Emu XL-7 & MP-7 User's Group

> MIDI was originally successful because it was very cheap and easy to
> implement within the current popular synthesizer technology.

...and STANDARDISED. The electronic instrument market was in serious
trouble in 1983, proprietary communication interfaces and all, and
MIDI, with its promise to make instruments from different
manufacturers talk to one another, was something of a
godsend. Musicians are generally conservative technology-wise, and
unwilling to adopt a new "standard" just for the sake of it,
especially if it comes from a small, niche company or one which might
well decide to switch its product line or marketing strategy. Who here
remembers Lone Wolf's MediaLAN? What about Peavey's SMDI? How would
you feel about having instruments with such interfaces sitting around,
useless, in your studio today?

> Finally, as an aside, I believe the true problem with MIDI is the logical
> protocol and not the speed per say.  The protocol is heavily prejudiced
> towards music which relies on discrete note events.

Absolutely. Given that, it's done surprisingly well, but I suspect
that companies would be reluctant to expose their IP in the guise of
an extended or more sophisticated standard.

> It is almost
> tragic that software sequencers have failed to overcome this limitation now
> that software instruments are a reality.

Well, yes, but bear in mind that MIDI is slow, simple and discrete
enough that the data can be edited pretty much directly. I don't know
that a richer, more expressive protocol would be equally amenable.

(I also have my own issues with software instruments - I'm not going
to be tied into a proprietary system any more than I need to. As it
is, my two choices of hardware product - Korg OasysPCI and Nord
Modular - are both suffering from discontinued software support, but
luckily they work without continuing bug-fixes or support.)

-- 

  nick rothwell -- composition, systems, performance -- http://www.cassiel.com