[sdiy] MIDI isn't musical : Flame bait?

[harry]

Hi Ian (et al)

Ian Fritz wrote:

<snip>

> I don't understand this. Why are six channels (as opposed to six-voice
> polyphony) required?
>
> Six voices and pitchbend doesn't sound to me like any more information than
> is commonly handled by a poly synth with aftertouch. Pitchbend changes
> quite slowly.

The six channels are required because each individual string has independant
pitch bend... and sometimes complex bends (more than one string, more than
one bend amount) are done simultaneously.

Each string could have independant vibrato...

> >Secondly, there is nothing in the protocol
> >to represent many common guitar techniques. You press a key on a keyboard
> >and it sends the
> >NOTE ON message with note number and velocity, then sends NOTE OFF (or
> >NOTE ON w/
> >zero velocity) when you release the key. But how do you represent a
> >pulloff on guitar?
>
> Be careful not to confuse (1) how to generate control information and (2)
> how to transmit it over MIDI. Within the MIDI protocol there are *plenty*
> of CC messages available to transmit this kind of information. Making a
> control device that could sense the pulloff gesture (and others) would
> certainly be a challenge. Designing a synth to use this information
> effectively would be another challenge. But these are not MIDI issues.

Agreed. The problems are more with the synths and the controller. OTOH if you
look at the info generated by all six guitar strings as one midi stream... there
is a big
timing issue. A guitarist can strum, pluck, hammer on, pull off... many ways to
have
strings sound simulataneously, or nearly so.

MIDI has gotten the worst rap (guitar wise) for the delay... which is really a
pitch
recognition problem, not a MIDI problem. MIDI guitars are dog-slow !!!

>
> >MIDI may be good enough for keyboard players, but if falls woefully short
> >for guitar, sax, trumpet,
> >harmonica, etc. Basically any instrument where the technique of playing a
> >note involves more
> >than how fast you press a key.
>
> I disagree. For example the Yamaha and Synthophone wind controllers allow a
> wide range of expression. The Yamaha WX controller, for instance, sends up
> to 5 control messages simultaneously. Another good place to learn about
> what MIDI can do is Bouvard Hosticka's Elect-RO-Clar:
>
> http://windsynth.org/iwsa_labs/non_commercial_controllers/Elect-RO-Clar/

Arguably... these wind instruments are not polyphonic. Guitar is.

> >Secondly, most of today's multitimbral synths still only have a single
> >MIDI input port. So while there
> >may be enough bandwidth for a single part, there isn't enough for 16
> >parts. Of course this isn't
> >so much the protocol as the interface, something like Yamaha's mLan could
> >solve this.
>
> Again, I'm not following you. Are you saying that 16 MIDI channels
> simultaneously are needed? Why?

If you compose or produce music via sequencing or computer recording... you need
the playback power.  I would want to have (perhaps) an organ sound with rotary
speaker controlled by a MIDI CC message... A horn part with ptichbend... Drums
with NO MIDI CC's... but with absolutle good timing... its easy to tell when a
drum
is played out of time (like every time a real drummer touches them  ;^P )
This adds up to a lot of MIDI channels.  I used a system with six midi output
ports for my CD (a total of 96 channels)... I didn't use every channel of
course...

Processing time is important... You do not want the drums to read the pitchbend
of some other instrument. Sure they only read the header, but they must figure
out that each message is NOT for them... etc.

By the time the computer gets around to the last channels, a lot of time can be
wasted. Usually you can skew the tracks (in time) to compensate for delays...
Live it would not be good (otoh live you would not do so many channels at once)

>
> >But if even if someone came up with the theoretically perfect guitar to
> >MIDI converter, and resurrected
> >Hendrix from the dead (the former probably being more difficult) to play
> >it, what would get recorded
> >into a MIDI sequencer could in no way equal what was played.
>
> What do you base this statement on? Human beings can only produce and
> process information at a finite rate. Exactly why don't you think MIDI can
> handle this rate?
>
> >And it's why you'll never find a MIDI file on the web of Hendix' "Star
> >Spangled Banner" or
> >"Machine Gun" that would even fool a non-guitarist.
>
> Do you mean not now or not ever. Well, people made similar statements about
> how a computer could never play a world-class game of chess. But it happened.

(not my comment but...) Maybe, not ever... using the present MIDI standard.
Someday... no problem  ;^)

H^) harry