issue19

EMUSIC-L Digest                                      Volume 58, Issue 19

This issue's topics:
	
	seqs (14 messages)

Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon .
You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with 
the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text.
 
The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the 
University of North Carolina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1993 13:10:52 EST
From:         ronin 
Subject:      seqs

people are gonna hate this...
i have yet to find any significant difference between sequencers of
a similar class. given a general price/performance grouping, they
all look the same to me, and i use any with equal discomfort.
i admit to certain pecadilloes which bias me against, say c-lab and
toward, perhaps vision. but really, it's all just ornamentation.

-----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
Eric Harnden (Ronin)
 or 
The American University Physics Dept.
4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058
(202) 885-2748  (with Voice Mail)
---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1993 13:34:32 EST
From:         Larry R Larson 
Subject:      Re: seqs

>
> people are gonna hate this...
> i have yet to find any significant difference between sequencers of
> a similar class. given a general price/performance grouping, they
> all look the same to me, and i use any with equal discomfort.
> i admit to certain pecadilloes which bias me against, say c-lab and
> toward, perhaps vision. but really, it's all just ornamentation.
>
> -----------< Cognitive Dissonance is a 20th Century Art Form >-----------
> Eric Harnden (Ronin)
>  or 
> The American University Physics Dept.
> 4400 Mass. Ave. NW, Washington, DC, 20016-8058
> (202) 885-2748  (with Voice Mail)
> ---------------------< Join the Cognitive Dissidents >-------------------
>

Musically literate people (that is, those that think in terms of a continous
score and not repeating patterns), almost always prefer Performer. The real
test is whether one can hear a piece and guess what platform it was composed
on. The new John Adams midi record, for example, is clearly performer based.

I have been using every major sequencer that has appeared since 1982, and I
think there are huge differences, to the point where I transfer midi files from
one program to another to take advantage of varying capabilities.

For what its worth.


Larry Larson
Wexner Center for the Arts
Columbus, OH

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 4 Nov 1993 14:13:22 -0600
From:         Arne Claassen ISE 
Subject:      Re: seqs

Eric Harnden writes:
> people are gonna hate this...
> i have yet to find any significant difference between sequencers of
> a similar class. given a general price/performance grouping, they
> all look the same to me, and i use any with equal discomfort.
> i admit to certain pecadilloes which bias me against, say c-lab and
> toward, perhaps vision. but really, it's all just ornamentation.

I sort of agree with that. The only real difference i've come to is the
difference between hardware and software sequencers. I still use the
built in sequencer in my EPS for most of creative work and only use the
software sequencer for finetuning. Am i the only one, or does everyone
that uses a computer for sequencing goes through about 10 minutes of
set-up before any work can be done.

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Arne F. Claassen                            |
|                                                     |
| "It is by my will alone I set my mind in motion"                       |
|                                             finger for PGP public key  |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
.

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1993 20:44:16 CET
From:         Jack Latanowicz 
Subject:      Re: seqs

On Thu, 4 Nov 1993 14:13:22 -0600 Arne Claassen ISE said:
>
>I sort of agree with that. The only real difference i've come to is the
>difference between hardware and software sequencers. I still use the
>built in sequencer in my EPS for most of creative work and only use the
>software sequencer for finetuning. Am i the only one, or does everyone
>that uses a computer for sequencing goes through about 10 minutes of
>set-up before any work can be done.
>
>--
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>|Arne F. Claassen                            |
>|                                                     |
>| "It is by my will alone I set my mind in motion"                       |
>|                                             finger for PGP public key  |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>.

Nope. 4 minutes, 30 seconds, one disk swap. :-)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Latanowicz      tel/fax Pl-(0-61) 798-202
Ul.Porzeczkowa 27    Jack@plpuam11.bitnet
61-306 Poznan
 P O L A N D         "exploring life is the sense of living..."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------
Date:         Fri, 5 Nov 1993 17:40:19 -0500
From:         Joe McMahon 
Subject:      Re: seqs

Jack writes:
>Nope. 4 minutes, 30 seconds, one disk swap. :-)

Cool. Just wait another 3 seconds and you can start each session by
performing a Cage piece. :-)

 --- Joe M.

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 8 Nov 1993 14:05:48 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: seqs

>Am i the only one, or does everyone
>that uses a computer for sequencing goes through about 10 minutes of
>set-up before any work can be done.

It used to take me much longer than that. Then I switched to Opcode.

Nowadays I'm giving up on sequencers totally for live work, and using MAX.
I'll probably still sequence for recording projects.

                        Nick Rothwell   |   cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
     CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance   |   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
Date:         Wed, 10 Nov 1993 22:08:30 -0800
From:         Mike Friesen 
Subject:      re. Seqs

A few days back somebody wrote :
>Musically literate people (that is, those that think in terms of a continous
>score and not repeating patterns), almost always prefer Performer.

Not true in my case. Also having used a variety of sequencers, I gravitate
toward Vision. "Musically literate" is inflammatory.



Michael Friesen              North Peace Secondary School
          Fort St. John,  British Columbia, Canada
         Weeee... are the knights who say... MIDI!!
*********************************************************

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1993 09:17:53 -0500
From:         Charles Shriner 
Subject:      Re: seqs

>Musically literate people (that is, those that think in terms of a continous
>score and not repeating patterns), almost always prefer Performer.

I'm a "literate" musician and have been using vision and studio vision for
two and a half years. I've spent about one hundred hours on MOTU Performer.
IMHO, Studio Vision/Vision is : faster, "friendlier", works more reliably
with SysEx, doesn't crash any of my machines, interacts with Max & Csound,
utilizes true digital audio drivers and is MUCH more versatile compositionaly

charles shriner
ccps@miondvox.phantom.com

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1993 10:10:20 EST
From:         Larry R Larson 
Subject:      Re: seqs

>
> >Musically literate people (that is, those that think in terms of a continous
> >score and not repeating patterns), almost always prefer Performer.
>
> I'm a "literate" musician and have been using vision and studio vision for
> two and a half years. I've spent about one hundred hours on MOTU Performer.
> IMHO, Studio Vision/Vision is : faster, "friendlier", works more reliably
> with SysEx, doesn't crash any of my machines, interacts with Max & Csound,
> utilizes true digital audio drivers and is MUCH more versatile compositionaly
>
> charles shriner
> ccps@miondvox.phantom.com
>


I guess the operative word is most. I've used both since 1985 (when vision was
sequencer 2.5 or something like that.) It never felt comfortable to me,
although I will grant you that it has always been more stable than MOTU. I
still use it for some things, but it is inherently pattern based.

A chacun son gout.

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1993 10:46:44 EST
From:         Larry R Larson 
Subject:      Re: re. Seqs

>
> A few days back somebody wrote :
> >Musically literate people (that is, those that think in terms of a continous
> >score and not repeating patterns), almost always prefer Performer.
>
> Not true in my case. Also having used a variety of sequencers, I gravitate
> toward Vision. "Musically literate" is inflammatory.
>
>
>
> Michael Friesen              North Peace Secondary School
>           Fort St. John,  British Columbia, Canada
>          Weeee... are the knights who say... MIDI!!
> *********************************************************
>



I am sorry the comment read as inflammatory -- I didn't intend it to, but on
re-reading it certainly  did. My apologies.

By literate I meant those composers who work from scores with musical rhetoric
that evolves continiously, from measure to measure, rather than from sequence
pattern to pattern. Vision is designed from the very base to be pattern
oriented, which is why it is popular in pop music.  Most composers I work with
(I havebeen involved with the kronos quartet for 8 years) think in a linear
fashion.  Vision is simply not designed to be used in that way.

Read what John Adams had to say in this month's Keyboard.

Again, my sincere  apologies for sloppy language.

------------------------------
Date:         Thu, 11 Nov 1993 18:46:21 EST
From:         Paul Pizzi 
Subject:      Seqs

> >Musically literate people (that is, those that think in terms of a
continous
> >score and not repeating patterns), almost always prefer Performer.
>
> Not true in my case. Also having used a variety of sequencers, I gravitate
> toward Vision. "Musically literate" is inflammatory.


I agree with Larry Larson. Pattern-based sequencers start from a musical
conception
very similar to that of a song (closed boxes, section repetitions etc.)
whereas in
"Performer" I find a rather different approach, more based on the development
of a
musical phrase/period/whatever, the way "classically trained" composers (I
hope this
definition be less inflammatory than "musically literate people" :-) ) have
always
worked.

And again, as I said before, no sequencer offers such a high degree of
control over
synchronization with video than Performer. I know, it's perfectible, but
certainly
M.O.T.U. keeps updating its baby at a faster pace than any other competition.
As for bugs, I've never found one as bad as to hamper my work. Maybe because
my mac
is not filled with wacky utilities.




=========================================
*    *                             *    *
*    *        PAOLO PIZZI          *    *
*    *   Time Elapsed Art Music    *    *
*    *    Los Angeles - U.S.A.     *    *
*    *                             *    *
*    *-----------------------------*    *
*    *                             *    *
*    *           email:            *    *
*    *        pizzip@aol.com       *    *
*    *       pizzi@delphi.com      *    *
*    *   72772.234@compuserve.com  *    *
*    *                             *    *
=========================================

- Patria est ubicumque est bene (Pacuvius)

------------------------------
Date:         Sat, 13 Nov 1993 09:18:05 -0500
From:         Charles Shriner 
Subject:      Re: re. Seqs

>By literate I meant those composers who work from scores with musical rhetoric
that evolves continiously, from measure to measure, rather than from sequence
pattern to pattern. Vision is designed from the very base to be pattern
oriented, which is why it is popular in pop music.  Most composers I work with
(I havebeen involved with the kronos quartet for 8 years) think in a linear
fashion.  Vision is simply not designed to be used in that way.<

I agree with you on all points.
While Vision may not be designed to work in a linear fashion, I have found
that it can function as a very expediant tool in linear composition.
Most of the time I compose on paper and then transcribe the material
into Studio Vision for whatever purpose.
Since (much to my dismay) I do have to write "pop music" in order to make
a living, speed is critical.
I tend to avoid using any instrument (piano, computer, kazoo etc) when
creating a piece of music. They (instruments) have a tendency to distract
from the translation process of emotion/experience/visuals to sound.

I'm looking forward toi the John Adams article.

charles shriner
ccps@mindvox.phantom.com

------------------------------
Date:         Sun, 14 Nov 1993 12:55:42 EST
From:         Larry R Larson 
Subject:      Re: re. Seqs

The most interesting point of the Adam's article is that he thinks programs
like Performer make solving compositional problems too easy -- rathr than
draging the central idea for the next section of a piece out of your
imagination, you can all too easily invert what you've already written , or put
it in retrograde with itself, or whatver. It is a dangerous tool, but I
couldn't live without it.

------------------------------
Date:         Mon, 15 Nov 1993 10:05:11 +0000
From:         Nick Rothwell 
Subject:      Re: Seqs

>M.O.T.U. keeps updating its baby at a faster pace than any other competition.

Hmm. 4.0, 4.01, 4.02, 4.1, 4.2. Very little in terms of improved
functionality here (a minor interface enhancement and some rudimentary
Unisyn tie-in). The rest was bug-fixes.

>As for bugs, I've never found one as bad as to hamper my work. Maybe because
>my mac is not filled with wacky utilities.

Maybe. But then Vision and MAX run on fully-loaded Macs without problems.
And Performer would bomb even on a completely stripped Mac configured for
stage work.

I believe 4.2 is OK, but I got fed up with MOTU's stance on MIDI system
integration in the end and moved to Opcode.

                        Nick Rothwell   |   cassiel@cassiel.demon.co.uk
     CASSIEL Contemporary Music/Dance   |   cassiel@cix.compulink.co.uk

------------------------------
End of the EMUSIC-L Digest
******************************