Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Good point, Brad!  Lately I've been 'rediscovering' some of the
    presets on my TZ.  For example, some of the piano patches in bank
    A are really not too bad (I'm using a couple of them on my current
    piece).  When I get my new PROM's I'm hoping for some other
    improvements.  Hearing some stuff on the Commusic tape that reminded
    me of my (7 year old) VL-Tone, made me even wonder if it would even
    have any MIDI or other capabilities.  Not too long ago (April '87
    KEYBOARD) there was an article entitled 'Using Obsolete Gear' which
    discussed this issue.
    
    
    Steve

    For a lot of people (like me) it's a question of where to invest
    the time- in working on your sight-read/keyboard/realtime chops
    or your gold-ear/cerebral-cortex/data-entry chops.  It's a real decision
    and there is no "perfect" solution.  
    
    I'll even admit that my keyboard chops are worse than anyone
    I know of who has _ever_ taken a single piano lesson.
                                                    
    But that's OK, I enjoy the patching and I can always step-time
    the Mozart.  
    
    To each their own.
                              
    	Bill (whose-newest-toy-has-CV-inputs)
    

    I'm with you Brad.  I think it's really true.
    
    In fact, in an ideal situation, my rig would include ONE synth
    (with lots of voices) and ONE sampler (with lots of voices).
    
    (Does this sound like a Fairlight or Synclavier or what?)
    
    I've been buying up some proprietary patches for the ESQ-1
    and in every batch there's always one or two patches that I
    would never have thought would come out of an ESQ-1.
    
    The only reason why I have different kinds of synths (two actually)
    now is because of the notion I have that since the ESQ didn't
    have as many voices as I need, and I had to get another synth,
    I got more added value by getting a different synth.  But I'm
    beginning to think I would have been better served by getting
    an ESQ-M (instead of an MT-32).
    
    	db

>In fact, in an ideal situation, my rig would include ONE synth
>(with lots of voices) and ONE sampler (with lots of voices).

    How does a Kurzweil 1000PX w/24 voices and an Emax w/8 sound ??
    
    -- 95 flops with 100s of sounds for the Emax, too !
    
    karl

    You _buy_ patches?  For an ESQ-1?  Why in the name of Brahms would
    you do that?  Cripe, Dave, it's not that hard to program!
    
    (side commentary: I've test-listened several aftermarket ESQ ROMs.
    I've been _very_ disappointed.  Nothing new and creative- often just a
    bunch of marginal edits to factory sounds.  Blech.  I even had one
    sound that I posted to the ESQ-Arpalist show up in a EEROM (I think
    it was in a paisley Voice Crystal, though that could have been a
    subsequent edit by the owner.  It was BAGPIPes, if anyone is
    interested)
    
    <<<insert suitable comment about people who buy synths and don't
    ever open the programming manual >>>
    	
    	-Bill
    
    
       

    
    re: .*
    
      Oh, yeah. He says as I just settle in with my new toy, a 1983-vintage
    Korg analog synthesizer... I thought we were discussing this a short
    while back. Who said this stuff is obsolete in the first place?
    What has having MIDI (or not having MIDI) got to do with obsolescence?
    Does that make my grand piano obsolete? I doubt it. 
    
      I understand the 'populist' stands on what's hot and what's not.
    Precisely why I kept my JX-3P for five years - I liked the sound
    and I couldn't see why I should go out and buy another 'hotter'
    board when I wasn't finished playing with that one. I think it's
    more an issue of what works for you. I have a number of non-MIDIfied
    boards. I don't see a need to have everything midified. Especially
    since I was playing 'before MIDI' (B.M.? Sounds obscene ;^))...
    
      As for patches and buying them, yes Bill, I too bought patches
    for my ESQ-1. There were some neat patches, and in fact I have the
    one with the bagpipes on it if you want to compare the patch. Given
    the value of my time, it is worth more to me to play than to futz
    with 388 parameters much of the time. I can change a number of 'core
    patches' to whatever I want (and I do a lot of patch changes) but
    I'm not exactly into spending all my time programming. And I buy
    my samples too. They're a lot better and they cost less than the
    time it takes me to make them as nice.
    
      /pjh

    RE: .5, .6
    
    Yes, Bill.  I think you're being a bit hasty in putting down
    people who buy patches.  You've got to understand that some of us have
    different priorities than you.
    
    I use the ESQ to make music.  MUSIC is what I'm interested in
    doing.  The ESQ is a tool for that.
    
    Why should I spend time programming patches that I could spend
    writing music, or practicing, or learning theory, or a zillion
    more important things that advance me musically.  Programming
    isn't very satisfying for me, it doesn't advance me musically.
    
    I'd rather let someone else do it.  I'd rather take a 
    voice that's close and tune it more to my tastes, and when there 
    is no voice that's close, THEN I create patches.
    
    I consider writing patches to be a tremendous time sink.
    
    I certainly don't consider myself any less of a musician by using
    other people's patches.  I consider myself more focused on music
    and skill.   My priorities are right for me. 
    
>    <<<insert suitable comment about people who buy synths and don't
>    ever open the programming manual >>>
    
    For the record, let me state that I am VERY familiar with the ESQ's
    voice architecture, I have read the manual, as well as various articles
    here and there about ESQ voice programming. 
    
    I have created many of my own patches, but I would be quite happy
    if that were never necessary.
    
    	db

    It's not that people shouldn't buy patches, it's the number of people
    who never even _try_ to patch.  
    
    Not patching is what leads people to junking perfectly good instruments
    just because that instrument doesn't have the latest killer sounds
    in the factory ROM.  
    
    Buying aftermarket patches is another matter altogether.  Consider; how
    many truly worthwhile patches come on a typical aftermarket tape?  10%,
    if lucky?  That's pretty pitiful- (and my derision is mostly directed
    at the sellers of these marginal patches, not at the buyers thereof.
    If they'd make some good original patches rather than bad edits of
    factory patches maybe I'd be interested). 
 
    -----
    
    Dave is right; if your priorities and talents are such that patching
    isn't art (or rather, isn't what you favor as participatory art), go
    ahead and buy aftermarket patches.  But at least be aware that you
    _can_ build your own patches, it's certainly no more difficult than
    even the shortest and simplest COMMUSIC submission. 
         
    And in the long run, creating your own patches will make many
    "obsolete" (and cheap!) instruments viable and productive.  Even,
    perhaps, fun.                                            
    
    	-Bill (whose_big_problem_is_still_total_lack_of_keyboard_chops)
                                                                

    This is a real topical note for me since I have recently spent a
    lot on a MIDI studio.  I have gone through the initial "OH BOY!!"
    (buyer's elation) and "OH MY GOD" (buyer's remorse) phases and have
    settled into exploring just what I can and can't do with my toys.
    I don't know if this applies to anyone else but I have to be careful
    not to try to get my spiritual and interpersonal needs met by these
    "things".  I say all this to preface my agreement with the first
    part of .0; it is real easy for me to fall into the trap of chasing
    technology to the detriment of enjoying what the technology can
    do for me.
    
    After I bought my R-50 drum machine, I had a few second thoughts
    about it vis-a-vis the infamous HR-16.  But, with some reflection,
    it became clear that for my needs, the R-50 was more than sufficient
    and in fact, I still don't know how to do basic things like rolls
    and flams (?).  A couple weeks ago, I had the same experience on
    first hearing the new Kawai K-1 synth.  "Boy, I just have to get
    one of these to round out my choice of patches!".  But, again, after
    a second and third listen, I now feel that there is a universe of
    sounds my K-5 is capable of that I haven't tapped.  Many of these
    are 90-95% of the way to the K-1's sounds even given the different
    technology.  (I remember a salesman telling me about the D-50 vs
    the K-5, "Oh, you'll never be able to get the D-50 sound on anything
    but a LA synth; it's impossible given the different technologies".
    I'm not so sure about that, anymore.  I have made patches that come
    very close to some of the patches on both the D-50 and the K-1,
    close enough so that I am pretty sure I'll not be buying either
    of these in the future.  There just isn't enough value in it, for
    me.)
    
    I think the issue of buying vs making patches is really a separate
    (if related) matter from chasing technology.  Kawai will send any
    registered user all of their current library of K-5 patches.  I
    recently got them (over 500) and have had some time to live with
    most of them.  Like others have said, there is a lot of duplication
    in these patches.  There are some real usable sounds and some unique
    ones.  Most of all they give me a lot of ideas about 1) what is
    possible, and 2) what I like and don't like in patches.  I will
    probably not ever become a "patch technician", spending days locked
    inside developing powerful sounds for my synth.  But I do hope to
    come up with a better String Section and a credible Harpsichord
    (late Flemish, thank you).  
    
    Finally, I don't think I would ever want to pay for patches.  I
    could see how I might want to buy samples (if I got a sampler).
    I am presently talking myself out of buying an alternate chip for
    my R-50 drum machine for the same reason that I probably wouldn't
    want to buy patches: I just don't think they would be worth the
    price.  (As nice as some of the K-5 patches are, I think I would
    have felt ripped off if I had paid for them).  
    
    Gotta go!
    Bill
    
    

    I will be getting samples from Kurzweil, D-50, DX7II and Matrix
    synths on cassette 5 from Sounsations for my S-10.  It will be
    interesting to see how much I can make the S-10 sound like them,
    (or at least have something to shoot for with the CZ and the TZ just
    for kicks...)  How's that for poetic justice? ;^)
    
    Steve

    Regarding "paying for patches".
    
    Let's be pragmatic.
    
    Let's say your tired of the sounds you have.  You want more GOOD
    sounds.  How do you get them?
    
    Spend hours programming them?
    
    To me, that's not a musical activity.  Some people enjoy fiddling
    with technology.  I do that for a living, when I do music I want to be
    as untechnological as I possibly can.
    
    And frankly, from my observations, it's a very rare occasion when
    someone like the typical commusic noter comes up with a really
    great patch.   Most of the stuff I've pulled off the usenet has
    been absolute garbage.  Totally amateurish attempts.  There's one
    guy who put out this Bagpipe patch with a long explanation.   I'm
    a sorta closet bagpipe fan and I can tell with great certain that
    this patch wasn't even remniscent of bagpipes.
    
    Bill has asked "How many truly worthwhile patches come on a typical
    aftermarket tape?".  Well, Bill, I would say about 10-20 times the amount
    that seems to come from amateur plucking away it themselves.  I just
    bought the Voice Crystal 3 collection and in that ONE collection
    there are more "magical" patches than all the stuff I've pulled
    off usenet.
    
    Sure there's a lot of junk out there.  There are lots of folks who
    probably just whip together 80 junky patches in a weekend, and then
    market them.  But there are also some truly professional people who
    have studied synthesis and are coming out with good stuff.
    
    Note that I am ACKNOWLEDGING the "art" in synth programming.
    
    It all comes down to a very simple question:
    
    	Bill, how much of your time is $45 worth?  I'll bet you that
    	you could NOT come up the equivalent value in that collection
    	of patches for $45 of your time.
    
    There are no shortcuts to learning keyboard technique, theory, etc.
    Money won't buy it.  The only acceptable tender is TIME.  Time is
    something don't have enough of, and can't get more of.
    
    $45... that I got.
    
    	db

    As far as patches go, my experience with the TZ and with 'Expressive
    FM Applications' (see note 1196) have taught me that sometimes there
    is better flexibility with effects than with patch parameters.  Nearly
    all of the patches in the book for the TZ when played raw are very
    dull and simple.  However, by paying close attention to the effects added
    (pitch-shift, reverb, chorus, flange) the sounds blossom.  Anyone
    who listened to the soundpage associated with this book and with
    the promo's for the WX7 would be impressed that such patches could
    come from a TZ.  But, unless they included effects boxes to go 
    along with the WX7 and the TZ they would not be able to get anything
    even approaching the sounds on the soundpage. 
    
    Sometimes, it's the effects added and not the patches themselves
    that have the most influence on sound.  As another example, this
    month's KEYBOARD (August '88) has an article in it by Steve De Furia
    entitled 'Cutting Through with Distortion'.  In it, he tells how
    to get great distorted-guitar sounds out of a keyboard.  Remarkably,
    the patch to be used should be very clean and organ-like.  The guitar
    effect is done by saturating a preamp.  To quote, 'The amp is now
    an active part of your synth voice.  Think of it as a final VCF
    or FM modulator in your synth's audio path.'
    
    
    Steve

    
    
    I think we are also missing out on the case for a good patch editor
    and librarian in this argument. With the Tx802 I bought Steinberg's    
    6 op Dx editor and have aquired a large library of good usable patches
    which can be tweeked to good effect from the editor.
    
    There is also an excellent semi-intelligent auto patch create function
    which will take the sum-total of up to 5 patches and create for
    you a good hybrid of the 5. Whilst this may not be an art form, it
    does only take seconds and does supply lots of good output. So much
    so, that I would never look at a 40 pounds after-market DX ROM.   
            
    							Paul.                                                         
       					
                                                                      

    I was looking for additional sounds for my Akai AX-80 when I bought
    it (about 3 years ago), and I looked in the back of Keyboard.  Well,
    these guys wanted $50-100 for a data tape of 32-64 patches.    Frankly,
    I could do without 112 shakuhachis.
    
    So I started writing my own patches.  I put an ad in the back of
    Keyboard for the tape of 32 patches for $10 bucks.  I figure that
    even I would spring for 10 bucks for 32 patches, and if people found
    them redundant, they didn't feel anally raped on the price.
    
    I figure that about 10 of them were really fantastic, the rest were
    just improvements on factory presets.  Let me show you my Oberheim
    "Jump" and my Niki Lauda and Andy Summers patches, sometime.

    re .dave : Well, if you didn't like the bagpipe patch, you didn't have to
    use it (and yes, it was _I_ who posted the "totally amateurish" bagpipe
    patch to the UCB ESQ arpanet list...).  It was free; if you didn't like
    it at least you didn't pay for it. It sounds like bagpipes to me and
    everyone I've demoed it to.  Most people like it.  I guess there's no
    accounting for taste.         
    
    Especially since we agree that patching, like keyboard playing, is an
    art form, and hence not really assessable in objective (rather than
    subjective) terms.   (imitative synthesis aside; that's another
    holy war there)
    
    -----
                                  
    How fast can I patch?  Well, I can custom a backing line in a studio
    situation in about two minutes, usually less.  Now, that's not a
    great searing lead line, it's just a backing noise.  For the
    "Ultimate MegaSound", probably three to ten hours spread over 
    that many days (critical listening can't be done for very long).
    
    So, less than one patch per $45, for sure.  But I have control,
    I get what _I_ want, and besides, it sounds right to me.
          
    AND I ENJOY IT!
    
    -----
    
    Let me ask the inverse question: Do you buy MIDI sequencer dumps of
    popular songs?  Why not?  They are certainly cheaper than the time
    you spend learning a new song?  Can you learn "Beat It" in $20 worth
    of time?  All of the parts, including the drums?  I doubt it.  Could
    you even step-enter a typical popular song (all parts) in $20 of
    your time?  Pretty doubtful, wouldn't you say?
    
    So, really there's no reason why any _logical_ person would learn
    keyboards at all.  They should buy aftermarket patches, aftermarket
    sequences, and just press "START" on their MC500's and relax.
    
    Somehow I doubt that you are the kind to buy MIDI sequencer dumps.
    You'd probably consider it "cheating", cheating yourself if no one
    else.  I'd agree.                             
    
                   

    I should also note that the previously maligned "bagpipe patch"
    was subsequently hijacked and sold in an aftermarket EEROM.  
    
    So, some people _did_ end up paying real money for a "sounds nothing
    like" patch.  Count yourself as lucky :-)

    Some of the best software comes on vinyl, and you don't need anything
    more sophisticated than a 33rpm recordplayer to use it.
    
    Richard.

    
    
    Anyone could learn "beat it" in less than 20 seconds. Couldn't they?
    
    Would they want to?
    
    Sorry, same argument !
    
    					Paul

    There is in fact a very real market for already sequenced songs.
    Some people know how but don't want to take the time; many others
    don't even know how.  The point is that sequencers are becoming
    a variation on recording technology, and synths a variation on
    playback technology.  A lot of people buy cassette decks just so 
    they can play back prerecorded tapes (or copy other prerecorded
    media), not so they can record their own material.  In fact, *most*
    of the cassette recorder market is so motivated.
    
    Roland is now pushing a PR-100/MT-32 combination as an "educational
    system".  But I'll bet some marketing type sees the cassette analogy
    as apropos.  I.e., lots more potential customers among ordinary
    "music consumers" than among "home recordists".  If they can get
    the cost of simple but capacious sequencer and a multitimbral mostly-
    for-playback-rather-than-programming synth down around the cost
    of a component cassette deck, there's maybe a real (large) market
    for "customized" music playback system (i.e., you get to select
    the instruments, set the tempo, set the key, etc.).
    
    Perhaps the Japanese karaoke phenomenon is indicative? 
               
    len.
    

    O.K., so you need a 45rpm player -- but that's not more sophiticated
    than a 33rpm player, just a little faster (if I remember correctly).
    
    Richard.

    In all of this "buy vs write" debate, I hope we haven't lost sight
    of one of Brad's main points, which for me is a really good one:
    
    	Before I go out and purchase "new" technology I need to be sure
    I am maximizing the technology I already own.
    
    Bill Allen

    re the last few... Bill's specious 'if you don't want to create
    new sounds but would rather buy them, so then why learn a piece if 
    you can buy the sequence' argument..  I disagree.
    
    This is getting suspiciously close to the 'what can I
    [legally/ethically/morally] SAMPLE' question..  i.e. when do 'sounds'
    stop and 'music' begin ?
    
    There's several things at once going on here.. one as Dave pointed
    out is the use of your time.  Now I have literally hundreds of sounds
    on flop for the Emax, and there's 128 sample patches in the Kurzweil
    rack.. 99% of the time I use other people's sounds for my pieces.
    Very occasionally I will either tweak an existing sound (usually
    the Emax, the Kurzweil's user interface sux) or, more often, layer
    patches until I get the sound that I want for that part.
    
    It's the same distinction between systems and applications programming.
    Obviously the applciations programmer depends on the OS being well
    documented and not buggy.  But an OS by itself just SITS there and
    pages..
    
    karl

    Yep, that's the key point.  I'm stiil learning things about my several
    year old Super Jupiter, and I'm sure I haven't gotten everything
    out of my CZ-101 that it's capable of.
    
    I try to buy capable technology, rather than today's hot sounds.
    I bought my D-550 for the long haul, and what I thought it waould
    be capable of, not the factory programs (which are mostly useless
    to me without significant work).  I haven't bought any patches yet,
    but I don't see that as out of the question.  Good patches, wherever
    they come from, give me an opportunity to learn something about
    the machine.
    
    I mean, aren't there any other perverts around here who study patches
    to see how they work?

    len.
                                    
    

    I study patches to see how they work, yes.  On every machine I've ever
    owned.  But I'm NOT a pervert.

&*}

>    I mean, aren't there any other perverts around here who study patches
>    to see how they work?
    
    Who you callin' a pevert chump?  ;-)
    
    Yes I do this all the time.  Another part of the value of buying
    patches.
    
    Bill, I didn't realize that was your patch and I hope you weren't
    offended by it.  I'm not going to pour salt on the wound by
    defending my review of that patch.
    
    Would I buy a sequence of "Beat It" for $20?
    
    Well, I sequenced "The Way You Make Me Feel" last night in about 
    an hour.  I doubt "Beat It" would take much longer.  So no, probably
    not.
    
    Remember the context of my statements.  I objected to your putting
    down buying patches.
    
    So really the issue is not whether *I* would buy sequences, but whether
    I would think less of someone for doing so.
    
    The answer to that is "no".  I can think of lots of good reasons to do
    it.
    
    Like say my heart was in doing originals, but I was doing Top-40 to
    make money.  I would certainly consider buying sequences in order
    to spend time doing things that I find more valuable.
    
    I don't derive any sense of "macho" from programming my on sequences,
    nor from doing my own patches.
    
    	db

    No, I'm not expecting you to defend your review of it; it's pretty
    clear you didn't like it.  Hey, this is art; you can't please everyone
    even once (or else it _isn't_ art).  Reviews of anything would be
    pretty useless if we didn't allow ourselves to honestly disagree.
                     
    (if anyone really wants to hear the BAGPIP patch, db or I can probably
    dig it up out of our mail files.  Heck, *I* think it sounds like
    the pipes).
    
    -----
    
    I examine other peoples patches too, just to see how they achieve
    certain sounds.  I'm still trying to figure out how the Oberheim
    BUGFARTS patch works- it's truly bizarre.  
    
    I guess that makes me a pervert....
    

    um -- I'd like to speak up for perverts who have nothing whatsoever
    to do with patches.
    
    And Karl M -- any OS I have anything to do with sits there, pages,
    and falls over.
    
    Richard.

    Thanks Bill for being cool about that.  I picked that patch cause I
    figured that it "safe" in that I could blast it with absolute
    certainty that it was not written by anyone at DEC, and thus I wouldn't
    offend anyone.
    
    I mean what are the odds against blasting a patch submitted to the
    usenet years ago and not only discovering that it was written by
    someone here but ALSO that it was written by the person with whom
    you are debating the value of such patchs?   It boggles my mind.
    
    Anyway, you've been very helpful and understanding with the Commusic
    tapes, and I'm sure you believe it was never my intention to blast
    you personally.

    Sure, Dave, sure... (just be sure you don't drink coffee from that
    same coffee machine you always use, and advise your friends likewise)
    :-)
    
    -----
    
    Yeah, that patch sure has made the rounds.  Posted, hijacked, resold,
    blasted, counterblasted etc.  It's gonna be famous some day, I can
    tell.                                                             
    
    -----
    
    Every review of an art instance carries a risk.  I remember when I
    publicly panned Moeller's "In C", claiming it sounded like a MIDI data
    dump, when in fact I had confused the _real_ "In C" with the Stravinsky
    piece immediately before it on the tape. 
                                             
    -----
    
    You say it sounds nothing like bagpipes?  Hmmmm.  Maybe I made a
    typo on the patch sheet I posted.  Uh-oh.  Now _I'm_ worried...
                                             
          -Bill

    Re: .29
    
    
    Oooooooo, Karl's gonna be mad on you!!! That was Tom Jansen's
    piece you confused....
    
    Edd

[RE .30(RE.29)]

	Uh, that's JanZen, and it was "In D", I believe.

	Dan

    One more reason to pick buckshot out of your fanny.

    
    "Every review carries a risk..."
    	
    	Talk about self-fulfilling prophecies!
    
    			:-)
           
    -------
    
    My apologies to _everyone_.  I will now crawl under my desk and hide.
                              
    	-Bill

    
    	Thanx for the entertainment folks...Now getting back to the
    topic at hand....
    
    	I am still a MIDIless musician, who has progressed from using
    hand claps, to the metronome, to (sometimes) using the march rythm
    on my kids toy keyboard to make my little tapes on my fostex x-15.
    Being sole income with kids (you've heard of dink's, i'm a sink)
    I have been paying earnest attention trying to figure out what i
    think i need versus what i can afford.
    
    	I need, something that can play percussion for me. I can code,
    but i certainly cannot beat two sticks with any type of percision.
    Interesting, I can play guitar, bass, piano, reeds etc... but have
    never been able to make two hands and two feet cooperate very well.
    (you should see me bump into walls). 
    
    	Now this note addressed something i've suspected for awhile
    - there certainly seems to be folks without chops, but possesing
    coding skill here (good news). There are also folks who either were
    smart and avoided families, or at least have the partner working
    so they can afford toys. So i flunked being a yuppie ;^)
    
    	What i've started to hear, is that just maybe, there are some
    used affordable old wrecks out there that will not only let me
    code some percussion, but maybe even some nice other parts, extending
    my current limit of 7 tracks (with bouncing). Since i think i'm
    getting pretty good sounds already, without electronic affects
    (other than pulling the gain button on me amp), there seems to be
    a chance that without too much expense, these can be even better.
    
    	So what say ye? I ain't got great chops, but they're sufficient.
    I truly don't believe great geer makes good sounds - it takes a
    pilot also. Recommendations from all you experts is urgently desired...
    I spent $500 for my fostex, 1 cheap bass and cheap mike. It's almost
    2 years later and the complaints are subsiding. I might get away
    with another $500 in a few months. This i still considerably cheaper
    than divorce. What will $500 get me?
    
    					bs

    If you have a MIDI keyboard, an MT32.  Has everything you could want,
    including a drum kit and 8 channel x (potentially) 32 voice
    polytimbrality (more like 16 practically).

    If you don't have a MIDI kybd already ... well, I don't rightly know.
    Depending on who you are and where you look, you can do a lot with
    $500.

-brad (the other bs, not to be taken personally)

    
    	someone else shares "privileged initials"... No midi anything
    yet...
    					bs

RE WHAT CAN $500 BUY...

	For $500, you could get a drum machine (some are as little as $100 on
the used market), and even a decent low-end synth (such as a Casio CZ-101, or a
Korg Poly-800, a Yamaha DX-100...).  It all depends on what you consider 
acceptable.

	For more info, perhaps it'd be best to start a new note...

	Dan

    re .34
    
    A Roland TR-505 drum machine can be had new here in LA for $185.

    re .28 - It's not safe to assume anything about UseNet patches.
    My CZ-101 pipe organ made it onto UseNet, unattributed.  Somebody
    took it off COMMUSIC and submitted it to UseNet; I was browsing
    through a sheaf of UseNet CZ patches one night and stumbled across
    a pipe organ patch and said "hmm, I wonder if it's better than mine",
    and closer examination disclosed it to *be* mine.
    
    len.
    

    On D (solo piano0) 2 June 1982.  17 minutes.
    	Performed:
    	Orange Coast College 15 March 1983, home-built synth
    	Newport Harbor Art Museum 6 October 1983
    	included on a net tape in two versions, a short version at
    	tempo, and an extremely fast version (30 notes/sec) to show
    	off the PDP11 software.  This is probably the version that sounds
        like a data dump, I agree.  The amiga can play it at 80 notes/sec.
        Anyone interested in a 90' tape of music I have entered on the
        Amiga, including On D full-length, should contact me for an
        at-cost arrangement or borrowing.
        On D has about 9 chords, one chord per measure, each measure
        played 50 times.
    Tom

    re: .39
    
    > It's not safe to assume anything about UseNet patches.
    
    Yep, remember that Bill Y. mentioned that some slimeball is apparently
    plucking stuff off the usenet and selling it.
    
    There's no question but that buying aftermarket patches is a risky
    business.  What I do, is stick to strictly pro outfits that have
    built a reputation as professional synthesists.   Although I'm sure
    that many of them are good, I won't buy patches from a classified
    ad in the back of Keyboard magazine.  It's unfortunate, but can you
    blame me?
    
    There's too much room for rip-offs in that business.  I consider
    someone who diddles the factory patches and sells them to be
    committing borderline mail fraud.
    
    	db

    
    	Well, i apologize if i started things down a rat-hole, it is
    just that i understood the base-note as being an "old-stuff can
    be as good as new stuff", and i do understand how the "patch war"
    came from this.
    
    	Perhaps i was mistaken in the notion that old-gear comes cheaper?
    I'd love to go out and equip myself with all the latest - and disappear
    learning what to do with it. But as i mentioned, i'm not in a position
    to do so...
    
    	For the responses i got thank you.  For what i eventually would
    like to do - well, i did study arraingment/composition as Berklee
    a long, long time ago, and would love to have the tools to do whatever
    i can imagine. I guess i was looking for the best quality avail
    on a cheap budget... 
    
    	Please excuse my ignorance, i'm a learning....
    
    					bs

    Here's the bottom line - old gear comes cheaper, but you can get new
    gear with LOTS more functionality for small - medium $$$. 

    Example - you could take $300 and find a used MemoryMoog, which can
    play one patch (sound) at a time, and is gobs of fun to twiddle and
    play with.  Or you could buy (for not a whole lot more) a TX81z 4op FM
    module that will allow you to play 8 patches at a time. 

    Or, if you really wanna spend a buck, you could sink $1000 or so into a
    used ESQ-1 (or $1300 into a new one) that not only allows you to play 8
    different sounds at a time, but also has a built-in sequencer, as well
    as a keyboard.

    It all depends on what you want to do, and how you want to do it.
    As it stands now, you haven't defined clearly what your musican
    objectives are; therefore, it's hard to determine what should be
    done.

    And yes, this SHOULD be in a new topic.

-brad

< Note 1529.43 by DYO780::SCHAFER "Giants will fall..." >

>    Example - you could take $300 and find a used MemoryMoog, which can
>    play one patch (sound) at a time, and is gobs of fun to twiddle and

$300?  That is sooooooo ridiculous.  I'm not even gonna ask what I could get
for my OB-8, although it was infinitely more popular than the memorymoog,
which was not a real hot seller...

I have lots of 'old' gear, which means that it's more than a year old.  I
realized years ago that you can't possibly keep up with technology and still
have any $$$ in the bank.  So, I still have the OB8.  I still have one of the
first DX7's.  I still have my Mellotron (although it's going into storage, at
least, and may even be up for sale).  I picked up a midi interface for the
OB8.  I may get the E! upgrade for the DX, which will turn it into a DX7-s.
Small $ increments can often bring older machines up to more advanced
levels.

Every time I go to LaSalle's in Boston, there's � dozen new machines on the
floor.  It nice (from my  perspective) to see that the price is starting to
go back UP on some of them, with more machines weighing in at over $2G's.
Sure, newer machines do more, etc., etc., but if you try to keep up, you can't
possibly ever get used to what you have, and that's important. I'm 
holeheartedly committed to the OB8 for life, as it still sounds great,
and I love to program it.  The DX may be expendible, as soon as my ESQ-1
comes in, but at this rate,  I may just keep 'em all.  I'd take a bloodbath
on the DX.

My rule of thumb: Anytime I'll get less than 50% of the purchase price for a
machine, I keep it.  *^)

- andy

    re -1
    
    A big TEN-FOUR on that!  I have begun using that 50% rule on all
    of my toys (stereo, computers, etc.).  I find it prevents me from
    feeling ripped off after all the "swapping" is over and done.
    
    Bill
    
    PS Of course it does tend to take some of the urgency out of the
       need to "upgrade", for me also.

    Well, not only am I innundated with old equipment ...


    I'm innundated with NEW equipment.  Anyone else have problems finding
    quality musicians?  It's fun being a comcputer maestro, but I wish I
    could find a hot band.  Sigh. 

-b

    Brad, I was ruminating last night that here in the northern wastelands
    it's difficult to find a good band....me too, I need a giging
    relationship to keep me feeling chipper....sigh...
    
    dbII

RE: .47

    Bring your slide and come out here.  At least there aren't many people
    to rag when the volume hits +110 db.  May wanna bring your amp, too.
    8-)  And yes, I'm still breathing.

    Machines just don't replace people, do they?

-b