLE. No one would dare some of the "intervals" with
    chords that I hear some people do with drums. From my standpoint,
    I see drums as ULTRA low frequency tones.
    
    The problem a great many people have with drums, is that they can
    sense this harmony ( and/or melody ), without actually being able
    to identify it, work on it, improve it. A "real" drummer is less
    likely to stumble towards a satisfactory part through trial and
    error.
    
    						John.

    re: .-1
    
    > loops" with drum jams. YES, it has happened! Fourth world:possible
    > musics by ENO and some other guy ( who's name escapes me at the

    Jon Hassell, trumpets (though tape loop/delay) and keyboards.
    				- HBM

    
        Is the MT-32 still being produced?  What is the best place to purchase
    Roland equipment in this area?              

    Yes, the MT-32 is still going strong, but what area is "this area"?
    
    						Brian

If you are planning on playing out with the MT-32, get a parametric eq
(it makes a big difference to the PA system!!!).

								Jens

    re: -2     
    
    	Sorry! This area would be Acton/Westford/near-Maynard MA.        
    
    Pat

    If you planning on playing out with an MT-32, don't.  Get a D-110
    (rack-mounted supercharged MT-32).
    
    If you don't, you'll have to:
    	o find something to carry it in, 
    	o Find something to put it on as well as it's power supply
    	o set it up each time, break it down each tim.
    
    Basically all the standard desk-top vs. rack-mount pro's and con's.
    
    At least it's cheaper than a D-110.

    In the Acton area, Acton Music Center is a Roland dealer, in Boston you
    can see EU Wurlitzer, La Salle's or Daddy's, and in Worcester, Union
    Music, Daddy's, EU Wurlitzer.  
    
    Your guess is as good as mine on who would have the best price.  
    
    							Brian

I'd better speak up for the MT-32:

If money is an issue and you can't afford a D-110, don't hesitate to 
buy an MT-32 and gig with it. I've been gigging with one for about six 
months (without a parametric EQ), and I've had no problems whatsoever 
with the unit. Yes, it's more of a pain because you can't rackmount 
it (unless you make some modifications to it like Jens did), but it 
sounds great live. I really haven't noticed any of the problems that 
some people claim to have with the MT-32.

I complement the MT-32 with a U-110 PCM sound module, which also 
helps.

I bought the MT-32 at E.U. Wurlitzer - they have two Boston stores and 
a Worcester store, so one of those should be fairly convenient to you. 
I believe I paid about $350 for it.

-Dan

                                             
         Someone mentioned the D-110 to me through mail on Friday, so I
    read the notes over the weekend.  It would give me more, but would it
    give me enough more to justify the extra cost?
    
    More info:
    
    	- I don't gig, or have a rack
    
    	- price is a major concern (I'd like to stay under $450, I would
    	     buy used if possible)
    
    	- drum sounds are very important ( my ESQ-1 doesn't cut it, and I
    	     can't afford an HR-16 plus another SGU.  This is where the
    	     D-110 seems to give a decent advantage.)
    
    	- I'd like to buy just one unit, not a unit plus an eq or extra
    	     sound module.
    
        This will be just for my home use, and is run through the mixer of
    a 4-track into my stereo.  It's not a very professional set up, but it
    works.  I'll be running everything from Cakewalk and an MPU-401.
    
    	How much extra will I have to pay to get the D-110?  Are they
    available used?  

    
    The D-110 is basically an MT-32 that can be programmed from the front
    panel and is set up with rack-mount ears and multiple audio outs so as
    to be more suitable for pro applications.
    
    The MT-32 sounds more like what you want.  You can always get a ptch
    editor for your PC if you want to program your own sounds.  The MT-32
    *does* have drums, although I believe the D-110 has a wider palette
    (like 28 vs. 61, see the D-110 notes in here).  Most people feel the
    D-110 drums are more, eh, *aggressive* sounding.
    
    D-110's are selling for around $550-600 new. 
    
    Actually, your application (home use with a computer) is precisely the
    sort of thing Roland was aiming the MT at.  The D-110 was simply a
    repackage to satisfy "pro" users (at more $$ of course).
    
    							Brian

Used 110s can probably be had for your price range pretty easily.

Suposedly the 110 is cleaner sounding too

Chad

    I saw a used D-110 at Steve's Quality in Danvers for $350. Looked to
    be in good shape.

    It sounds like for your needs the MT-32 is just fine.
    
    My comments were in response to "playing out".  I don't think that
    anyone would deny that if you play out, the MT-32 is a compromise
    over he D-110.
    
    *I* play out with an MT-32, but that's only because when I get mine
    there was no D-110, and I think the same is true for Jens.
    
    The D-110 arose from demand for a rack-mounted MT-32.
    
    If you are not planning to play out, and if you are not planning
    to get much more deeply into this hobby, the compromises of the MT-32
    are appropriate for you.
    
    	db

    Having worked extensively with both the MT-32 and the D-110, I'd like
    to qualify a few statements made here. The D-110 is *not* just a
    rackmount version of the MT-32. It is, in fact, a rackmount version of
    the D-10 keyboard, which belongs to the same family as the MT-32, but
    is different in a number of respects. Other than the physical
    packaging, controls, line outs, etc, I prefer the D-110 over the MT-32
    because it can have more tones (internal banks, ROM and RAM cards), and
    generally just has a b***sier sound (I don't know how else to describe
    it) than the MT-32, even for the same patches (also more overall
    volume). It's just a lot easier to use, the documentation is better (a
    loaded word with respect to Roland), and the sounds are more powerful.
    
    I recently bought a store demo D-110 for $575, and I've seen them going
    used for under $500.
    
    Now that said, I agree that for the purposes the original noter
    described the MT-32 is probably adequate and the best bang for the
    buck. The drum sounds are almost identical between the two (the D-110
    does have quite a few more sounds, like better latin stuff, but most
    people probably wouldn't use these that much), and most of the presets
    are fairly similar. If I were in your place and wanted to get something
    for home use at a relatively low cost, the MT-32 would be fine.
    
    - Ram
    

         Well, I just got back from Acton Music.  They didn't have an MT-32 or
    D-110 hooked up, but I did get to listen to an MT-100, which the
    salesman claimed was an MT-32 with a built in sequencer, and a D-20,
    which he said had the same sound generation guts as the D-110.
    
         I was fairly impressed with both.   I liked the D-20/110's percussion 
    selection, and was satisfied with the sound quality of most of the
    patches.  Price quote on the D-110 was $699, $549 for the MT-32. 
    
         I think I'm going to hold out for a used D-110 rather than the
    MT-32.  I don't need the "extras" right now, but I plan on continuing
    with this sort of thing as my finances become more stable, so I might
    as well get something that I'll keep.
    
         Thanks for the replies.  Anybody have a D-110 they want to get rid
    of?...
    
    
   - Pat

    By the way, if you can't get a D-110 quote for much less than $700
    I'd hold out and get a Proteus.
    
    The difference between the MT-32 and the D-110 in sounds is noticeable
    but not exciting.  The Proteus is a *BIG* improvement over the D-110
    and I think I think people are heavily discounting the D-110 because of
    it.
    
    Much like certain hot products of the past (MIDIVerb, HR-16, etc.)
    I think the Proteus put a sudden and dramatic downward pressure
    on prices for these kind of things.
    
    The good news is that while I baited you to spend a little bit more
    for the D-110 over the MT-32, I don't think there's anything "alittle
    bit more" than the Proteus that's worth getting instead of it
    (except perhaps Proteus options and higher models).
    
    So the buck does stop.
    
    	db

    >  Price quote on the D-110 was $699, $549 for the MT-32
    
    IMO opinion, you should be able to do a *LOT* better than that
    for the MT-32.  I know I've seen sales as low $450 for the MT-32,
    maybe even lower.
    
    And at $700 for the D-110, I would *DEFINITELY* save $100 more
    and get a Proteus instead.
    
    I think you need to call some MO places, or visit some Boston stores
    (or Daddy's in NH (Nashua, Salem, ?Portsmouth?), or EU Wurlitzer
    in NH (Portsmouth), and save the tax.
    
    	db

    Call 1-800-4SAMASH for a quote from Sam Ash in NYC.  Last price I heard
    on a D-110 new was $500.  No tax and shipping would be under $10.  I'm
    sure MT-32 price would be competitive.
    
    						Brian

    Warning Will Robinson!
    
    re -.1
    
    Ditto. Sam Ash's latest flier has the D110 for $500.
    
    dp

            <<< DNEAST::SYS$TOOLS:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COMMUSIC.NOTE;2 >>>
             -< * * Computer Music, MIDI, and Related Topics * * >-
================================================================================
Note 2382.0                      MT-32 "Goodies"                      No replies
FORTSC::CHABAN                                       10 lines  29-JUN-1990 13:06
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Does anyone know if some of the "goodies" for Roland MT-32's are still
    available?  I'm talking about the ROM upgrades that add features or the
    voicing software.  
    
    I'm driving my MT-32 with a Mac so I need the appropriate software. 
    Any info on pricing and mail-order would be appreciated!
    
    Thanx,
    
    -Ed