Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    First off, let me suggest that you read topics 1.*.  Once you do
    that, then you should look at recent topics with keywords:

	GETTING_STARTED
	SEQUENCER
	WORKSTATION

    Chances are, you're going to have to be more specific in your needs
    before you'll get any pointed recommendations.  What kind of gigs, how
    much $$$ you have to spend, etc.  Good luck. 

-b

    -1
    
    
    Thanks for the pointers.
    
    I want to play either as solo or duo,duet. I want to be able to program
    Bass,rhythm,strings,drums,and,an assortment of wind instruments,piano.
    I play Country,Country rock,bluegrass,texas swing,polkas,50s 60s.
     
    I already have a 12 channel PA system. I play rhythm guitar,Bass,lead.
    
    Mike
    

Mike,

	I am doing something very similar to what you
	describe. I play guitar, and use
	a MC300 sequencer driving a MT32 for
	drums, bass, piano, organs etc. 

	I've been able to do diverse musical styles,
	with this set-up. from early Beatles to
	Led Zeppelin.

	I find that I spend more time developing
	new sequences than playing guitar now,
	but playing along with a complete 
	"band in a box" makes the shorter practice time
	very productive.

	I would recommend that you get the BEST
	sequencer possible, since you will be making
	a substancial time investment in developing 
	and adapting sequences. So, get one that will 
	last you, and meet you needs for a long time 
	to come. I recommend the
	Roland MC300 or MC500. Mine cost $1300 new,
	but they can be found for 1/2 that on the used
	market.

	There are numerous possibilities for sound
	modules as you'll find in other topics.
	I'd suggest that you findf a rack mount sound
	source and avoid the expense of the keyboard.

	The MT32 has been adequate for quite a few 
	things I've done, and was a reasonable price/
	performance at ~400 (used). After 1.5 years,
	though, I am feeling the need for more realism
	and power in a sound source. When I upgrade
	or add sound modules to improve realism,
	I suspect that it won't be too difficult to
	modify my sequences to make best use of the
	new sound modules.
	
Regards,
Rick

Mike,

I am also doing a very similar thing with a trio. Up until this month, 
I've been playing with taped background music, but I've recently made 
the investment to upgrade the band to MIDI.

This is my setup:

    	Roland MC-500 Mark II Sequencer
    	Roland U-110 PCM Sound Module
    	Roland MT-32 Multi-Timbral Sound Module

I agree wholeheartedly with Rick's advice on spending the money for a 
powerful sequencer. I originally had purchased the Alesis MMT-8, which 
is a great sequencer for the money, but the memory limitations made it 
impractical for live use. (For example, I was using sequences that 
were so complex that I could only load in one song at a time, and the 
load time took up to 30 seconds for a song. This is not good in a live 
situation where you want to keep the songs going and the people on the 
dance floor.) The MC-500 is perfect for a situation like mine, where 
you can program entire sets into memory and not worry about it.

Of course, it cost me $2400 to get started, but I'm gigging enough 
that it should be paid for in 3-4 months.

-Dan

    
    Thanks for all the imformation. I think as far as the money aspect,I	
    am leaning towards the set-up Rick has. Cant I add sound modules later?
    If I had an MC-300 and the MT-32 how long would it take to change
    songs? Would you feed each output to a mixer channel to give some
    versatility? That is,If I had the complete song in memory and I wanted
    to not use a particular instrument one nite and have it live instead,
    could I do it? Everyone seems to like Roland the best,are they the best
    as far as realistic sounds?
    
    Mike
    

>Cant I add sound modules later?

Absolutely. The MT-32 is a great way to start. It's relatively 
low-cost (about $450 new), and it's got quite an extensive library of 
sounds.

>If I had an MC-300 and the MT-32 how long would it take to change
>songs? 

I can only speak for the MC-500 Mark II from my own personal 
experience, but I think that it's a safe bet to say that any song 
loaded in memory can be accessed instantly, while songs that need to 
be retrieved from disk only take a few seconds to load.

>Would you feed each output to a mixer channel to give some
>    versatility? That is,If I had the complete song in memory and I wanted
>    to not use a particular instrument one nite and have it live instead,
>    could I do it? 

Well, the sequencer doesn't have outputs that go to a mixer. The 
sequencer will send MIDI information out to the MT-32, which has 2 
outputs to send a stereo mix to a mixing board. But, if you have your 
sequences organized logically into tracks (similar to a multr-track 
recorder), you could turn off any track on your sequencer while 
playing live, and it won't send that information to the MT-32. In 
other words, let's say you want to play a guitar part live, but your 
sequencer has the same part playing on Track 6. You can just shut off 
Track 6 and the sequenced guitar part won't be sent to the MT-32 and 
therefore won't be heard out of the PA. 

>Everyone seems to like Roland the best,are they the best
>    as far as realistic sounds?

I guess it's a matter of personal taste and opinion. I'm a Roland fan.

-Dan    

    
    Thanks Dan for the answers. Does anyone know what the current price is
    on the MC-300 unit?
    
    Mike
    

    This is what you need:
    
    		Ensoniq VFX-SD
    
    It has:
    
    	o a very powerful sequencer (24 tracks!!!)
    	o Lots of great sounds sampled and synthesized
    	o all the bread-and-butter sounds (drums, pianos, organs,
    	  strings, bass, etc.)
    	o Lots of memory so you aren't re-loading every couple of songs
    	o A two-sided double-density floppy drive for when you HAVE to
    	  load
    	o A great keyboard (pressure sensitive, velocity, MIDI-zones, etc.)
    	o A very good system controller (basically it can reconfigure
    	  other things in the MIDI network)
    	o Builtin 24-bit multiple effects processor
    	o 21 voice polyphony
    
    It also has lots of advantages for other applications like recording
    (multiple outputs, tape sync, SYSEX data dumping, etc.)
    
    What's more is that it's all contained in one box.  You plug the
    power in, plug the audio out to your amp or PA (no effects needed
    cause they're builtin) and that's your setup and breakdown.
    
    Nothing extra to carry, plug in, unplug, debug etc.
    
    	db

	The VFX-SD sounds & works real nicely (a friend of mine has one
	and really likes it), however, he still needs a RACK of additional
	MIDI toys to do his work. 

	I support the RACK mounted approach and choosing components based
	on the function needed and the each pieces ability to handle it
	most effectively. As Dan Dube has discovered, he needed a different
	sequencer, but not different MIDI SGU's when he got started. I've
	had the same thing happen to me. I have an ESQ-1, which is a MIDI
	workstation (of sorts) & I don't dislike it, but the sequencer leaves
	much to be desired, and I use an MMT-8 to create my sequences because
	it has substantially better capabilities, and is lots easier to use.
	The point is, that I reorganize my RACK every few months & add, 
	subtract or re-route something. You can't make changes to a
	MIDI workstation in a random fashion. Since I play guitar, and very
	infrequently any keyboards (other than animal noises, hurricanes
	and car sounds - on a CZ-101), I don't really have space for a
	large keyboard to play. My keyboard player uses my ESQ-1 (sounds
	great), and I copy sequences from the MMT-8 to the ESQ-1 sequencer
	and it can play my RACK also. In general, a RACK of MIDI devices
	is substantially more flexable than a MIDI WORKSTATION, no matter
	how good it sounds now. 

	You really need to figure out what it is that you want to carry out
	with you when you play, versus what you need to create sequences.
	For me, the requirements are different, and the effort is quite
	different. 

								Jens

     DB,
    
       The VFX-SD,what is the cost? I have a somewhat limited budget. I
    like the W-30 workstation,but,it is quite expensive. I play guitar
    mainly,although I can play some keyboard. I dont think I would need a
    keyboard. I have a rack that has enough room to add the midi gear. It
    also has my mixer,P.A.,monitor amp,tape deck in it.
    
    Mike
    

< Note 2183.10 by DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE >
                                   -< COST? >-

    Mike,
             I saw a price of $2395 on the VFX-SD at Daddy's Junky Music. 
I'm very sure it can be had for cheaper than that elsewhere (mail order, 
etc.). But it's still not cheap. 

Mike D

    Yeah, you're talking at LEAST $2300 ... probably more.  Make sure you
    give the DECMS contacts a call (and let 'em know you're with the
    conference/DECMS/Digital Equipment).  I'd start with East Coast
    Sound ....

-b

    
    Yes, I have East Coasts number and a couple others. This MIDI stuff can
    get expensive. I will probably end up getting seperate pieces at a
    lower cost to begin with. I may have to sell off more equipment to
    raise some money,but,right now the market seems slow for used stuff. I
    have been trying to sell my Peavey mixer for a couple months now. 
    
    Mike
    

    
    	You're missing one very important thing.
    
    	To load a new 'tune' seems to take in the order of
    	10's of seconds for almost every synth-sequencer,
    	sequencer-sequencer, and PC-sequencer. 
    
    	You want to play one man band in front of a paying
    	audience or club situation? 
    
    	Then expect that if you take more than 5 to 10 seconds
    	between tunes (and I assume you're TALKING to convince
    	them not to leave the dance floor) then you be outa luck.
    
    	Many bands go to cassette tapes. Ok, but poorer S/N, 
    	poorer dynamic range, farther away from "wow-live-sounding"...
    
    	I suppose the other alternative is to load sysex from
    	a hard disk.......even then you have to type in at least
    	the sequence file name....
    
    	good luck. 
    
    	ron
    
    

    Sorry Ron, I disagree.
    
    My EPS can load a song with as little as two buttons and 2 seconds. And
    that is from 3.5 floppy, not hard disk. Loading programs/sounds can take
    much longer, up to a minute or more depending on its block size, but
    even long songs are only a few seconds.
    	I can organize a disk with a set of music and use the data slider
    to select one song after the other. I can even have the next song selected
    and waiting for the push of one button at the end of the current song.
    Of course the limitation is that you must stick to the sounds that you
    load in at the start, but I haven't found this to be a problem after I
    set up my splits and layers I am able to get enough variety to carry
    the interest through a set of music.

    re: .14
    
    Ron,
    
    On my SQ-80 I can usually sequence about a sets worth of tunes without
    reloading.   Reloading on the SQ-80 takes about 10-20 seconds.
    
    If you do one or two tunes without sequencing, or even tunes with
    a non-sequenced introduction, you can schedule your reloads under
    the non-sequenced parts.  (Do I sound like a guy who's dealing with
    pipelined architectures or what?)
    
    re: .9  VFX vs. Rack-mount
    
    Jens,
    
    This is how I look at it.  You will ALWAYS need a good MIDI controller,
    and you will in all liklihood continue to use the the VFX as a synth
    even when/if you stop using its sequencer.
    
    The point being that even as you buy more pieces to augment or replace
    some of the things that the VFX does, it will be a long time before
    the thing becomes really useless.  Even if you had 10 8-space racks,
    you still need a keyboard and the VFX keyboard can be zoned, is
    velocity sensitive, pressure sensitive (channel AND note), etc. etc.
    
    By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if the VFX sequencer is
    significantly more powerful than your MMT.  For onething, you have
    8 tracks right?  The VFX has four times that.
    
    So what I'm saying is that, if you are starting with nothing, there's
    probably no better deal you can get for $2300.
    
    If you can't afford the $2300, you can certainly still get yourself
    a viable setup, it just won't be as pwoerful or as convenient as
    the VFX.
    
    	db

	Dave,

	Not to beat a dead horse, but at one time you used an ESQ-1, then
	you upgraded to an SQ-80, now you have a VFXsd. Why did you keep 
	upgrading your workstation?? Because it had new features & the
	other one started becoming obsolete & you were using it less and
	less. The VFXsd has a great sequencer & fantastic capabilities.
	Can the ESQ-1 or the SQ-80 be upgraded to have the same features??
	Nope. They are stalled in the great world of 'obsolete, no new
	enhancements planned mode'. The thing about the ESQ-1 and SQ-80
	is that they are great, but you outgrow them after a while because
	of limitations of the built in features. The ESQ-1's keyboard and
	sounds are great, but the sequencer is vintage 1987. It doesn't
	take long to obsolete a MIDI device. The VFXsd is hot (it sounds
	great, quite a bit better than the ESQ-1 does on lots of patches),
	so, now you find that the old workstation simply isn't being used
	like it used to be.

	There is nothing wrong with workstations, but I liken them to
	sterio systems that were designed as an all in one package, but
	they don't have a CD player on them & you just decided to get into
	CD's. You have to replace the whole thing, just to get a new
	feature. 

	I like being able to swap out stuff without having to re-do 
	everything just because I decided to change something for the
	better. I know this is not everyones situation, but it appears
	to work best for me. I prefer to Rack Mount individual devices
	and control the pieces in a more logical fashion. By the way, I 
	bought my ESQ-1 from someone who upgraded to an SQ-80, then to
	and EPS, then to a VFXsd, never keeping the old gear. Did this
	save him any money in the long term?? I doubt it. Is he happy?
	Yes, he loves his VFXsd! Will this cycle continue?? Probably,
	as the next generation becomes available. I depends on what you
	want to do, and what your goals are. For me, I like to use my
	time to make music & not constantly re-learning how to use
	a new toy. Time is one thing I don't have a lot of.

	     Jens_who_uses_his_midi_gear_for_profit_almost_every_weekend_
	     and_doesn't_have_the_time_or_desire_to_resequence_or_modify_
	     100_or_more_songs_each_time_he_adds_or_changes_something
		

>Not to beat a dead horse, but at one time you used an ESQ-1, then
>you upgraded to an SQ-80, now you have a VFXsd. Why did you keep 
>upgrading your workstation?? Because it had new features & the


Dave, I didn't know you'd gotten that VFXsd already?  :-) :-)

Chad

On the Roland MC-500 sequencer, you can load up to 8 songs in memory 
at one time with the editing software, and somewhere around 15 songs 
in memory with the performance software. This provides instant access 
to the songs with no load time between songs.

The longest it's taken me to load a song from disk into memory is 
about 5 seconds.

-Dan

    
    How much Technical knowledge is needed to program with? I am not
    familiar with the technical aspects of a song,I learn from hearing.
    I know notes,chords,styles,basic beats. 
    
    Mike
    

>	Not to beat a dead horse, but at one time you used an ESQ-1, then
>	you upgraded to an SQ-80, now you have a VFXsd. 
    
    I do not have a VFX-SD and have no immediate plans to get one.
    
    > Why did you keep Upgrading your workstation?? 
    
    OK:
    
    	o I did it only once
    
    	o The only thing I really wanted in the SQ-80 was the floppy
    	  drive - I wouldn't have got it otherwise.
    
    	o It would have cost me MORE money and more hassle to go modular
          as you do (in this case buy a separate floppy drive to do 
    	  SYS-EX dumps ala Alesis MIDIdisk, etc.) then to sell the
          ESQ and buy the SQ.   It would also mean that I'd have to
    	  carry more separate pieces around, have more things to plug
          in, less space in my rack, etc. etc.
    
    	o I could "replace" the ESQ with the SQ 100% compatably
    
    	  Note that when you replace a piece in your rack, you will almost
    	  certainly have to go in and reprogram somethings as things like
    	  patch numbers/sounds, volume levels, control functions are not
    	  compatable between your old equipment and your new equipment.
    
    	  I didn't have to reprogram a thing.
    
    You also missed a very important point.  I recommending a workstation
    as a STARTING POINT.
    
    What you failed to note was that even though I have added two drums
    machines, 3 reverbs, two multi-effects processors, a sampler, a
    rack-mounted synth, a mixer (to mention but a few)  I have NOT dumped 
    my SQ-80 for lack of a use of it!
    
    And in fact, if I were to add a VFX I probably STILL wouldn't sell
    it!
    
>	I like being able to swap out stuff without having to re-do 
>	everything just because I decided to change something for the
>	better.
    
    I really don't follow your logic Jens.  It seems like the only way you
    could swap something without having to redo everything is to
    do exactly what I did with the ESQ->SQ.
    
    I know for a fact that you could not replace your MT-32 with say,
    a Proteus without a non-trivial amount of reprogramming.  
    
    Thus, we are we not both "stalled in the great world of obsolete"?
    
    Jens, the key point is that that VFX does so MANY things, so well,
    and at such a good price, that even as you replace certain functions
    it performs with other equipment, it will still be valuable to you.
    
    Say Mike were to get a VFX - when a sequencer much better than the
    VFX comes out, it's not likely he's going to dump the VFX because:
    
    	o It still will be valuable as a keyboard, SGU, system controller,
    	  sys-ex dumper, etc.  And as long as it serves those purposes
    	  and he keeps it, he doesn't have to transfer and reprogram
    	  his old sequences.
    
    If YOU wanted to replace your MMT with the new hot sequencer you
    would either:
    
    	o Sell your MMT and have to transfer/reprogram/etc all the stuff
    	  on the new sequencer (MMT does NOT support Sequencer std right?)
    	  How much  you would get for it is of course interesting here
    	  too if it doesn't do anything else, and the one thing it does
    	  do is done much better by the newer equipment.
    
    	o or carry around, maintain, setup, breakdown, etc. a piece
          of equipment that offers no other value than having all your
    	  old work on it.
    
    Rack-mounted stuff *IS* the way to EXPAND, but I don't think it's the
    way to start, especially if you're on a limited budget.
    
    A workstation 
    
    	o gets you a lot more, for a lot less money, a lot quicker
    
    	  If you can find me a package of modules that sells for $2300
    	  and gives me a comparable 24-track sequencer, 2 channels of 24-bit
    	  mutli-effects, a 21 voice multi-timbral 4-star (sound-wise)
    	  synth w. builtin drums, etc., I'll give you $2300 cash tommorrow.
    
    	o will be useful longer, 
    
    	o retains its value longer, 
    
    	o is also probably easier to learn on.
    
    I think a Workstation is definitely and demonstrably the right way to 
    go for starters.
    
    	db

    > How much technical knowledge....?
    
    Like any other musical discipline, sequence programming can be as
    simple or as complex as you want. And, like others, the more you
    do the more proficient you become which means you can do more and
    the learning loop starts...
    
    I don't mean to discourage you (I'm not even sure of your goals) but
    you can't expect to sit down and just blow out a sequence in a matter
    of minutes/hours. My *average* input to output time is (ready for
    this?), 600:1. Yep, one 1 minute of finished sequence usually results
    from 10 hours of programming. Other members of this conference are
    experiencing a similar ratio. I'm currently working a sequence for
    a MIDI duo. So far, I've got over 30 hours into the bass and drums
    alone!!
    
    Don't be discouraged by this. Much of my R&D time is spent tweaking
    or creating patches, editing FXs and working on little nuances.
    And a lot of it is spent listening to 2 and 3 second snippets of
    tape "What was that?" {rewind} "Again?" {rewind} "Huh?" {rewind}.
    I could do a sequence in considerably less time, but it would sound
    just like what gives MIDI a bad name...
    
    IF you can live with factory patches...and
    IF you can live with "beat-box" drum patterns... and
    IF you can live with a fairly mechanical feel...
    
    ...you can get away without a lot of techno-smarts. Getting the most 
    out of your gear requires you to learn it, just like guitar.
    
    There's nothing mysterious or difficult about MIDI, but developing a
    great sequence forces you to analyze what's going on at any point
    in a tune. You can't rely simply on "feel" or "soul"...
    
    Edd

    re. 20 & 21:
    
    Although basically both Jens and Dave have good points, I would
    like to add some thoughts on this issue of "rackmount vs workstation".
    (Those of us who are into audio equipment will find it is very similar
    to the "separates vs console" debate).  
    
    Dave, much as I hate to disagree with you (as you are one of my
    MIDIspiritual leaders), I think it is a mistake to paint workstations
    as the best way "to get more, for less, quicker" (to paraphrase).
    The problem is that if the person starting out is FAIRLY SURE that
    they will never want/need/afford to add capability, workstations
    make a lot of sense.  I don't need to elaborate on the positives
    as you have already done so.
    
    But my experience (in both MIDI and audio) is that we rarely understand
    exactly what we want to do, on the front end.  In fact, it is in
    living with the equipment that we come to learn what features are
    helpful or necessary and which are not.  
    
    I was seriously thinking of buying a workstation (ESQ-1 or SQ-80)
    when I got started.  Boy, am I glad I didn't!!!  Not that these
    are not good machines.  They definitely are as the COMMUSIC tapes
    attest.  It's just that I have been able to accumulate better sounds,
    better percussion, better sequencing, etc. over time by not being
    chained to one set of tools.  If I had bought one of these, I would
    have sold it by now and I have only been in this addiction...er
    I mean hobby about two years, now.  In other words, the workstation
    solution would probably NOT have lasted as long for me as separates.
    Furthermore, I suspect a W/S would not hold its value any better
    than the equipment I now have.  
    
    This is only my personal experience and I am sure that others will
    find their experiences different, just like Jens and Dave.  And
    you might have a point Dave about a W/S being easier to learn on.
    However, I would urge beginers to carefully consider whether or
    not they will want/need to upgrade their capability in the future.
    If the answer is no, find the W/S that has all features they want/afford.
    If the answer is yes, or even maybe, then they should consider going
    the rackmount route at least as cost effective as separates in the
    long run.  
                                                                             
    Santa Clusters,
    Bill Allen

    I agree with Bill - go with 'component' vs. 'integrated' systems.
    
    Having gone with components, I've kept my KX88 and mixer and all audio
    gear, while completely turning over my SGU's - from MKS-20/Fb01 to
    EMAX rack & Kurzweil 1000PX.  I also was able to upgrade my MAC sequencer,
    going from OPCODE MidiMac to Performer.
    
    So if one outgrew a MIDI "workstation", but liked the sounds, you end
    up with an expensive SGU with a no-longer viable sequencer, for
    example.
    
    karl

One thing to remember however, is that the on WS mentioned by Dave, the VFXsd
isn't really that expensive of a SGU by itsekf when talking about a controller
and SGU combination.

The VFXsd is only a couple hundred $100 more than the normal VFX and has extra
waveforms and a disk drive in it.  So, if and when the sequencer becomes
relegated to the backup role, you don't have an expensive SGU, you have a good
keyboard synth.

Chad

    I suspect that a lot of the slant here depends on whether you are a
    keyboard player or not. I can see why someone who was going to use the
    keyboard a lot would like having an integrated package. For someone who
    was not, rack mount components can provide greater flexibility.
    
    I've just gotten into this myself, so I'm still learning, but this is
    what I have been through so far:
    
    - I was originally going to get an MT-32 (synth), and MMT-8 (sequencer)
    and some kind of disk drive. I thought I'd pick up a cheap keyboard
    with MIDI output for programming the sequencer, and possibly get an
    OctaPad or something later (I play keys and drums, but am primarily a
    guitarist).
    
    - A salesman convinced me that I would regret buying a cheap keyboard,
    and since he just happened to have a used D-10, I could get all of the
    functionality of the MT-32 along with a good quality velocity-sensitive
    keyboard for only a little bit more. I bought this line, and so far I'm
    glad I made this decision.
    
    - Like Dave, I abhor cables, and I hate dragging around multiple boxes
    for performing. I especially hate dragging around the D-10 when I don't
    need it except for the sounds. But when I make some more money I figure
    I can get an MT-32 or (preferably) a D-110, so I can keep the D-10 at
    home for programming, and have a more portable system for the road.
    
    - I've also become convinced that for the stuff I am doing the MMT-8
    and Alesis DataDisk that I bought aren't going to cut it (primarily
    because of the load time between songs). I'm planning to upgrade to an
    MC-500 Mark II as soon as I can afford to. That will also reduce the
    number of connections, since the MC-500 has an integrated disk drive.
    
    That's where I'm at now. My ideal situation would be to have one setup
    for home use (the D-10, MC-500, an OctaPad and maybe ultimately a
    guitar controller), and another one for the road, all in a rack (the
    D-110, MC-500 and guitar effects (MIDI controlled)). I know, the MC-500
    isn't rack mounted. Is there any kind of rack-mounted performance
    oriented sequencer? Ideally it would be great if I could have my whole
    setup in one rack.
    
    I hope this helps. It seems there are several of us who are getting
    into (or have been into) this subject of MIDI performing.
    
    - Ram

    <<< Note 2183.26 by TOOK::SUDAMA "Living is easy with eyes closed..." >>>
    
>    I suspect that a lot of the slant here depends on whether you are a
>    keyboard player or not. I can see why someone who was going to use the
>    keyboard a lot would like having an integrated package. For someone who
>    was not, rack mount components can provide greater flexibility.
    
    Boy, am I argumentative today.. Ram, I disagree with your suspicion-
    I'm exclusively a keyboard player who went rackmount..
    
    I got a CONTROLLER (KX88) whose action I like a LOT, and do virtually 
    all my patch changing and parameter changing from it.  I feel I have
    plenty of flexibility because I'm not stuck with ONE manufacturer's 
    definition of sounds, sequencer, effects and keyboard action (read, 
    'workstation').
    
    karl

    One other drawback to the WS approach is *when* (not if, everything
    will fail sometime) you have a failure, you've lost *everything*.
    No limping through the night, you're dead.
    
    With components you can at least substitute (or go without) the missing
    component.
    
    And besides, I always looked soooo cool with 2-3 keyboards plus a
    rack.  ;^)
    
    Edd

    re: .23
    
    Bill,
    
    I'm not sure you even disagree with me.
    
    > Add some thoughts on this issue of "rackmount vs. workstation"
    
    The issue is, more specifically, "Starting systems: rackmount or
    workstation".
    
    A rack-mounted system with the functionality of the VFX-SD would 
    easily cost  you twice as much as the VFX SD.
    
    I think your opinion is based on the idea that STARTING with a modular
    system allows you to replace and update specific parts either more
    easily, or with less expense than if you had started with a
    workstation, but that just isn't so.
    
    I started with a workstation and added to it.  It allowed me to get
    started much faster and much less expensively, but obviously didn't
    make it any hard to add reverbs, SGU's, etc.
    
    	db

>    So if one outgrew a MIDI "workstation", but liked the sounds, you end
>    up with an expensive SGU with a no-longer viable sequencer, for
>    example.
    
    And if you had started with modular you'd end up with with a no-longer
    viable sequencer that you have no use at all for.
    
    While the sequencer in the VFX might no longer be useful to you,
    you would still have:
    
    	o A poly-pressure flexible keyboard controller
    	o a two channel 24-bit multi-efx processor
    	o A Sysex data dumper
    	o compatability with your old data
    	o A tape sync capability
    
    So the result is that with modular, you'd end up with something that's
    totally useless and forces you to convert stuff, and in the workstation
    system you'd end up with something that's still quite useful with no
    need to convert.
    
    Note also that when a new sequencer (or whatever)comes out that
    outshines the one you have, the resale value of the one you have goes
    through the floor. 
    
    I'll also point out any given amount of money, you'd end up
    with a much more powerful system even if you started out with the
    VFX-SD and added the more powerful sequencer.
    
    

            <<< Note 2183.30 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "Conliberative" >>>
>>    So if one outgrew a MIDI "workstation", but liked the sounds, you end
>>    up with an expensive SGU with a no-longer viable sequencer, for
>>    example.
    
>    And if you had started with modular you'd end up with with a no-longer
>    viable sequencer that you have no use at all for.
    
    .. THAT YOU COULD TAKE OUT OF THE RACK AND *SELL* !
    
    .. and a discussion of the difficulty in reselling obsolete MIDI bits
    is probably another major rathole...
    
    karl

My definition of modular:  when you outgrow any functional component, you
replace it and  only it, thereby saving money, while all other components
remain useful.  It's a very simple concept.

Everything goes down in value, modular or not, including ESQ's.

My  recommendation is to go modular, 100%, whether you're  just  starting
out, experienced, at home, or playing out.

I started off two years ago with a $350 Roland keyboard controller, and a
$250 Yamaha sound unit.   Today,  I  could trash the sound unit because I
now have newer and better modules  which  can  perform  in  its place (no
conversion necessary - yes you need to buy something with similar sounds,
modular or not), yet I don't have to learn how to use a new keyboard.

/Mitch

Workstations  are  good for travelling.


:-) 
Oh - and I recommend getting a PC based  sequencer too, Master Tracks Pro
on a Macintosh to be specific.

    re: .31
    
    
>>    And if you had started with modular you'd end up with with a no-longer
>>    viable sequencer that you have no use at all for.
    
    >.. THAT YOU COULD TAKE OUT OF THE RACK AND *SELL* !
    
    So what? Is that an advantage?
    
    (What do you think you're going to get for it?)
    
    I think it's an advantage to have something that you'd want to hang
    onto because:
    
    	o It still serves other purposes
    	o What you could sell your out-dated stuff is obviously quite low
    	o I don't need to convert data
    
    You started out comparing what you are left with when you replace
    something.  I wish you would have continued that and examined both
    sides:
    
    	Modular: you are left with something that has no value to you
    		and has a low resale value. You also have to convert your
    		data if you want to sell it.
    
    	Workstation: you are left with something that still serves many
    		(other) purposes to you.  No need to convert data.  And you've
    	 	paid less money overall.  It will almost always be of value
    		as a keyboard (which would make Edd happy when he's ready
    		to get a separate keyboard controller cause now he'll
    		have 2 keyboards).
    
    Do you disagree with this?  Which sounds better to you?
    
    I also agree with "go modular", but I think you "start integrated"
    UNLESS you already know the modular system you will need (not likely
    if this is 1st purchase) and can afford it (also not likely).
    
    The mistake people are making is the perception that starting with
    a workstation ties you down in some way.  As if there's some
    disadvantage that I can't "cut" the sequencer out of my workstation
    and sell it when I buy a separate sequencer.  (Chad also points out
    there's not much of a premium in terms of cost for workstations,
    and thus that sequencer isn't likely to have cost me as much as
    the separate you are now selling.)
    
    Run some real numbers. 
    
    	Modular:
    
    		Basic kbd controller + MMT-8 + ESQ-M + MC-500 - resale(MMT-8)
    
    	Workstation:
    
    		ESQ-1 + MC-500
    
    At the end-point, you have: Paid more money for the modular system
    and ended up with a system that isn't as flexible or convenient.
    
    				NOTE
    
    		Both equations have the cost of the MC-500 so it can
    		be factored down to:
    
    		 Kyb + MMT-8 + ESQ-M - resale(MMT-8) <=> ESQ-1
    
    It would be much more lopsided if I had used the VFX-SD because of
    all the things it does that the ESQ doesn't, but since there (sadly)
    isn't a VFX-M (rack-mounted VFX) I couldn't use actual pieces if I 
    had.  I would have also been able to say that in addition to ending
    up with a better system, you also would have started out with a
    better system.
    
    Someone else is welcome to substitute the EPS/EPS-M.  Or suggest
    other systems as long as they are equivalent in overall functionality.
    
    I think something that a lot of folks are missing or perhaps unaware
    of is that workstations typically don't carry much of a premium.
    Not surprisingly, integrated components are much less than individual
    components.
    
    Another direct question:  Do you think you could get a modular system
    equivalent to the VFX-SD for anything CLOSE to the cost of a VFX-SD?
    
    	db

>My definition of modular:  when you outgrow any functional component, you
>replace it and  only it, thereby saving money, while all other components
>remain useful.  It's a very simple concept.
    
    Again, you've only looked at one side of the equation for savings.
    
    On the modular side, you save money by selling the piece you are
    replacing.
    
    On the workstation side, you save money by paying less for the
    function(s) in the first place. 
    
    Obviously one advantage of the workstation approach is that when
    starting out, you get MORE ability for LESS money.  And as Karl
    said, what you can get for the outdated equipment you try to sell
    is perhaps a whole other topic but obviously you take a big hit.
    
    In fact, I think if you're going to argue for modular as saving cost,
    you've got a really hard task.  Obviously a modular system is ALWAYS
    going to cost more than an equivalent integrated system. The real 
    advantage of modular is flexibility.
    
> Everything goes down in value, modular or not, including ESQ's.
    
    You're only looking at one kind of value: resale.
    
    There's another kind of value: the value the equipment has for your needs.
    Let's call this "personal value".
    
    Not surprisingly, workstations hold their personal value much much longer
    the modular units.  In fact, I suspect that workstations hold their
    resale value a bit better than modular units as well, although that
    doesn't matter unless you're inclined to think modular units hold their 
    resale value not equally, but BETTER than workstations.
    
    	db

    re .33, .34 - Dave, I guess I don't understand why you believe a
    workstation retains more "personal value" than a modular unit.
    
    And one thing that's always annoyed me about "do it all" units is
    having to pay for features I don't need.  Now that I've settled
    on my JX-10 as my master controller and the MC-500 as my sequencer,
    you can bet I have zero interest in any synth that requires me to
    pay for a redundant and probably not as functional keyboard controller
    or sequencer, no matter how great it sounds.
    
    len.
    

>    re .33, .34 - Dave, I guess I don't understand why you believe a
>    workstation retains more "personal value" than a modular unit.
    
    What I mean by that is that workstations tend to remain useful to
    you longer than modular units.
    
    As soon as you buy your MC-500 MK II, you no longer have any purpose to
    use your MMT-8 (once you've converted your data).
    
    When I buy my MC-500 MK II, my VFX-SD is still useful to me even if
    I don't use the sequencer.  It's still useful as a keyboard, its
    still useful as an SGU, its still useful as a system controller,
    etc. etc.
    
    Understand?
    
>    And one thing that's always annoyed me about "do it all" units is
>    having to pay for features I don't need.  Now that I've settled
>    on my JX-10 as my master controller and the MC-500 as my sequencer,
>    you can bet I have zero interest in any synth that requires me to
>    pay for a redundant and probably not as functional keyboard controller
>    or sequencer, no matter how great it sounds.
    
    THe answer to this is obvious.  It's another loss of context.
    
    You clearly are NOT talking in the context of "starting out".
    
    Obviously if you already have a synth, a sequencer and a controller,
    you don't want to pay any extra for the sequencer or controller that
    "comes with" your new synth.
    
    But when you are starting out, you don't already have all a controller
    and a sequencer right?  You start out with nothing.  And an important
    point is that it would cost you a *LOT* more to buy them all separately,
    
    	db

    Got my e's back!
    
    Well, my experience has been pretty much the opposite.  Over time,
    I've hung onto the modular units and unloaded the multipurpose units.
    The only thing that the "workstations" did that made them worth
    keeping was to serve as SGUs (the onboard sequencers were just too
    primitive, although this *has* changed significantly of late), and
    eventually the physical presence of the keyboard became too significant
    a space cost to justify the SGU; also the modular SGUs proved to be
    far more timeless, as "top of the line" units, than the integrated
    SGUs.  Now I admit that my situation may not be representative, and I
    agree that for somone starting out a "do it all" workstation does make
    more sense from a cost and convenience perspective, but my guess is
    anyone whose needs evolve over time will almost certainly unload their
    first workstation for a far more capable (and probably modular) unit or
    set of units.
    
    Having put in my own two cents on this subject, could somebody explain
    to me why this is an important issue?
    
    len.
     

    What "multi-purpose units" have you had and sold?
    
    I think I've pretty much talked only of "workstations" and only
    for newcomers to MIDI.
    
    I also think that you're experience is somewhat unusual and your
    situation significantly different Len?  (Do you disagree?).
    
    You buy a lot of high end stuff, and thus it's not
    surprising that you hang onto it.  Also most people don't find
    much of our ancient equipment to be "timeless".  We almost always
    would prefer to have the latest and greatest.
    
    Look... there are advantages and disadvantages to both sides.
    
    But I think the most significant and important advantage is on
    the Workstation side in that it costs MUCH less and thus gets
    you off to a more complete and easier start.  I doubt you could
    buy a modular system nearly as powerful as the VFX-SD for twice
    the price.
    
    And there's nothing about starting with a workstation makes it harder
    or more expensive overall to migrate to a modular system.
    
    	db

    I started out with separates (OB-Xa, QX7, TX7).  I sold everything
    except the OB-Xa and got an ESQ-1 (workstation concept, so I thought).
    Loved the functionality, but hated the grit.  I went back to modular
    stuff, and still have the OB-Xa. 

    Basically, you keep what's useful and trash what's not any more,
    workstation OR modular.  Perhaps that's why I still have my dinosaur
    analog OB-Xa.

-b

I have a:
    Roland E-20 Keyboard that has drums, 128 sounds (exactly like the 
    MT-32), 32 built in rhythm patterns each with 4 variations, AND

    a Sequencer Plus III (IBM-PC based) sequencer.

It takes me between 2-6 hours to input and tweak a song from piano music. 
For some songs I use the built-in rhythm and accompaniment patterns (I have to
play chords on they keyboard while it creates drum patterns and accompaniment). 
For songs where the rhythms really fit, it takes about 15 minutes to do the
accompaniment and melody.

I haven't used sequencers like the MC-500 and my impression is that it takes a
long time to input songs that way.  I might suggest that you consider a
computer-based sequencer to do your composing and arranging.  Get an el-cheapo
portable, record songs from the computer onto the el-cheapo and travel with it.

I have actually seen cassette tape recorders that can be used to record and
play MIDI sequences.  I haven't priced them, and I don't know how they are, but
they might be worth a look.

As for the synthesizer, I think the E-20 is a decent alternative if you don't
need to be creating your own sounds (i.e., you can use the built-ins).  It
ain't cheap, but it's sure a lot of fun!

Dave

    re: .40, "4 to 6 hours to enter and tweak a sequence"
    
    Lemme state up front this is NOT intended to be derogatory.
    
    Do you sight read and play it in live? Step time? Do you use the
    pre-programmed rhythm programs or do you roll your own?
    
    Now, maybe it's *me* who's ungodly slow, but it seems all but
    inconceivable to me that a sequence of any complexity could be cooked
    up this fast. I recently did ONLY the bass and drums to Satriani's 
    "Surfin' With The Alien" and that took me 6 hours alone. Paula
    Abdul's "Straight Up" took over 40; Sade's "Smooth Operator" took
    almost as long, with 4 full hours spent on the 8 measure bass "solo".
    
    Again, without meaning to sound either denigrating or patronizing, I'd
    be real curious to hear if your sequences are as good as I think mine 
    are.... (Maybe I flatter myself!)
    
    Edd

RE < Note 2183.40 by BAGELS::SREBNICK "Bad pblm now? Wait 'til we solve it!" >

	I think the amount of time one puts into their sequence is really a 
matter of how picky they are, and perhaps how demanding their audience will be.
I'm putting together a restaurant act to play, more or less, background music
(if people listen, great, but I'm not going to get a complex if they don't).
With a 60 to 100 song repetoire requirement, you can be sure that I'm not going 
to be as picky with my sequences as I have in the past.  

	Still, I expect it's going to take me at least one evening to do just 
the drums for each piece that requires drums, and perhaps another evening for 
the remainder of the instruments (bass, added keyboard parts).  I really hate
canned drums, so I try to get as much expression out of them as possible.  The
other instruments can be fairly simple for the type of stuff I do because the
remainder of the performance I will be performing live.

	I, personally, would have a hard time using anything with 
'auto-accompaniment'.  But if you're not as picky, Roland has recently put out 
a couple of units that are a step above the rest - the PRO-E (?) and one other.
Their labelled as "Intelligent Arrangers".  I played with one once and it was
interesting.  It seemed to have some ability to "sense" things as you played
along (for instance, if you did a "kick - i.e. anticipate the downbeat - it
picked up on it and had the drumbeat follow suit).

	Dan

    Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by multipurpose.  Certainly
    none of my older units qualified as a workstation, assuming that
    a workstation implies a controller, SGUs, sequencer with editing
    capabilities, and drum SGU.  The Polaris had an integral sequencer 
    that was more than a joke, but I unloaded the Polaris mostly because
    I didn't like the way it sounded.  I unloaded my Poly-800, but its
    sequencer *was* a joke, and ultimately, I didn't like the way it
    sounded either.  The CZ-101 went because it wasn't velocity sensitive,
    and the Juno-106 is on the block for the same reason, though 
    I did like the sounds both units were capable of.  I've sold two
    of my drum machines, both of which had quite capable onboard
    sequencers.  So that's 6 "multipurpose" (by my definition) units that
    I've turned over.  Of my modular units, the MIDIBass and two early
    dedicated sequencers (the MSQ-100 and MSQ-700) have gone, to be
    replaced by a ProMIDIBass and the MC-500; these really qualify as
    upgrades.
    
    I did admit that my situation was probably unusual, and did not
    claim to speak for anybody other than myself.   I think it was Dan
    who said this seems to be pretty much a matter of personal taste.
    I agree.  Why are you being so tenaciously argumentative?  I wasn't
    disagreeing with you, simply offering a different perspective.
    
    To spell it all out - yes, a workstation is probably a great way
    to start.  I'd probably go that way today if I were starting out.
    But it doesn't seem to me to make a whole lot of sense for someone
    to have more than one "do it all" workstation, and I'd expect that
    over time that initial acquisition will first be augmented and ultimately
    be replaced by separates that do each of the things the workstation
    does, but better.  If one workstation does everything you need,
    than stick with it.  But there is no workstation available today that
    can come close to doing what my current modular system can do. 
    The only things I need more than one of are SGUs; I don't need more than
    one sequencer, I don't need more than one keyboard controller. 
    I'm hard pressed to imagine anyone who does.  And now that I've
    got the R-8, I don't need more than one drum machine.  So, I don't
    care how wonderful the VFS (or whatever it's called) is, all I'd
    need are its SGUs, and if I can't get *just* the SGUs, sorry, I'm
    not interested.
    
    len.
     

RE < Note 2183.43 by DRUMS::FEHSKENS >

	Just a nit, but since this topic is about having a one-man-band...

>   ...I don't need more than one keyboard controller. 
>    I'm hard pressed to imagine anyone who does.  

	In my experience as a performing keyboardist, I've found a need for
two keyboard controllers.  Even a VERY flexible controller, with channel mapping
across the keyboard, etc., wouldn't cut it for me.  Sometimes, you just need
that other dedicated area to play a quick diddy and then get back to your main 
unit.

	I realize, Len, that you don't use your keyboards in performance, but I 
just thought I'd add the qualifier...

	Dan

    Right, should have qualified my assertion with "technodweebweenie
    step time sequencing studio rat".               
    
    len (a technodweebweenie step time sequencing studio rat).
                   

>< Note 2183.44 by NRPUR::DEATON >
                    -< I need more than one controller... >-

>	In my experience as a performing keyboardist, I've found a need for
>two keyboard controllers.  Even a VERY flexible controller, with channel mapping
>across the keyboard, etc., wouldn't cut it for me.  Sometimes, you just need
>that other dedicated area to play a quick diddy and then get back to your main 
>unit.

I couldn't agree more. In my experience (this year that means doing 50+ 
weddings/functions), I've found that 61-note (5 octave) 
keyboards don't have enough "real estate" to make splits worthwhile. There 
just isn't enough room to play the lines that have to be played, and there 
isn't enough time to 
push buttons to "remap" etc.

Mike D.

    
    Thank you all for your opinions and help. I have been reading with
    interest the variuos set-ups everyone has. I am going to learn some
    more about it before I go out and get set-up. I have been reading the
    notes on different equipment. 
    
     Is there any way to get a steel guitar sound? A lot of my music has a
    steel in it. How about fiddle or dobro?
    
    Mike
    

RE < Note 2183.47 by DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE >

	Edd had a good steel guitar patch for the Yamaha 4-operator FM synths
(ala DX21/27/100/11, TX81Z, FB01, V50, YS100/200, etc.).  It's in the DX21 patch
topic.

	Dan

	We've established that the gear you use is a matter of personal 
	preferance, and that each of us has our own needs & likes/dislikes.
	Fortunately for all of us, the MIDI standard pretty much lets
	us mix & match in any way that we want, so there is always more
	than one way to solve for our needs. Since I'm not a keyboard
	player when I play live, I really don't need a keyboard (and
	usually don't have the room for one either), So If I can't rack
	mount it, it doesn't fit into my needs. Obviously 2 or more
	keyboards are needed for a keyboard player (mine has 3, one of
	which is my ESQ-1 & we download sequences from the MMT-8 to the
	ESQ-1's internal sequencer, so it can also play my rack - it allows
	a bit more flexability). Each of us probably has a set up that
	is totally different than anyone else is using.

	As for sequences, I find that the average time to complete a
	sequences is between 4 and 6 hours (from start to finish) with
	a few taking substantially more time. I tend to use manual input
	techniques for at least 60% of the drums (I use a CZ-101 with
	my MX-8 adjusting the velocities, & find that I don't like
	velocity sensitivity for SNARE, BASS DRUM and CRASH cymbal, I
	really want them to stand out consistantly, other drum sounds
	benifit from variations in velocity), the other times, I use
	a TR-505 sequencer to add generic drum tracks (use both methods
	in most songs) and drum rolls/etc. It works for me. I like a constant
	velocity for the BASS guitar (these are usually compressed on
	records anyway, so, it's not something that will sound any more
	sterile than what you hear on records today). I tend to make
	my sequences fairly complex, because I want them to sound good.
	I used to play drums, and maybe this helps when I go to sequence
	the drum parts, as these tend to take the least amount of time
	for me. The transistion of figuring out how to relate foot actions
	to notes on a keyboard took me quite some time, but, I've gotten
	used to it. I like the Roland drum layouts (lots of different
	sounds available at the same time) as found on the MT-32/D-110/
	U-110/D-10/D-20/R5/R8/etc... because I like variations on drum
	sounds. Once you get get used to having more than one SNARE sound
	and different cymbals, you use them to make the songs sound
	more vibrant.

	A single person MIDI band can put out one heck of a lot of sound
	and make it feel good to the listeners. These days, anything
	is possible.

								Jens

    Re: my steel guitar patch...
    
    The patch works excellently on my DX21. You can get the same timbre
    out of any of the other 4-ops, but I think the real key to using the
    patch is the alternative pitch-bend modes on the DX21. Someplace in
    here I believe I posted the technique I used to the pedal-steel part
    in Linda Ronstadt's version of "Blue Bayou".
    
    Edd

    The Pedal Steel patch is in note 338.43.  No hints on playing it there
    though.

    Try note 1417, "Pitch Bending Tecniques". The description is in there.
    
    Edd

    re: .43
    
    > To spell it all out - yes, a workstation is probably a great way
    > to start.  I'd probably go that way today if I were starting out.
    
    Glad to hear you state it directly.  I thought I was alone in my
    opinion.  ;-)
    
    > Why are you being so tenaciously argumentative?  
    
    You oughta know by now.   I enjoy a tenacious debate.  ;-)
    
    But seriously, I think the reason why I have stuck this out is because
    so many people are stating that workstations are NOT the way to go
    when you start out when I personally find much more evidence to
    the contrary.
    
    I really think the reason why people disagree with me is because the
    mindset is on the standard "modular vs. workstation" debate in
    the general context, and haven't fully considered the economics and
    priorities specific to "starting out".
    
    	db

    
    OK, I'm gonna come in and support Dave here...
    
    My first MIDI box was a Casio CZ-5000 that I bought from Rockin' Ron,
    and it is a primitive workstation, sort of a retarded ESQ-1  8^)  8^)
    
    Anyway, I still use it as my master keyboard, but I have since added
    another SGU, a drum machine and a (separate) sequencer.  I would like
    to upgrade from the CZ to a more powerful keyboard (i.e. something with
    velocity and aftertouch) but when I do I will most likely keep the CZ
    since with a  resale value of maybe $300 at best , it's worth keeping
    just as an SGU. 
    
    BTW, even though I have an outboard sequencer, I still use the CZ
    sequencer sometimes since there are things it does well that my other
    sequencer doesn't.
    
    							Brian

    There's at least three discussions going on in this topic. But let me
    comment on the time to produce sequences. I've only just started using
    MIDI, but my experience so far supports the 4-6 hour estimates that have
    been given. *However*, it depends totally on your style, the complexity
    of the song, and the level of customization you want to achieve.
    
    As far as style goes, I used to play drums, bass, still play guitar,
    and am a reasonable keyboard hacker. For me, I can lay down four or
    five tracks to a song in about as long as it takes to play the song
    four or five times. Right now I enter the drum tracks from the
    keyboard, because I don't have pads, which slows me down some because I
    have to do bass and snare on one take, hi-hat on another, cymbal
    crashes and fills on another, etc. But the point is, if you enter in
    real-time like this it can go fairly quickly. I just go in afterwards
    and clean up mistakes, etc. Personally I can't imagine entering
    everything in step-time, but I know this is the way some people do it,
    and it obviously produces the same result.
    
    As far as the complexity of the song goes, there's obviously a big
    difference between doing "Wild Thing" (just a few instruments doing a
    repetitive pettern) and something like "Straight Up" (which I bought a
    canned sequence for), which uses a great variety of sounds in a very
    complex arrangement (more power to you Edd, I'd love to hear your
    version sometime). I've decided to stick to the simpler ones myself and
    get the more complex ones when and where I can. But that's just because
    I want to have time left to play my guitar. I'm sure that doing a very
    complex song is a rewarding pastime.
    
    My third point is about the level of customization. I am only using the
    preset tones in my D-10. Even at that it, most of my time is spent in
    trying out different tones and experimenting with layered tones, etc.
    This time will probably go down some as I get to know the D-10 better,
    but I don't plan to get into developing my own tones. I just don't have
    the time, and as I feel the need I'd rather expand my equipment base to
    get the kind of sounds I want. In other words, let someone else do this
    work. I'm sure for people who are doing studio work recording original
    material this sounds degenerate, but for what I am doing it seems to be
    the most sensible way to approach it.
    
    The only thing I have actually spent a fair amount of time on, and I
    have done this largely just to see what was possible, was trying to do
    things the equipment wasn't really designed for. For example, I spent a
    fair amount of time on one song modifying the pitch bend parameters so
    that I could produce bass "slides" that sounded like a real bass
    guitar. I got some satisfaction out of this, but most people listening
    to it wouldn't even notice (I don't even notice it much myself when I
    play the sequence). In another case I have been trying to reproduce a
    blues harp solo, bends, farts and all. Again, this is more to play
    around than for serious production work. In general, I can't afford to
    spend my time this way.
    
    So to conclude a somewhat lengthy note (that I thought was only going
    to be a couple of sentences), 4 hours is probably a lower bound on the
    time to produce a reasonable sequence. The upper bound is as high as
    you are willing to put time into it.
    
    - Ram

    
    
      Think it's hard laying down drum tracks from a keyboard?.
    I have to lay 'em down from the fretboard of my midiguitar!.
    
    
                       Can you say "I broke a string"?
      
                                     I knew you could....
                   
                                           Rich
                 (waiting for Santa to bring a cheap Yammie drum pad)
    
                                    

    re .55
    
    Ram, I couldn't agree with you more!  I find that I can bang
    out sequences in the 4-6 range, easy.  However, I then spend 
    twice that time (over extended months) working on "finessing" 
    the details.  Because I am such a perfectionist (read neurotic)
    I have approximately thirty sequences which are essentially 
    "finished" but not "finessed".  That is to say, to my ears, 
    the bass needs "bending", or the drums need "humanizing".
    
    This may be another topic, but I feel that personally, one of
    the things I need to work on is "letting go" of my music.  It
    doesn't have to be perfect; writing and transcribing music is
    not the way I make a living.  So what if one listener doesn't 
    like a piece or finds something in it monotonous.  For every
    person who has told me they didn't quite like something I put 
    together (that I shared with them), five or six say to me "Boy,
    that's really neat!".  And perhaps most important, I'M HAVING
    FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  >8-)  .
    
    Santa Clusters,
    
    Bill Allen

    Well, so Edd doesn't feel so alone out there, my experience is about
    10 hours of work per minute of usable material.    A nontrivial
    fraction of this time is spent developing or modifying patches. 
    So a typical pop cover takes me about 30 hours.  I step time
    everything, but I am also obsessive about details (especially in
    the drum and bass parts).  And once I've got things to this level, I
    listen to it for weeks, and then go back and fine tune it.  This may
    entail another few hours per minute.
    
    Originals take about the same level of effort.  These time estimates
    *don't* include composition or transcription.
    
    len (technodweebweenie step time sequencing studio rat).
    

    re: "Straight Up" ... I'd love to hear your sequence.
    
    OK, um, can I brag a little? Pleeze?? I've heard a couple other
    sequences of the tune and, frankly, feel mine is better than all 
    of 'em. The only problem is it's VERY hardware dependent. requiring
    two TX81Zs and an HR-16.
    
    Ron Ross, you reading this? Woulda vouch for me? Buddy? Pal?
    
    Maybe I'm too picky! Or simply just too slow!
    
    Edd

    
    Edd's StrUp.mid IS the best file I'VE heard of that tune.
        
    Has anyone noticed that the solos and duos are using backing
    TAPES rather than carry around all the midi-maze?
    
    Sorta nice to know you're HR16 isnt going to break...
    And you get background vocals right every time....
    
    But then, I dont think this competes real well with a LIVE
    sound...

    DATs da truth.
    
    rr
        
    

    Well, I've got about 8 hours into John McLaughlin's "Lila's Dance" off
    'Inner Mounting Flame' and it's just NOW beginning to sound like
    something.  My problem was that I wanted it to sound much softer than
    the original, but mine kept going nuclear.. most of the time spent
    dinking with loading/combining samples on the Emax.  another issue is
    that I don't have enough sample memory or polyphony in the Emax to play
    all the parts simultaneously, so I've SYNCed to the 8-track and have
    begun dumping parts to tape.
    
    Now all the music in my head is playing in 6/8
    
    karl

re: -.2

I've been playing in a trio to taped music for almost a year now. It's 
worked okay except for a few things:

1) Sound quality is inconsistent, and gets worse as the tapes start to 
wear out. Lately we've been having short dropouts in the middle of a 
song. (I keep the heads clean, too!)

2) Flexibility isn't that good. If someone has a request, I have to 
cue it up from headphones during the break. Also, sets have to be in 
the same order all the time. I somewhat solved this by organizing my 
tapes into "half-sets" (4-5 songs per tape) which I can mix and match.

3) People are *sometimes* put off when they see you loading a tape on 
stage. (Although this doesn't happen nearly as often as I expected it 
to.)

We've decided to switch to live MIDI, mainly for the boost in sound 
quality and flexibility.

-Dan 

	I just thought I'd throw in my own two cents here, regarding the 
workstation vs. separates issue...

	Having been into MIDI systems for some time now, I am just now adding 
to a "separates" system what may be considered a workstation (albeit a rather
simple one).  My new YS200 has eight-voice multi-timbral FM voices, built-in
digital effects and a simple on-board sequencer.  

	Now, granted, my approach to aquiring equipment is somewhat different
than others' (resounding agreement out there?), but this new keyboard is a 
welcome addition to my system.  I didn't buy it, though, for its "workstation"
architecture, but for its keyboard and, perhaps, for its digital effects.  I
wouldn't have bought it at anywhere near its list price, though.  I specifically
bought it for the hole it would fill in my system.  I do not consider its 
internal sequencer to be a serious addition to my system, but I have little
doubt that it will be fun to have when I'm out without the whole setup.  I'm
fairly sure I would have bought it at the price I paid even if it didn't have
the internal sequencer.

	The thing about this keyboard is that it has most of the features that
I consider necessary as a (non-piano) keyboard controller.  As I've said many
times (and y'all are getting sick of it, 'm sure), Yamaha makes its front panel
features available for me to alter vis messages imbedded in my sequences so that
I don't have to think about things like "what channel do I want to be 
transmitting on for the solo coming up".

	So, rather than starting out with a work-station, I'm adding one fairly
late in the game.  Nevertheless, I'm not primarily interested in its workstation
architecture.  It's kind of an added plus.

	Dan

    I think the one point from Dan's note I'd like to highlight is that
    generally speaking, the "internal sequencer" of workstations doesn't
    cost you that much.
    
    That is, synths with internal sequencers tend to be in the same
    price range as equivalent synths w/o sequencers.
    
    Thus, that you can't sell the sequencer when you no longer have a use
    for it doesn't seem very significant unless it bothers you to have
    functionality that you can't use even if you didn't pay much for it
    (that's remotely understandable).
    
    	db

    I'm thinking of buying the Roland RA50 rhythm/voices box and connect
    it to my Technics Model 6 keyboard.  Anyone know anything about
    the RA50?

    
    Is the Expander Version of the Roland PRO-E Keyboard.
                        "The Intelligent Arranger"
    
    Ciao
    
    Gianmario
    

    Re:-2
    
    I've got a RA50, so does my brother.
    It is basically MT32 coupled with Arranger section. From the SYSEX
    point of view two different things in a same box.
    The Arranger contains things like 2 track sequencer, fillings,
    different flavours of arrangements - basic  and advanced.
    It has 32 built in MUSIC STYLES. There are 8 user patches where you can
    store modified music styles. You can eg. preset the lead and bass
    instrument, tempo, effects, foot-sw action etc and store this set-up.
    
    Some of the features are really fantastics. Like intos and endings -
    super. Only they start to repeat themselves after a while :) no
    kidding? But, No worry, you can buy additional music styles on a rom card.
    
    It has MIDI in/out for keyboard and IN/THRU/OUT for sequencer, phones
    and stereo out (jack).
    
    I need one - wouldn't buy another.
    
    -Pasi-