Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
       General Midi sounds a good idea as regards "plug in and play"
    SMF sequences, but appears to take a lot for granted as to the
    multitimbrality and other characteristics of the SGU in use,
    and for this reason may find difficulty in catching on with
    other than products specifically designed to cater for it.
    I understand there are ongoing plans to manufacture and release
    Compact Disks containing MIDI data as well as audio, the idea
    being that the content can also be reproduced with sound
    generating equipment, so perhaps a standard such as General Midi
    where specific voices are predetermined as being on specific
    channels would be a requirement, although I personally cannot
    see much point at present in including MIDI data with compact disks.
    	However, I think that with the increasing number of commercially
    available, good quality SMF sequences, General Midi may just be the
    beginning for some future "interactive" entertainment media.
    
    Brian  
    

    The standard will probably take hold, although I expect it will be
    limited to "amateur" applications.  Notice that the Roland drum maps on
    channel 10 have become something of a defacto standard and more
    recently the MT32 emerged as a "standard" SGU for use with computer
    programs having MIDI output.  Roland has taken it upon themselves to
    hammer out a standard which, surprise, uses channel 10 for drums, and
    uses standard Roland patch definitions.  
    
    Recently I bought a drum programming sequencer package for the Atari.  
    Guess what the default drum map was...
    
    If the installed base is big enough, the standard will last because the
    software houses will have a market to tap.  Already, houses supporting
    specific sequencers have sprung up, what they need now is to
    standardize the SGUs used to play the sequences (so that the end user
    need not edit the sequences before playing them back). The pressure for
    standardization is fierce enough to have already generated the sample
    standard and sequence file standards.  
    
    							Brian

    Perhpas this belongs in another note but.....      
    
    I'm looking for some kind of "standard" drum machine mapping. I want to
    set up my hr-16 in such a way that mt-32 sequences or other sequences
    will run "out-of-the-box" with no changes on my part.
    
    What I'm looking for is: bass drum = c#2
    			     snare = g4            etc.
    
    Any help?
    
    Thanks,
    Jim

    
    Jim,
    
    Send me your mail address and I'll photocopy the map from my
    SoundCanvas docs.  
    
    -Ed
    

	I, for one, have invested a substantial amount of my time in
	sequences that require the Roland standard definitions (based
	on my trusty MT-32). I'm of the opinion that you should be able
	to map any drum notes as needed by the user. This is difficult
	to do on an MT-32 without resorting to SYSEX, but it can be done.
	My feeling is that all companies who have drum kits (Kurzwiel,
	Ensoniq, etc) on thier rack units or keyboards need to be able
	to match the users needs/note assignments. If the notes can't
	be re-assigned as needed, then the capabilities are propriatary,
	and I won't buy the gear (the VFX didn't allow notes to be
	re-assigned for thier drum kits - they sound great, but unfortunatly,
	they are of no use to me).

						Jens

    I'd go with a "standard" except that I've become spoiled by being able
    to generate custom drum stuff on the D70.  I'm always tweeking the drum
    sounds to fit the particular number.  And, I even use drum positions
    for "regular" timbres that I'll play using the rhythm track. 
    
    Steve

    > I want to set up my hr-16 in such a way that mt-32 sequences or other
    > sequences will run "out-of-the-box" with no changes on my part.
    
    That's achievable only to a limited degree.
    
    The HR-16 is capable only of producing 16 sounds with any one
    particular drum "kit" (or in HR-16 speak, one "pattern").  The MT-32 has
    only one "kit" but it is capable of producing significantly more than
    16 sounds, and in my experience, 16 sounds isn't very much.
    
    For example, on the MT-32 a complete rack of BOTH acoustic toms
    and electronic (Simmons) toms are available at all times.
    
    It's hard to imagine producing any reasonable HR-16 kit that gives
    you access to both acoustic and electronic toms, nor to all of the
    standard latin instruments.
    
    Now, on the SR-16 (or Roland's R-8 series) you could do this pretty
    well, but not the HR-16.

    re: .5 (Jens)
    
    I'm in the same boat Jens (all my sequences are MT-32 based).
    
    I wanted to do that with my VFX but couldn't so for that reason
    (and others) I ended up also getting a U-220 which was capable of
    emulating the MT-32 drum map.
    
    > If the notes can't be re-assigned as needed, then the capabilities are
    > propriatary, and I won't buy the gear (the VFX didn't allow notes to be	
    > re-assigned for thier drum kits - they sound great, but unfortunatly,
    > they are of no use to me).
    
    It's true you can't do that on the VFX, but you CAN do that on the new
    SD-1.  And you might even have me to thank for it.
    
    I called them and sorta bitched that I couldn't do this via the VFX
    pitchtable facility because the pitchtable facility doesn't know about
    split points in multi-samples (when adjacent keys use different
    samples).
    
    The drum kit is one big multi-sample with each key being a different
    sample.
    
    Unfortunately when the pitch table specifies a semi-tone higher,
    it just plays the sample back a semi-tone higher rather than using
    the correct sample for the next highest note.
    
    The drum map feature on the SD-1 works/looks sorta like a VFX
    pitchtable.  Actually, if you ask me, it works like pitchtables SHOULD
    have worked.  ;-)
    
    	db
    
    p.s.  The guy I mentioned in the VFX note who's writing all those
    	  synth-to-synth sequence conversions is also contemplating
    	  adding a feature to change particular tracks to do
          note-remapping.

>    It's true you can't do that on the VFX, but you CAN do that on the new
>    SD-1.  And you might even have me to thank for it.
    
	I complained to the Esnsoniq rep when they were out here for a Clinic
	(I missed the Clinic but let them know what I bought & why). Hopefully
	this user input is worth something to them. I don't often have $1000.00
	to buy something with only to find that I can't use it. I think hearing
	a simialr message from different people in different parts of the 
	country has positive effects.

								Jens

Hi folks !

I hear all this complains about the drum maps, but how are your sequences
created ? If you use a reasonable SW sequencer like Cubase then this is a piece
of cake. Just create a new drum map, activate it and run the sequence. This
does NOT say a drum map standard isn't required.

For those ATARI users, there is also a tool advertised over here called "The
Drum Mapper", which is supposed to provide all sorts of maps and the ability to
easily create new ones. I didn't look closer as I don't have that problem (due
to Cubase). But if anyone is interested, let me know.

	Richard

>I hear all this complains about the drum maps, but how are your sequences
>created ? If you use a reasonable SW sequencer like Cubase then this is a piece
>of cake. Just create a new drum map, activate it and run the sequence.
    
    I create my sequences using the builtin sequencers that you get with
    the Ensoniq synths (I currently have an SQ-80 and a VFX-SD).
    
    It is extremely rare that I ever need to do anything that my VFX-SD's
    builtin sequencer isn't capable of doing that reasonable PC-based
    sequencers do (such as drum maps).  Rare enough not to justify:
    
    	o The large price tag of something like Cubase
    
    	o The large price tag of the PC that I'd need to run it
    
    And even if I got one, I wouldn't feel very confident dragging a PC
    to gigs every week so I'd still have to use the VFX sequencer anyways.
    
    Basically, SW sequencers like Cubase don't do anything for me that I
    usually want, need or have to do.

Hi Dave !

I may have not expressed myself correctly. I didn't want to blame somebody for
not using a PC based sequencer, I just wanted to outline ONE of the many
advantages such a sequencer has. But I also understand your arguments, one of
them being price. However, if you have a sequencer in your VFX you could
transfer the sequences from the PC and get away without a PC on the stage.
The new YAMAHA SY99 has interesting feature related to this, it can execute
standard midifiles created by PC-based sequencers, as long as they are done on
IBM-formatted disks (which is possible on ATARI).

Just for completion and no, I don't get comission for Cubase nor Yamaha... ;-)

	Richard
 

    This SY99 feature of reading standard MIDI files is also used by
    Roland's Sound Brush sequence player. 
    
    Already many keyboard disks have gone to IBM-compatible formats (but
    not Ensoniq...sigh), so the ability to use standard MIDI files is the
    missing link in the problem of sequence swapping which is a main issue
    that General MIDI is trying to address.  
    
    Actually, the concept of a standard disk format for MIDI gear may not
    be far off, especially if that format ends up being the IBM one.
    
    							Brian

	The VFX's (and all of Ensoniq's sequencers that I've ever used)
	don't have to send on a MIDI channel, which means that you can
	use internal sounds without tying up any midi channels. This alone
	would make it hard to up-load a sequence to a PC. Each method has
	advantages (dedicated sequencer/PC sequencer/built in workstation
	sequencer).

								Jens

    Rathole alert!
    
    Jens, I have successfully transferred sequences from my SQ80 up to a PC
    and then back down.  The "local" tracks I just reassign for the
    duration to "MIDI" status, then change 'em back to "local" when I've
    copied the stuff back.  The same could be done with a VFX.  Pretty
    painless...
    
    Eh, what were we talking about?
    
    							Brian

    >  However, if you have a sequencer in your VFX you could transfer the
    > sequences from the PC and get away without a PC on the stage.
    
    As Brian mentioned there's a problem with this.  It has to be done
    via MIDI.
    
    I also have to say that I think the problem is more difficult than
    the way Brian characterizes it.
    
    1) On the SQ-80 you have to do that one track at a time.  That's
       very time-consuming.
    
    2) Unless you've got VFX or SQ-80 memory to burn, you have to break
       your song up into sequences (like use one sequence for each
       chorus).  So multiply the pain of doing it track-by-track by
       the number of sequences
    
    3) Most people who use sequencers at gigs DO have to conserve on
       sequencer memory because they can't afford to have people leaving
       the dance floor.
    
    4) Gigging bands HAVE to add songs constantly (honoring the first
       dance requests at weddings, or learning the latest T-40 hits, etc.)
       Thus the time involved in creating the sequences is important.
    
    The things that PC-based sequencers do well, are things I don't do. The
    things are mostly in the area of editing.  There's nothing wrong with
    editing, but I (personally) just find it much easier to try another
    take than to try and edit it into what I want it to be.
    
    I've used PC-based sequencers when I've collaborated with other people
    who INSISTED we use their PC instead of my SQ-80.
    
    Each time I felt like we spent forever with the PC and almost no time
    at the keyboard.  My recollections of these experience are waiting
    and waiting for the PC and wondering "am I ever gonna get to play".
    
    Almost NO operation on my SQ-80 takes more than 2 seconds (creating a
    new song, sequence or track, doing a re-take, editing the song steps,
    deleting a track, making experiments, etc.)   This allows me to
    concentrate on MUSICAL things rather than computer things.
    
    Having to look something up in a manual "kills the mood", at least
    in my case.
    
    I might use a PC for recording originals, but the added value of using
    a PC-based sequencer for live sequences, doesn't come remotely close
    to ofsetting the negative factors of using one even ignoring dollar cost.