Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Good topic and one deserving of reconsideration !
    
     I had several problems live.. one, the KX88 controller doesn't
    'map' well into other (non-DX/TX) MIDI modules' patch changes..
    so all patch changes were manual. Next, different pieces required
    different effects, only one of which (Alesis reverb) was MIDI
    equipped.. and I often changed the patches fine for the next piece
    but forgot the effects changes completely. Also, it was a planetarium
    concert, and special problems accompany playing in the dark !
    
    karl moeller

    Saturday I went to my class reunion. The band could best be described
    as a MIDI band; a guitarist and a midiot. (For you locals, the band
    was 'Cats' with ex-Fate singer Paul Larange.)
    
    Anyhow, they sounded just great. Whilst I didn't get a chance to
    speak with them or check out the network, one thing did impress
    me; the *lack* of different patterns in their drum machine programming.
    Nobody seemed to mind (yours truly excepted), so maybe these intricate
    patterns we spend so much time working on are more for ourselves
    than the audience. (Cats gigs often, so their audience apparently
    isn't sweating the small stuff.)
    
    ... might be a good place to save on complexity.
    
    Edd

    Well, great you just reminded me.  Before I went on vacation for
    a week, I was going to announce a solo concert by one of the Acton
    Music salesmen (the ONLY one, in my opinion.  Everyone else seems
    pretty obnoxious) which was on the 20th in Maynard's Memorial Park.
    He claimed to be performing a wide spectrum of music, with himself
    as the only listener-compatible liveware.  The equipment was the
    usual Linn + DX7 + RD300 + effects, I think.
    
    But I forgot.  Sorry.  Anyhow, he is a very approachable guy, and
    I'm sure he would love to talk, so you could look him up.
    
    Personnally, I agree that my own setup is not fault tolerant enough
    that I would feel comfortable betting my reputation (that is, if I had
    one :-) ) on it.  It is usually hilarious when something gets out
    of whack.  You can become an instant stand-up success!
    
    Of course you can easily avoid going too far out on a limb.
    
    Or, we could develop formal semantics for music, and then techniques
    to prove a particular configuration against the desired ``score''.
    (Hmm. Don't all volunteer at once.)
    
    Steph
    

RE < Note 914.3 by MAY20::BAILEY "Steph Bailey" >

>                      -< Talk to the guy at Acton Music. >-

	That wouldn't, by any chance, be the guy named Dan, would it?  If
it is, I'm really surprised.  While he seems knowledgable enough in MIDI
and related topics, he seems to trip over himself with enthusiasm in an attempt 
to be a good, helpful salesman.  He comes across as a bit flighty to me.  Then 
again, a stage has been known to do some pretty surprising transformations to a 
lot of very unlikely people!

	Dan

    Right you are--in all the aforementioned points :-).  He is certainly
    a bit wifty...
    
    Steph
    

    I'm in a band called "Pindaric", and we've been gigging pretty steadily
    for about a year with a rather extensive Midi rig.  the equipment
    list is as follows:
    
    		Roland JX-8P
    		Yamaha DX-7
    		Korg DW-6000
    		Roland Juno-106
    		Yamaha TX-7
    		Korg Poly-800
    		Korg EX-800
    		360 Systems' Midi-Bass
    		Emu SP-12
    		Roland Octapads
    
    Lexicon PCM-70 Digital Effects Processor, Ibanez Digital Delay,
    Yamaha Power Amps, all JBL Speakers/monitors.
    
    Right now we're using a Commodore Amiga with Texture V2.0 as our
    sequencer.  The Amiga connects to all of the Midi stuff via a Roland
    MPU-401 and midi-thru boxes.  The computer sends all of the keyboard
    patch changes via Midi at the beginning and sometimes during each
    song, freeing us from that potentially difficult task.
    
    For a while, we had a problem with the sequencer software where
    a song would "lock-up", and require reboot (about a 2 minute procedure
    on the Amiga).  Sometimes this would happen 4 times a night
    (frightening!), but we received a new version of the software and
    haven't had any problems since.
    
    We are in the process of adding a Roland D-50 and Emax rack with
    the hard drive (and getting rid of the Korgs), Midi-controlled lights,
    and going wireless.  
    
    I don't really have any horrorshow-type war stories to tell (thank
    God!), outside of occasional stuck notes or where we forgot to
    initialize a keyboard and as a result it played for a while in "omni"
    mode.
    
    Definitely, you're biggest limitation is going to be the MSQ-100.
    It just doesn't have the memory to support a live gig if you do
    any kind of sequencing.  A good machine to support live gigs is
    Roland's MC-500; however, you can't beat the computer based sequencers
    for rapid song programming and editing capabilities.  I'm very excited
    about the MasterTracks software because of its incredible step edit
    capability, graphic controller editing (for things like pitch wheel),
    and the Mac interface.  It's great.
    
    I'm also in hearty agreement with the earlier response regarding
    drum programming.  We go to great pains to make the drum programs
    sophisticated, but no one seems to notice except the occasional
    musician who happens to show up at the gigs.  Oh well, I guess I'm
    just a perfectionist -- I'll keep making them sophisticated.
    
    Happy programming...
    					Liam Spaeth
    

RE < Note 914.6 by NAAD::SPAETH >

	Egad!  I'm impressed!

	Tell us more about what you do, where you play, how you divide the
workload (both programming and performing) between the two of you.  Do you
both sing, as well?

	I feel that the MSQ-100 is a training machine for me.  My idea is to
only set up a couple of songs to start out with.  The fact that there's limited 
storage and a precarious storage medium (tape loads) seems to dictate that.  If
I find that I can handle the technical pressure, as well as maintain a sense of
continuity in the 'content' portion of my music (I play chiefly for churches and
Christian-related locations), I would definately want to upgrade.

	Dan

    
    re: .6
    
    My experience with MIDI live is similar. Our group is a 3 piece
    where everyone has one or more MIDI synths. We use a C-64 with 
    Dr. T's software, and having the computer to do the patch changes
    for all the synths has made a *big* difference in our ability to
    play live. Unfortunately our effects (Roland DD and Microverb) are
    not MIDI, and they still have to be set by hand. 8^(
    
    I definitely recommend a good computer based sequencer, or a very
    sophisticated dedicated sequencer, if you plan to use a lot of MIDI
    gear on stage.
    
    Rob

	Just wanted to post an update on this subject, as it is ever on my mind.
I have been fine-tuning my setup since I first decided to take the risks 
involved in putting MIDI on the road.

	There seems to be a progression involved here for me in coming to this 
point (taking MIDI to the road).  I'm wondering if anyone can relate to these
steps...

	1)  Initial fascination with synthesis in general.  "Wow, with this
synthesizer I can sound like a full band!!"  Soon followed by...

	2)  Deep disappointment.  My synth can only play one sound at a time
(mono-timbral).  

	3)  Buy more synths.  Have many sounds available.

	4)  Deep disappointment.  I can't play a whole orchestra at once - only
two hands.

	5)  Initial sequencer purchase.  Exciting time learning how to 
multi-track via MIDI.  Still a very precarious time while learning.  Still lots 
of manual involvement.

	6)  Deep disappointment.  Sequencer can't hold that much info and tape
data transfers are hairy, time-consuming, and require carrying more equipment.

	7)  Buy a disk-loading sequencer.  Rack-mount as much gear as possible.

	8)  Fine tune the setup.  Learn to use MIDI volume control, alleviating
fear of mix problems.

	Of course, somewhere in this progression is the goal - performance.  
I've not gone out much in the last couple of years due to a rapid increase in 
the size of my family.  In fact, apart from a little Christmas performance at
church with some sequenced material, I am only now starting to make the contacts
for my first full-length MIDI show.  But, the time has allowed me to learn MIDI,
learn about my sound equipment, and stream-line as much as I could 
(rack-mounting). 

	Perhaps many of you would also have cut a few steps off due to looking 
ahead better.  Perhaps you would have seen the need for disk-loading sequencers
or racks right from the start.  But in my defense, much of the equipment I came
into was of the 'spur-of-the-moment', 'cant-pass-up-this-deal' variety.  I
treated much of what I bought as investment buying, and I yielded quite a
reasonable return.  Another factor in this situation has been the rapid
dropping of retail prices for synths.  when I first started buying gear, a
multi-timbral, eight-voice rack-mount for under $500 was un-heard-of.  Or
a disk-loading sequencer for under $500...  Sure, I made some poor decisions
that I later had to make the best of until I could pull together some money to
fix, but, on the whole, I think I've done alright.

	Those of you that have seen the vision of using MIDI on the road, how
did YOU get there?  Does any of the above ring a bell to you?

	Dan (who_hopes_to_come_back_to_this_note_a_year_from_now_with_as_few
		_war_stories_as_possible)

    Tho I haven't gone out but once with my setup (that to play a sold-out
    Planetarium concert), I did indeed think ahead.. for home use I
    use a 512K Mac, 2 400K drives, Performer S/W.. NFG for playing out.
    However, my Emax (rack) sampler has an idiot-savant sequencer that
    will record all 16 channels simultaneously, and allows me to have
    both samples and sequences on disk. My only other instrument is
    a Kurzweil 1000PX rack unit.. together the two instruments give
    32-voice polyhony ! KX88 drives them.. it's heavy, but I'm uh, large.
    
    I put together a 14-hi rack with power amp, graphic EQ, Kurzweil,
    Emax, MIDIfex/MIDIverb, MIDI switcher and audio patchbay. It's,
    uh, moveable. 
    
    The only live performance 'gotcha' I see ahead is that while using
    the Emax' sequencer to drive the Kurzweil, I might also want to
    be PLAYING an 'instrument' inside the Kurzweil with the KX88...
    the dread '2 masters' syndrome.. the KX88 has a MIDI THRU, could
    plug the Emax MIDI OUT into it, but then I also might want to play
    the Emax from the KX88 occasionally, too. hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....
    
    karl
    Only gotcha I see ahead is
    

    Well, I'm going to post a seemingly radical note, but please read this
    with the understanding that I'm not saying anyone is going about things
    wrong.  I am only saying that I don't understand people's reasons
    and would like to find out.
    
    I can ever see myself using a MIDI sequencer live.
    
    No, my reasons are not derived from puristic views about performance
    vs. sequencing.  I just don't see what advantages sequencing (in the 
    context of accompanying LIVE performance) has over using audio tape.
    
    MIDI sequencing is:
    
    	1) More cumbersome - you have to carry around and setup all the 
    	   stuff whereas with tape, it's just ONE tape player.
    
    	2) Highly disaster prone - there are so many points of failure
    	   in sequencing that I'd actually be AFRAID to rely on it.
    
    	3) Slower - it's easier to play tapes than to wait for sequencers
    	   to load from floppies.
    
    So, my question is: why do you go to the trouble.  
    
    The only reason apparent to me is that sequencing is somehow less
    asthetically objectionable than playing tape.  Some people I've met
    have expressed this feeling, and I have to admit that it's a feeling
    that I am incapable of understanding.
    
    	db
    
    

    I'm not a 'real-time' fanatic but a couple pro's come to mind...
    
    Sequencing is first generation. No audio loss. Admittedly, today's
    decks don't degrade much though.
    
    Tempo control. Speed your tape deck up and watch the guitarist 
    re-tune!! Big fun...
    
    Real time control. A few things can be changed with a sequence.
    A tape locks you in till you re-do...
    
    Seems kinda weak, don't it...
    
    Edd (admittedly a bit prone to the 'sequencing isn't cheating as
         much as tape is' syndrome)

	I guess my argument also boils down to asthetics.  I just like the idea
that this is happening NOW and not two weeks ago...  It's seeing the machines up
there with lights blinking...Yes, it IS a weak argument, and yes, most people
will probably be in the audience saying 'he's got a tape going, doesn't he?',
but, well, I don't really have any other reason.  Maybe after a few disasterous
shows, I'll be singing a different tune, so to speak.

	REgarding one of your points, Dave, I chose the MIDI DJ because it has 
a GREAT performance feature - five second song loading.  It's faster than I 
would ever need.

	Dan

Maybe this belongs in the "what's next" note, but I think as sequencers become
more than simple playback machines, there will be more you can do with them
"live".  Take a look at the Yamaha SHS-10 for example.  In real time it takes a
pre-recorded rhythm and note pattern (in ROM in this case, but ignore that for
the moment) and modifes that in real time with whatever chord you are playing
on the keyboard.  It evens puts in a bass line. If it were able to take MIDI
clock in (which it can't), you could also vary the tempo according to one of
those time-commander things. 

It will even record the sequence of chords you are playing, in real time,
and then endlessley repeat that sequence, in the selected rhythmic style,
while you improvise on top of it, modify it with the "fill in" buttons,
and so on.  Primitive, yes, but what do you want for under $200?

The scene where Bach walks in on King Frederick and Fred tells him, "Here is a
little melody line I just made up.  Let's see what you can do with it."  Bach
then proceeds to improvise ever-more-complicated variations and fugues on the
King's theme.  Think what you could do with an intelligent, performance
oriented sequencer in a situation like that.

    Two reasons why my group prefers the sequencer (we used to use tapes).
    
    1. Lets you have real time control over changes in the songs. Dr.
       T's KCS has a foot switch feature that lets you kick repeating
       sections in and out. You can take a solo section as long as you
       want then switch back to the song.
    
    2. All the program changes for the synths you actually play are
       imbedded in the sequences. One less thing to worry about live.
    
    It does worry me to depend on the sequencer so much though, we really
    don't have a backup and I know that someday the disk drive for my
    C-64 is gonna go south. But, so far we've had very few problems.

    Rob

    I run my songs to my tape deck in case of sequencer failure. In
    either case, I've learned that having a backup method of continuing
    to be a requirement (I even carry a spare utility Amplifier that
    has been used as the PA amp or on another occasion as a guitar amp).
    
    I love the ability to hit the LOOP button on my sequencer & change
    the Tempo as needed.
    
    Jens_who_uses_tape_sequencer_and_live_performers_as_needed
    

    Well, recently I performed for a talent show and used the sequencer.
    During the performance I diddled with parameters and such.  I might
    not have been able to diddle had I used a tape.  Besides, I've not
    been able to get the same quality out of my system using the tape
    deck.  Disadvantage was that the QX5 doesn't allow fast and easy
    load between songs, so I only did one number.  Maybe some time in the 
    future I'll spend the extra bucks for something that loads fast...
    
    Steve_who_is_still_getting_compliments_for_the_performance

  Another advantage of being sequenced (with the right sequencing hardware
  of course) is a much greater random access feature.  Instead of playing
  tunes A, B, and then C as they are on the tape, you can load the songs in
  any order faster then you can go around a tape looking for them.
  

  Plus, if the rest of the band is MIDIied at all, the sequencer can queue
  off of the live performers...

  (for me, the right sequencing hardware will [within 1 year] be a
   4 meg Atari ST with external 1 meg RAMdrive and a 30 meg harddisk.
   That way, all the sequences I need will be either in RAM [4 meg worth]
   or on the external RAMdisk, which will allow me almost instantaneous
   loading...)

   Chad

    If you only put one or two tunes per tape, (or even per side) and
    index them, the difference in loading time is negligible.  Tape
    might even be faster.
    
    I don't question that there are advantages but they seem pretty trivial
    compared to the disadvantages and more importantly, the risk.
    
    	db

    >the risk...
    
    But ain't that part of the thrill????
    
    Edd

    
    not to mention the cost.
    
    Excellent tape deck:	$300.
    
    Excellent Sequencer & assorted hardware:	Tape deck * n
    
    

I tend to use at least as many non-MIDI instruments as I do MIDI instruments,
so tape plays a very important role.  This is not due to an abundance of
non-MIDI instruments by any means.  Rather, it is due to a shortage of MIDI
SGUs.  One mono-timbral synth and a drum machine tends to make tape at least
as important as sequencing.


>    not to mention the cost.
>    
>    Excellent tape deck:	$300.
>    
>    Excellent Sequencer & assorted hardware:	Tape deck * n
    
              t
Yea, and n = e   

In other words, n increases exponentially over time  %^}

Todd.

    This is really more of a philosophical argument than a practical one,
    isn't it?  Lots of things can go wrong, regardless of what tool is
    being used.  Guitar strings break.  Piano strings break.  Amps burn up.
    Drum sticks break.  Sequencers burp.  It's *ALL* a risk at some level. 

    I am always disappointed when I find a band using tape ... chances are
    that if I've gone to the trouble of going to watch someone in action,
    that's what I really want - to WATCH someone in action.  And using a
    sequencer is part of the action - it's another tool to be mastered. 

    If everything is pre-taped, all that tells me is that someone has
    access to a studio.  Big deal.  I can go into a studio and record my
    head off and play perhaps one of the best piano concertos anyone's ever
    heard.  But who's gonna pay money to watch a reel spin?  Wouldn't you
    rather see someone use the tools live than use a tape? 

    Heck.  Why do ANYTHING live?  Tape it all, and walk off stage.

    (BTW - I realize that a player can use a sequencer to do most of the
    same things that making a tape can do, especially in terms of cleaning
    up a performance or sequencing something that s/he can't really play
    live.) 

    Some problems I've seen with tape in the past:

       speed problems with deck(s), resulting in instruments being out
       of tune with the tape

       instruments played live fit poorly with the tape

       tape deck eats tape in middle of song (happens more than you
       might think) 

       mix on tape is not satisfactory for current location (eg, drums
       boom in a big hall, but can't mix 'em down a bit)

    So much for my opinion.  And no flames intended.

-b

    < Note 914.23 by DYO780::SCHAFER "Brad - DTN 433-2408" >
>I can go into a studio and record my head off and play perhaps one of the 
>best piano concertos anyone's ever heard.  

    Looking forward to hearing it on Commusic N !
    
    Actually I've been thinking about using the Emax' internal sequencer
    when playing live.. I'm not using it now, as I use Performer on
    the Mac.. but the Emax' sequencer WILL take all transmitted tracks
    at once from the Mac, and allow me to save the sequence along with
    the Emax's requisite samples, on the same disk. However I run into
    a MIDI routing problem right away.
    
    Let's say that a certain piece of music has 6 sequenced parts, plus
    two 'parts' i.e. separate MIDI channels I drive live from the KX88.
    Now the sampled 'instruments' might be anywhere, between the Kurzweil
    and the Emax. If the Kurzweil for example is played simultaneously
    by the Emax' sequencer AND the KX88, I have to MERGE MIDI signals.
    Well, the KX88 does merge MIDI IN to THRU.. except that I WILL also
    have to occasionally play the Emax (or one 'instrument' in the Emax)
    live from the KX88... leading to the dread MIDI LOOP.  Suggestions
    ?
    
    karl

I just remembered that I once gave a performance of a composition I had done,
and it consisted of me walking up on stage, threading tape onto a 4-track
Crown, pushing PLAY, and walking off.  The audience (a couple hundred people)
sat there and listened, and applauded afterward as I went back on stage to
retreive my tape.  This was part of a concert in which FOUR people did exactly
the same thing. 

This was in 1970, I think, and the music was all electronic.  The first Moogs
were just becoming available ("Switched on Bach" was a current hit). All of our
stuff was done the old fashioned way:  with razor blades, splicing tape, and a
couple racks of filters, oscillators, and so on, with overdubbing.

We did consider dressing up the tape machine during the performance (dressing
the rack in a tuxedo, for example), but rejected the idea.

RE: "Looking forward to hearing it on Commusic N !"

    Keep breathing, Karl.  (I was trying to make a point, of course.) 

RE: Emax and the MIDI loop

    Is it not possible to tell the Emax sequencer to play everything via
    MIDI out, and to NOT play voices internally?  If so, then you could
    possibly use the following:

	     out  in          in thru      out
	KX88 --->--- Kurzweil -->---- Emax --->-+
         ^ in                                   |
         +---<----------------------------------+

    If I remember right, the KX merges anything in with anything played on
    the keyboard.

    Or doesn't the Emax sequencer allow you to do that?

-b

>Is it not possible to tell the Emax sequencer to play everything via
>MIDI out, and to NOT play voices internally?  
    
    Yeah, on a PER-PRESET BASIS, the outgoing port can be configured
    either OUT or THRU. In this config I'd need OUT only.. don't forward
    any incoming KX88 events.. but then your picture wouldn't work..
    
	     out  in          in thru      out
	KX88 --->--- Kurzweil -->---- Emax --->-+
         ^ in                                   |
         +---<----------------------------------+

    Should be         THRU  IN        OUT     
                  KX88--->---- Switch ------> Kurzweil
                    ^ IN              ------> Emax   OUT-+
                    +--------------<---------------------+    

    thanks.. this is tougher than DECconnect

    
    Re: Todd's earlier reply
    
    Tape makes a lot of sense if you have at least one part that can't
    be played by a MIDI instrument but can be recorded.
    
    I saw cellist David Darling of the Paul Winter Consort in concert
    many years ago where he had some ethnic drummers on a cassette that
    he would improvise over.  The alternative would have been to bring
    the drummers along!!!  
    
    Now that MIDI is here, there's less need for tape but it's still
    definitely cheaper.
    
    As far as people *disliking* tapes, this seems to hold true until
    you get into the experimental fringes where tape manipulation is
    still a powerful tool and accepted as vaild by the audience.  

    I, for one, could care less whether the rhythm section to a band
    is sequenced or taped...either way it's canned, the way I look at
    it.
    
    

>    This is really more of a philosophical argument than a practical one,
    
    Perhaps, but I don't really think so.  All my questions were very
    pragmatic (cost, effort, risk, etc.)
    
>    Lots of things can go wrong, regardless of what tool is
>    being used.  Guitar strings break.  Piano strings break.  Amps burn up.
>    Drum sticks break.  Sequencers burp.  It's *ALL* a risk at some level.
    
    We're comparing the risks of the two methods.  I think that's valid.
    
>    If everything is pre-taped, all that tells me is that someone has
>    access to a studio.  Big deal.  I can go into a studio and record my
>    head off and play perhaps one of the best piano concertos anyone's ever
>    heard.  But who's gonna pay money to watch a reel spin?  Wouldn't you
>    rather see someone use the tools live than use a tape? 
    
    I don't distinguish much between using a studio and using a sequencer.
    
    If anything, I'm more impressed by a guy who can PLAY a real piano
    concerto even in a studio, than a guy who can sequence one.  Anyone
    can learn to sequence a piano concerto in about 3 months.  I'd like
    to see a beginner play "Concerto in F" in 3 months, even in a studio.
    
    I'm not averse to using sequenced music live, although I question why
    they would do that instead of using tape.   But if we're comparing
    the "cheat" level of tape vs. sequencer, I think of sequencing stuff
    as "cheating" moreso than playing a tape.
    
>    (BTW - I realize that a player can use a sequencer to do most of the
    
    (BTW - *I* realize that a tape can be made of sequenced music...
    
    	db
    And yes I know, the tape could be 

    >< Note 914.29 by DREGS::BLICKSTEIN "The height of MIDIocrity" >
>                               -< Purist!   ;-) >-
>
>    If anything, I'm more impressed by a guy who can PLAY a real piano
>    concerto even in a studio, than a guy who can sequence one.  Anyone
>    can learn to sequence a piano concerto in about 3 months.  I'd like

    no they can't.  A beginner has no musicianship, no knowledge, no
    knowledge of history, theory, no judgement for doing phrasing,
    the unnotated score: dynamics, rubato, exact implementation of
    ornaments.
    
    >    to see a beginner play "Concerto in F" in 3 months, even in a studio.
>    	db
>    And yes I know, the tape could be 
>
>
              
    I would suggest that a large MIDI system is useless to a non-musician.
    Anyway, a MIDI setup, modular as they currently are, is inherently
    redundant and fault-tolerant.  If your HR16 goes down, you could
    route the drums to the MT32, maybe dropping the saxes or something.
    Or not dropping anything.  In other words, short of single-point
    failures  such as power-outs and amp/speaker failures, it is unlikely
    a whole MIDI net would fail, and is probable that a down track could
    be re-routed elsewhere.
    A tape machine is a single-point failure potential that is quite
    high.
    Tom

    re .29 Well I don't know, but I think taping can be even more cheating
    than sequencing, it all depends on the circumstances. You could always 
    buy one of those Vocal Zapper
    things, strip off the lead vocal and record the result sans vocals
    onto another tape. Then when playing live play the vocal-less tape
    and sing along! The ultimate in cheating! That is an extreme example, 
    of course, but you get my drift. It really depends (that sounds
    so non-commital).... 
    
    Mike D

    Tom,
    
    OK, a beginner could do what some folks (perhaps not you) could 
    regard as a passable version of it.
    
    Anyway the point I meant to make was that you don't need to have
    developed any "chops" to produce an incredible sounding keyboard
    or drum solo with a sequencer (I offer the Commusic tapes as evidence).
    
    In fact, I'd go further to say that in my own experience, sequencing
    stuff is easy.  Getting it to sound right on tape, is damned hard.
    
    	db

	I agree that tape vs. sequencing may both be cheating in certain
circumstances.  I would say that I approach sequencing with the premise in
mind that I'm using it to as a display of a talent in and of itself.  

	While I have performed on and off for a number of years, that's only a
protion of where my interests lie.  I started arranging music way back in Junior
High for the school band.  I would write out the individual parts for the band 
and distribute them among the members to play.  That was fine throughout high 
school as well, but after graduation, it became increasingly more difficult to
find a full band that could take the time to play my arrangements.

	While it would be just as feasable to use a studio-produced tape to
hear those same arrangements, I'd have to say that learning the use of the
technology of sequencing has some validity in and of itself, and perhaps
deserves its own place in the performance arts.

	To me, the use of the sequencer (along with the accompanying risks)
puts the thrill of the performance back into multi-tracking.

	Dan

    re: .33
    
    I can understand that.
    
    I think I'm concluding that it's not really an issue of philosophy.
    It's more of "esthetics" vs. "pragmatics".   For each player, the
    comparative weights of esthetics and pragmatics differ.
    
    	db

  < Note 914.33 by 20981::EATOND "No, no, no... 47!!" >

      
>	To me, the use of the sequencer (along with the accompanying risks)
>	puts the thrill of the performance back into multi-tracking.

	How, when you can edit and quantize everything?  The thrill of 
    performance is (IMO) playing each and every damn part until you get 
    it right.
    
    BTW -- a real letdown for me was when I saw a band where the drummer
    got up and sang a song as a front man...and the drums kept playing.
    Made me wonder what (if anything) he *was* playing.  Same thing
    when I see about 3 keyboard parts going on, with only 1 guy playing
    1 part. 
    
  	To me, anyway, a tape recorder seems more honest.

RE < Note 914.35 by SRFSUP::MORRIS "Excitable Boy" >

>	How, when you can edit and quantize everything?  The thrill of 
>    performance is (IMO) playing each and every damn part until you get 
>    it right.

	No, no, no...  You don't understand!  The risks involved in using a
sequencer on stage have more to do with making sure the equipment ITSELF is
set up properly, that there are no 'burps' or oversights...  With my setup,
there are still considerable manual involvements (changing volumes on non-
volume-programmable-via-midi synths, the switching on and off of non-midi
effects boxes on the midi-sequenced synths...).

	For what its worth, BTW, I do MOST of my sequencing live.  The drums
are entered mostly in step time, and some fills that are just technically beyond
me are also entered in step time.  Everything else is really me.
    
	Dan

    re: .36
    No Flame Intended.
    
    I get your drift.  I just don't see routing tons of MIDI cables
    out of a sequencer to be that much more 'honest' thatn putting a
    tape on.  I *would* have a sequencer to do program changes, though.
    
    I read where Tony Kaye said that he wouldn't even have a sequencer
    for program changes.  He said that pressing the buttons to change
    programs and params was part of the performance.
    
    Ashley

RE: current tack

    This is all well and good for those who aren't attempting to be "one
    man band" types.  For those of us who are, the sequencer is the one way
    that it can be reasonably done.

    I think I've said enough on this topic.

-b

    I've been doing this sort of thing for years (a sequencer is only
    a new addition) - I agree that while a sequencer can fail during
    a performance, you can always carry cassette backups & use the tape
    deck. I use a Porta-Studio, since it allows me to adjust the tape
    speed & keep things in tune. Go for it!!!